SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search




CONCLUDING REMARKS
539
em, scientific functional, non-elementalistic, sharp definition of man. Such a definition was given in my Manhood of Humanity to the effect that man differs from the animals in the capacity of each human generation to begin where the former generation left off. This capacity I Called the time-binding function. This definition cannot be denied, and it fulfills the modern requirements.
2)   The present enquiry originated in the investigation of the mechanism of time-binding, and is a further analysis of the sharp differences between the reactions of animals and humans, which became the psychophysiological foundation of a-system and a theory of sanity.
3)   The further the investigation advanced, it became increasingly evident that the issues involved are extremely complex, and that in this field, from a structural and non-el point of view, practically nothing has been done. In general, all existing 'logics' and 'psychologies' are structurally misleading, since they are still thoroughly el and pre- or A; these conditions necessitate the elimination of them, as well as other dependent disciplines, to prevent their being accepted as structurally fundamental. It was then desirable, in my pioneering enterprise, to keep a simpler and more obvious contrast between 'Fido', whom we nearly all know quite well and usually like, and 'Smith', whom no one seems to know properly. This method has proved very useful to the writer and I am convinced that many readers will find it equally helpful. I frankly admit that if I had not followed this simplified method, I could not have produced the -system and discovered in this psycho-logical maze the blockages introduced into our s.r by identification, elementalism, lack of consciousness of abstracting, improper evaluation., and, in general, infantilism.
For these three main reasons it seemed advisable to retain 'Fido' as a most useful factor in my analysis, with all due apologies to 'Fido'.
I also admit that I did not realize the difficulties of the task and the magnitude of the undertaking. The last revision alone of the manuscript required more than a year. I am all too well aware to what extent the presentation falls short of my expectations and how much better it could have been written by some one more gifted, but the following rather unexpected developments sustained my courage.
1) Curiously enough, the principles involved are often childishly simple, often 'generally known', to the point that on several occasions some older scientists felt 'offended' that such 'obvious' principles should be so emphasized. Yet my experience, without any exception, was that no matter how much these simple principles were approved of verbally, in no case were they fully applied in practice. Slowly I understood that