SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search




UN-SANITY VERSUS SANITY
535
First, we must discriminate permanently between the f reudian particular system, which represents a particular interpretation of the freudian system-function without specific interpretations: say 'complex x', on semantic levels, which corresponds, let us say, to 'cluster X' on colloidal levels. Second, we must realize that the freudian system-function (not system) was scientific at the date of its production, but to be scientific 1933 it must be revised and reformulated, taking into consideration the newer physico-mathematical, physico-chemical, colloidal, A-, points of view. The struggle for a special 'complex A' or invention of a new 'complex B' is useless because in 1933 the colloidal, structural 'cluster X' which underlies the semantic 'complex x', which alone can legitimately be considered in a system-function, includes all of the 'complexes' in literary existence, and there are no assignable limits to their numbers. If we analyse in such oo-valued terms as, for instance, 'cluster X', we evade an enormous amount of unnecessary and confusing metaphysics, and become scientific in the 1933 sense. From a modern, A system-function point of view, which means, when we recognize the necessity of oo-valued semantics, structure., necessitating the reduction of a system to a postulate base, we readily see that the freudian system-function (not system) is a necessary and natural passing step between the A and systems.
The postulates which are discovered in the freudian system-function can be divided into two main groups:
1)  The observations of human behaviour and, in my language, of s.r, have to be formulated in a special language to fit the more structurally fundamental parts of the system.
2)   The fundamental and revolutionary new postulates were, at the date of their introduction, quite scientific. In 1933 these postulates have to be reformulated and made to comply to modern physico-mathematical, physico-chemical, and general semantic standards.
A satisfactory analysis of the above problems would require a special volume; therefore, I shall entirely disregard No. 1, and from No. 2 shall only suggest a few most important and new postulates. These can be expressed, roughly, as follows: (a) The postulation of an active 'dynamic' unconscious. This postulate departs widely from the older notions, although the word 'dynamic' is used in this connection in the vernacular, but not strictly scientific, sense. The methods of translating the dynamic into static and vice versa, are disregarded, owing to the innocence of modern science and the assumption by physicians, in general, of the permanent validity of A principles, (b) Once the active unconscious is postulated, some determinism follows according to the