“In Europe we know that an age is dying. Here it would be easy to
miss the signs of coming changes, but I have little doubt that it
will come. A realization of the _aimlessness_ of life lived to
labor and to die, having achieved nothing but avoidance of
starvation, and the birth of children also doomed to the weary
treadmill, has seized the minds of millions.” _Sir Auckland
Geddes, British Ambassador to the U. S. 1920._
In conclusion let me say very briefly, as I said in the beginning, that
this little book has aimed to be only a sketch. The Problem of Life is
old. I have endeavored to approach it afresh, with a new method, in a new
spirit, from a new point of view. The literature of the subject is vast.
It displays great knowledge and skill. Much of it is fitted to inform and
to inspire such as really read with a genuine desire to understand. Its
weakness is due to the absence of a true conception of what human beings
are. That is what I miss in it and it is that lack of fundamental and
central thought that I have striven to supply. If I have succeeded in
that, I have no fear—all else will follow quickly, inevitably, as a matter
of course. For a fundamental conception, once it is formed and expressed,
has a strange power—the power of enlisting the thought and cooperation of
many minds. And no conception can have greater power in our human world
than a _true_ conception of the nature of Man. For that most important of
truths the times are ripe; the world is filled with the saddest of
memories, with gloom, forebodings and fear. Without the truth in this
matter, there can be no rational hope—history must go on in its dismal
course; but _with_ the truth, there is not only hope but certitude that
the old order has passed and that humanity’s manhood dates from the
present day. That I have here presented the truth in this matter—the true
conception of the human class of life—I have personally no doubt; and I
have no doubt that that conception is to be the base, the guide, the
source of light, of a new civilization. Whether I am mistaken or not, time
will decide. I feel as Buckle felt in writing his _History of
Civilization_:
“Whether or not I have effected anything of real value ... is a
question for competent judges to decide. Of this, at least, I feel
certain, that whatever imperfections may be observed, the fault
consists, not in the method proposed, but in the extreme
difficulty of any single man putting into full operation all the
parts of so vast a scheme. It is on this point, and on this alone,
that I feel the need of great indulgence. But, as to the plan
itself, I have no misgivings. Of defects in its execution I am not
unconscious. I can only plead the immensity of the subject, the
shortness of a single life and the imperfection of every single
enterprise. I, therefore, wish this work to be estimated, not
according to the finish of its separate parts, but according to
the way in which those parts have been fused into a complete and
symmetrical whole. This, in an undertaking of such novelty and
magnitude, I have a right to expect, and I would moreover, add,
that if the reader has met with opinions adverse to his own, he
should remember, that his views are, perhaps, the same as those
which I too once held, and which I have abandoned, because, after
a wider range of study, I found them unsupported by solid proof,
subversive of the interest of Man, and fatal to the progress of
his knowledge. To examine the notions in which we have been
educated, and to turn aside from those which will not bear the
test, is a task so painful, that they who shrink from the
sufferings should pause before they reproach those by whom the
suffering is undergone.... Conclusions arrived at in this way are
not to be overturned by stating that they endanger some other
conclusions; nor can they be even affected by allegation against
their supposed tendency. The principles which I advocate are based
upon distinct arguments supported by well ascertained facts. The
only points, therefore, to be ascertained, are, whether the
arguments are fair, and whether the facts are certain. If these
two conditions have been obeyed, the principles follow by an
inevitable inference.”
And why have I sought throughout to follow the spirit of mathematics?
Because I have been dealing with ideas and have desired, above all things
else, to be right and clear. Ideas have a character of their own—they are
right or wrong independently of our hopes and passions and will. In the
connection of ideas there is an unbreakable thread of destiny. That is why
in his _Mathematical Philosophy_ Professor Keyser has truly said:
“Mathematics is the study of Fate—not fate in a physical sense,
but in the sense of the binding thread that connects thought with
thought and conclusions with their premises. Where, then, is our
freedom? What do you love? Painting? Poetry? Music? The muses are
_their_ fates. Whoso loves them is free. Logic is the muse of
Thought.”
