SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search

It appeared as though there were either a lack of 'geniuses' able to produce the required new theories, or the geniuses existed, but were unable to function properly. They seemed to suffer from a semantic blockage due to some identification which successfully prevented broader and unhampered vision.
Presently the co-ordinating theories were produced. In the production of the new quantum mechanics we see at work the unconscious semantic liberating influence of the and systems which had been developed and which we have already analysed. The classical theories had come to a structural impasse, but with the advent of younger scientists, who were educated in the theoretical semantic freedom of these new systems, the semantic blockage due to ascribing 'objectivity' to 'matter', 'space', and 'time' was removed, creative forces were released, and these young scientists proceeded to construct the structural formulations needed. They are now rightly hailed as geniuses.
It is astonishing how these young post-einsteinian scientists of various lands and different inclinations produced, independently and practically simultaneously, various new quantum theories, using different methods and different mathematical, as well as national, languages. When these different theories were studied and compared they were found to amount practically to one theory, but expressed by different mathematical languages. Now the use of different mathematical languages to express one group of experimental facts brings an additional benefit in that it gives diversified verbal structural information about the problems at hand. Since these developments are very recent and progress has been extremely rapid it is hard to keep track of the status of the problem.
In this account of the newer quantum mechanics I will emphasize only the structural and semantic side, treating the different theories as behaviour of their respective authors, and as illustrating the issues above mentioned. From this point of view, we are not interested in discussing to what extent the given theories are 'true' or 'false', which means no more than similar or dissimilar to the world in structure. We are interested directly in those semantic aspects of human behaviour which have been neglected. When 'Smith' puts a black mark on white paper, it is to be called human behaviour, and behaviour unique for man. Our analysis does not involve the question of the validity of his doings. But since he did it, let us analyse his doings.
In speaking about theories as complex and technical as the newer quantum mechanics, it is practically impossible to give a satisfactory account in a nontechnical way. Such theories have not yet been worked out thoroughly enough, many points are still not clear, and no proper evaluation is possible at present. These difficulties are really immaterial to our present purpose, because these theories are empirical facts on record, and they throw significant light on human behaviour. It is not here proposed to make reflections on the world around us, but to analyse a certain linguistic, structural form of human behaviour.
From the point of view of structure and s.r, the classical quantum mechanics would be quite enough for sanity and adjustment; it is enough to realize that the still older theories of 'matter', 'space', and 'time' are el, structurally fallacious and represent only primitive identifications.