A FIELD THEORY OF COMMUNICATION 20g
acterized by a high degree of randomnessby a high degree of disorder. In such cases, there is wide freedom of choice as to the means by which to achieve a given end. There are, in other words, many possible choices. And every choice will be based upon judgmentbetter or worseand relevant facts.
In the area of social inquiry, the communicator moves from what is toward what is desired tentatively. The entire procedure is open-end and subject to revision on the basis of more information. This means that the communicator becomes a recipient of every informative sign, verbal and nonverbal, from the relevant environment. If he would control change in the interest of purpose, he must engage in a circular interactive process with the relevant environment.
The means to end hypothesis may be, and usually is, a long-term program. Korzybski set up General Semantics as the means by which to achieve sanity; Morris set up a science of signs as a means by which to advance self-making and man-making; I have, in this book, set up semantic devices, again, to achieve a humanity of wordsan efficient use of language toward human goals.
In such long-term goals we set up a series of What nextsf as Dewey puts it. Each What next? becomes an immediate end that will take us toward the final end-in-view. At the completion of each What next? we take a look around. We appraise the consequences of our actions against the anticipated results. We reappraise the entire means to end hypothesis. And we may alter our strategy. We may, indeed, change the ultimate goal.
Verifiability in the means to end hypothesis is never exact. The means to end hypothesis includes within itself