GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 323
knowledge' (or, roughly, what we can say) is not 'it', as the 'it' is always un-speakable.
Between two houses or two stones, there is some sort of sub-microscopic interaction; but on the macroscopic level, nothing definite happens. So we say that in the given context or configuration, the units under consideration are too heavy (implying gravitational structure), or the medium, the plenum in which they are immersed, is too light (again structural implications) and so, macroscopically, nothing obvious happens.
If that structure is changed, different conditions, different relations and results prevail. Thus, if the particles are very small, and the media not too heavy, the surface phenomena, electrical charges., begin to play an important role. We then have colloidal behaviour of enormous complexity and variability where we find, not necessarily life, but many inorganic forms, duplicating some forms found in life. Obviously, colloidal structure accounts for that.2
When little colloidal wholes, most probably of specialized internal structure, arise, we may have not only colloids, but also little wholes, separated by a membrane, or perhaps by surface phenomena, which represent a most generalized membrane. We may have a new structural fact, an interplay of the inside with the outside, and life begins.
The general irritability and conductivity of protoplasm is known to be strictly connected with permeability to the passage of ions and, therefore, is a structural phenomenon. On this structural foundation, physiological gradients result, forming a dynamic field of forces, again involving structure. The development of the differentiated tissue of muscles and nerves consists of higher order complex structures, based on more primitive structures; and, finally, function and behaviour of all life, man included, is due to sub-microscopic, microscopic, and macroscopic structure.
I may be reproached by specialists that, although what I have just said may possibly be true, yet, actually, to make these assertions is, perhaps, premature, in 1933, because we lack too many details.
My answer is sharp and definite, and may be considered a serious scientific suggestion, because it can be made legitimately in this form:
1) All science depends on human 'knowledge'.
2) All human 'knowledge' is structurally circular and self-reflexive, and so depends on some conscious or unconscious theory of knowledge and undefined terms.
3) Words are not the things we speak about; and, therefore,
4) The only possible connection between the objective and unspeakable levels and words is structural; introducing