SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search

the survival conditions are two-valued and very sharp. The animals survive or they die out. Because of this, it could be said, with regard to the animal world, with some sort of plausibility, that the average, with a long list of specifications, could be considered the 'normal' animal. We usually enlarge this notion to humans and land in fallacies, particularly in so-called 'psychological' problems, which admittedly are very difficult.
In general medical science, such mistakes are made more seldom. No physician, studying a colony of lepers or syphilitics, could conclude that a 'normal' man should be a leper or a syphilitic. He would say that probably, in a given colony, the average person is afflicted with such and such a disease, and he would keep as his medical standard for desirable health, a 'normal' man; that is to say, one free from this disease.
It is true that in the example given above, outside of such rare colonies, we have a majority which, in respect to the given disease, are healthy; so we are empirically forewarned against fallacies, although existing theories of knowledge do not forewarn us. But the main point remains true; namely, that in human life the average 1933 does not mean 'normal', and the standard for 'normal' will have to be established exclusively by scientific research. In our present work, we show that the average person copies animals in his psycho-logical and nervous processes, exhibits the unconditionality of nervous responses, confuses orders of abstractions, reverses the natural order., semantic symptoms of similar structure as found in obviously 'mentally' ill. Therefore, the average person 1933 must be considered pathological. If we take the animalistic average for 'normal', and apply it to man, we commit a similar fallacy as that of treating a colony of lepers as a 'normal' or 'healthy' group.
In conditional s.r of man, the average person cultivates, through inheritance and training in A doctrines, languages of inappropriate structure., animalistic, nervous, and so psycho-logical, s.r. But here, as in general medicine, the average pathological situation should not be considered 'normal'. Only a structural study can disclose what with man should be considered 'normal'. The present system performs this task to a limited degree and in various ways, among others, by the revision and the widening of the reaction vocabulary to a larger structural con-ditionality, as found in the, as yet, exceptional 'normal' man, and introduces the important notion of non-elementalistic semantic reactions.
Because of this 'average for normal' fallacy, the theories of 'conditional reflexes' in man should be thoroughly revised and enlarged to include non-elementalistic semantic reactions; and then we should find that often what is 'normal' with animals is quite pathological for man. The semantic difficulties are serious, because the accepted two-valued