SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search

ments, instead of only instructing their A representatives, would first consult with the new A specialists.
Many politicians and their followers often become all but hysterical at the mention of the League of Nations, which, in some mysterious way, they associate with a 'super-state' or 'control',. Let me say, at once, that a symbolic, or human class of life, is very largely controlled by ignorant, hidden, often pathological., factors beyond public control, of which the majority are entirely innocent. In the human symbolic class of life no one is entirely free, but all our lives are entangled in an interdependence of human relations. The dependence on those powers which are now hidden, and beyond public control, constitutes a grave danger to all. Not so with a scientific, enlightened public opinion with adult standards of evaluation as formulated by a future co-ordination of science and the League of Nations. Such great majority-opinions will remain opinions, or statements of standards of evaluation, which any one member of the League may accept or reject; but, then, it would be necessary for him to state publicly his standards of evaluation and to decide consciously to act with or against, or to enlighten further the opinion of the human race. There is, of course, no question of 'super-states' or 'control' except the unified demand for a conscious and explicit stand on any important subject by any nation. Public opinion will do the rest, once it is convoked to act.
I am not a pacifist in the accepted sense. In an animalistic, infantile, or A society, this would be not only impossible but downright silly, Quite the contrary, I am disgusted with the infantile standards under which wars are conducted. Thus, our rulers and war lords, sponsored by commercialism, like little boys make a sort of game out of wars, and thus help to preserve them as an institution. In a consistent society, wars should be as ruthless as possible to all. If any one wants a war, he should consistently take all the consequences. But this would not suit our infantile rulers; they know that when little boys play at war, and one group becomes too rough, the other group refuses to play, and so the play at war ends.8 All these perverted 'humanitarianisms' only sponsor wars because, in an unlimited modern warfare, the people would soon come to their senses and would refuse to suffer for the benefit of the very few. So I am far from being an A pacifist.
But why our destinies should be dependent on the accidental and primitive structure of the language we use., is beyond my comprehension. I grant that if we accept such and such postulates, two-valued, el, structurally f alse-to-f act A 'logics', 'psychologies'., all the old, too f amil-