SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search

levels, and also without confusing descriptions with inferences, he would reach his higher order of abstractions properly, with very different resultant doctrines, which would produce entirely different semantic evaluation, and motivate equally different action.
We may understand now why we must constantly revise our doctrines, for the above analysis throws a considerable light on the fact that scientists need training with the Differential as much as other mortals (the author included). History shows that they have not officially checked themselves up sufficiently to become aware of this fatal habit of confusion of orders of abstractions through identification.
It might appear, at first glance, that all that has been said here is simple and easy. On the contrary, it is not for the grown-ups; it is easy only for children and the young. In all my studies and experimenting I have found that, for the reasons already given, the use of the Differential appears essential, and that it requires a long while and training to accomplish new semantic results. As a rule, unless they are very unhappy, people try to trust their 'understanding', and dislike to train repeatedly with the Differential. For some reason or other, they usually forget that they cannot acquire structural familiarity with, or reflex-reactions in, spelling, or typewriting, or driving a car., by verbal means alone. Similar considerations apply in this case. Without the actual training with the Differential, certainly the best results cannot be expected.
To gain the full benefit involves the uprooting of old habits, taboos, 'philosophies', and private doctrines, the worst being the structure of our primitive A language with the 'is' of identity, all of which are deeply rooted and work unconsciously. Only the semantic training with the Differential in non-identity can affect the 'habitual' and the 'unconscious'. Rationalization, lip-service to the 'understanding' of it, will be of no use whatsoever. Persistent training seems the only way to acquire this special structural sense for proper evaluation, and the habit of feeling when identification, or the confusion of orders of abstractions becomes particularly dangerous. This feeling, as it involves most important factors of evaluation, is difficult to acquire, as difficult, perhaps, as reflex-learning to spell or to typewrite. But, when acquired, it makes us aware of the continuous, necessary utilization of many levels of abstractions, which becomes dangerous only when we identify them or are not conscious of this fact. We can then utilize the different orders of abstractions consciously, without identification, and thus keep out of danger. Most of the important terms appear as multiordinal, and, although they belong to verbal levels, they apply often to all levels, an