SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search

'sense-organs' or receptors. We ought not to be surprised to find that the visual types are better adjusted to this world than the auditory types. In pathological states, such as identifications, delusions, illusions, and hallucinations, there seems to be involved a translation of auditory semantic stimuli into visual images. In these pathological cases the order of evaluation appears as label first and object next, while the adaptive order seems to require object first and label next,. There seems little doubt that visualization is very useful, and that identification is especially harmful. The most effective means to transform the s.r of identification is found in visualization, which indicates its special semantic importance.
The semantic disturbance of identification may have many sources, auditory included, but the only adaptive trend is in visualization, which involves in some way the optical neural structure. Some structural light is thrown on this subject when we realize that, physiologically, the eye is more closely related to the vegetative nervous system, which regulates our vital organs, than the ear is. In man the optic thalamus is greatly enlarged, so that the whole thalamus is often called the 'optic thalamus'. Actually, the thalamus has many functions, other than visual, and is connected with affective manifestations.
As most of our observations are accomplished by the aid of the eye, we should expect auditory types to be poor observers, and so racially, in the long run, not so well adjusted semantically. Observation shows that the auditory types often have infantile reactions - a serious handicap. From an adaptive point of view the 'normal', non-infantile, best-adjusted individual ought to be a visual type. Auditory types must also be further detached from actualities than the visual types, as auditory stimuli involve more inferences than descriptions, which is the opposite of the functioning of the visual types. If inferences, rather than descriptions, are involved, we naturally deal with higher abstractions first, and with the lower next, and so there is always a danger of the semantic confusion of orders of abstractions, which necessarily involves inappropriate evaluation, of which objedification is only a particular case.
Even to common sense it seems clear that there is a significant difference between 'knowing' this world by hearing and 'knowing' it by seeing. There is, likewise, a difference between the translation of higher abstractions into lower terms by the visual path, and the corresponding translation by the auditory path. In daily life we never say 'I hear' when we wish to convey that we understand; but we say 'I see'. When we say T hear', we usually wish to convey that we have heard some-