492 VII. THE MECHANISM OF TIME-BINDING
state in such cases of perfected 'forgetting' was called 'unconscious', which, as a descriptive term, is very satisfactory.
The origin of the freudian theory of the unconscious was strictly scientific. The theory was a new generalization in a new structurally appropriate language to account for experimental facts. Subsequently, a large number of other experimental facts showed that the work of Freud was sound as far as it went. Different workers, from different sets of facts, amplified or reshaped the freudian theories. At present, there are several schools that differ widely in language, all of them based on the fundamental system-function of Freud, however.
In reading the literature of the subject, one finds most diversified material. Seemingly, there are facts which prove 'beyond doubt' each and every-theory, no matter how widely they differ among themselves. It is also easy to find experimental facts which can be accounted for by several different theories.
Such a situation appears unsatisfactory. This lack of generality conceals a very important and workable semantic mechanism, which, under A identification, 'allness', and elementalism, becomes pathological, resulting in arrested or regressive symptoms. Once we pass to a-system free from the above harmful semantic factors of delusional evaluation, the difficulties do not arise. The more my enquiry progressed, the more it became obvious that the underlying mechanism appears similai in all psychoanalytical theories. It seems that the general problem may be formulated as the need to discover methods for non-delusional evaluation affecting our s.r, and so be able to make the 'unconscious' 'conscious'.
The term 'consciousness' is an incomplete symbol, as it lacks content. If we use the term 'consciousness of abstracting', we ascribe content and also gain empirical means to bring under educational control a vast array of important psycho-logical processes. The negative term 'unconscious' does not imply specific content, and the main difficulty in its practical application is to find its content, or to ascribe content to it. Once this is achieved, the 'unconscious' becomes 'conscious'. A patient whose unconscious semantic difficulty is made conscious either improves or is entirely relieved. For a general theory, we must find general structural means of ascribing semantic content to the 'unconscious'. Different schools have elaborated different means of discovering this desired content. All schools agree that the behaviour difficulties are due to experiences hidden in the 'unconscious' and that bringing them to 'consciousness' seems the main goal. The diverse schools have an unduly bitter attitude toward one another, and have not attempted to analyse the problems at hand from a more general, more workable non-el structural,