SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

	464          VII. THE MECHANISM OF TIME-BINDING
	In Fig. 2, the arrows Aa, Bb., indicate theone-to-one correspondence between the oo-valued individual facts of life, A,B,C., and the corresponding s.r, or a,b,c orientations., which ascribe single values to the different facts, establishing a foundation for structurally correct proper evaluation which helps adjustment and so sanity. In Fig. 3, the A two-., few-valued orientation and type of correspondence is shown. In Fig. 4, O indicates a single, say, proper evaluation of the one fact A. The arrows indicate the projec- tion of the one-valued semantic state, or orientation on the essentially unchanged oo-valued facts A, B, C., distorting them. In other words, the co-valued facts, through the identification of many values into one, and by pathological projection, have been given wrong evaluation, thereby preventing, in principle, adjustment and sanity, particularly for a civilized human 1933. If we train our children in one-, two-, three-, and more generally few-valued el, A reactions based on corresponding languages, 'logics'., the result must be that they will have great difficulty in adjusting themselves to a world of non-el co-valued facts, and that, even if they succeed, this would ultimately happen only after a great waste of efforts and unnecessary sufferings. If we approach the co-valued facts of life with one-, two-, or even few-valued semantic attitudes, we must identify some of the indefinitely many values into one, or a few values, and so approach the co-valued world with an orientation which projects ignor-antly or pathologically our restricted, few-valued semantic evaluations on the co-valued individual facts of experience. The above explanations apply in the fullest extent to the structure of language. The daily language, as well as our attitudes toward it, still reflects primitive structural s.r of the period before it was known that on the objective levels we deal exclusively with co-valued, four-dimensional processes. The language in the -system represents, in principle, what may be called a three-dimensional and one-, two-., more generally few-valued linguistic system structurally non-similar to the co -valued, four-dimensional event-process conditions. Let us analyse, for instance, the A term 'apple'. This term represents, in principle, a name for a verbal, one-valued, and constant intensional definition, in which space-time relations do not enter. What are the structural facts of experience ? The object which we call 'apple' represents a process which changes continually; besides, every single apple that ever existed, or will exist, was an absolute individual, and different from any other objective 'apple'. In applying such a three-dimensional and one-valued language to essen-