484 VII. THE MECHANISM OF TIME-BINDING
entirely from some structural assumptions. The problem becomes one of dates, and of un-sanity versus sanity. These problems appear of unusual importance, because the difficult scientific technique does not enter into this field at all, and the few structural data (1933) can be given in the simplest form to children and even to the feeble-minded. In the older days this problem was entirely misunderstood. We tried to 'popularize' science in the sense that we translated structurally correct language into the daily language of primitive structure; this resulted only in bewilderment ; we did not analyse the structure of language and its role in our lives and begin with a structural linguistic revision. Once this revision is accomplished, and we build a A language, the semantic background is prepared for a natural acceptance of modern structural metaphysics (science) of each date and the older 'popularization' becomes unnecessary. Such procedure would help to integrate the individual, while the older methods only help to split him.
Let us recall that the animal stops somewhere in his abstracting. When we come to a stop, and consider it 'final' or that we 'know all about it', we copy animals in our nervous reactions. Training in passing from order to order of abstractions as such, trains the particularly human, fluid, non-blocked s.r, counteracts, and ultimately abolishes, the animalistic blockage. In a language of a given structure we can express ourselves in a definite way; and, if that way is incomplete, we must leave the field open, for in a structurally different language the issues may look entirely different.
It is fundamental to stress that the old 'unknowable' becomes entirely abolished. This 'unknowable' originated in the primitive identification and elementalism. Our ancestors could not miss indefinitely that identification was false to facts; yet somehow the emphasis, which the ecclesiastical authorities (for their purpose) laid on the importance of the A-system, prevented them from completely rejecting the 'is' of identity. The un-speakable was called the 'unknowable', a very gloomy term, indeed. The use of this term prevented them from discovering, long ago,-that the only content of 'knowledge' appears as structural, with all the following non-el consequences. 'Knowledge' was expected to represent somehow more than 'knowledge' - a silent self-contradiction. On this foundation whole systems of delusions were built. With the newer realizations, we understand that the only possible content of 'knowledge' appears as structural, so that we can know all which belongs to the structural legitimate field of 'knowledge'. What does not belong to the field of 'knowledge' must be considered meaningless, and making noises about it, one way or another, will not help us at all; quite