No doubt mathematics is truly impersonal in method; too impersonal maybe
to please the sentimentalists before they take the time to think;
mathematical analysis of life phenomena elevates our point of view above
passion, above selfishness in any form, and, therefore, it is the only
method which can tell us genuine truths about ourselves. Spinosa even in
the 17th Century had well realized this fact and although imperfect in
many ways, his was an effort in the right direction and this quoted
conclusion may well be a conclusion for ourselves in the 20th century:
“The truth might forever have remained hid from the human race, if
mathematics, which looks not to the final cause of figures, but to
their essential nature and the properties involved in it, had not
set another type of knowledge before them.... When I turned my
mind to this subject, I did not propose to myself any novel or
strange aim, but simply to demonstrate by certain and indubitable
reason, those things which agree best with practice. And in order
that I might enquire into the matters of the science with the same
freedom of mind with which we are wont to treat lines and surfaces
in mathematics; I determined not to laugh or to weep over the
actions of men, but simply to understand them; and to contemplate
their affections and passions, such as love, hate, anger, envy,
arrogance, pity and all other disturbances of soul not as vices of
human nature, but as properties pertaining to it in the same way
as heat, cold, storm, thunder pertain to the nature of the
atmosphere. For these, though troublesome, are yet necessary, and
have certain causes through which we may come to understand them,
and thus, by contemplating them in their truth, gain for our minds
much joy as by the knowledge of things that are pleasing to the
senses.”
If only this little book will _initiate_ the scientific study of Man, I
shall be happy; for then we may confidently expect a science and art that
will know how to direct the energies of man to the advancement of human
weal.
What else? Many topics have not even been broached. Time-binding
energy—what may it not achieve in course of the aeons to come? What light
may it not yet throw upon such fundamental phenomena as _Space_, _Time_,
_Infinity_, and so on? What, if any, are the limits of Time-binding? In it
are somehow involved all the higher functions of mind. Is Time identical
with Intelligence? Is either of them the other’s cause? Is Time _in_ the
Cosmos or is the latter in the former? Is the Cosmos intelligent? Many no
doubt and marvelous are the fields which the scientific study of man will
open for research.
Appendix I. Mathematics And Time-Binding
The purpose of this appendix is to give an expression of some new ideas
which evolve directly out of the fact that humans are time-binders and
which may serve as suggestions for the foundation of _scientific
psychology_. The problem is of exceeding difficulty to give expression to
in any form and therefore much more difficult to express in any exact or
correct form, and so I beg the reader’s patience in regard to the language
because some of the ideas are in themselves correct and sometimes very
suggestive in spite of the language used. I am particularly interested
that mathematicians, physicists and metaphysicians should read it
carefully, forgive me the form, and look into the suggestions, because
scientific psychology if such a science is to exist, would by necessity
have to be a branch of physics. I particularly beg the mathematicians and
physicists not to discard this appendix with too hasty a judgment of “Oh!
metaphysics,” and also the metaphysicians not to do the same with an
equally hasty judgment “Oh! mathematics.” I hope that if this appendix is
sympathetically understood, mathematicians and physicists will be moved to
investigate the problem. If mathematicians and physicists would be more
tolerant toward metaphysics and if metaphysicians would be moved to study
mathematics, both would find tremendous fields to work in.
Some scientists are very pedantic and therefore intolerant in their
pedantry and they may say “the fellow should learn first how to express
himself and then ask our attention.” My answer is that the problems
involved are too pressing, too vital, too fundamental for humankind, to
permit me to delay for perhaps long years before I shall be able to
present the subject in a correct and satisfactory form, and also that the
problems involved cover too vast a field for a single man to work it
conclusively. It seems best to give the new ideas to the public in a
suggestive form so that many people may be led to work on them more fully.
The old word “metaphysics” is an illegitimate child of ignorance and an
unnecessary word in the scientific study of nature. Every phenomenon of
nature can be classed and studied in physics or chemistry or mathematics;
the problem, therefore, is not in any way _super_natural or
_super_physical, but belongs rather to an unknown or an undeveloped branch
of physics. The problem, therefore, may be not that of some _new_ science,
but rather that of a new branch of mathematics, or physics, or chemistry,
etc., or all combined.
It is pathetic that only after many aeons of human existence the
dimensionality of man has been discovered and his proper status in
_nature_ has been given by the definition of “time-binder.” The old
metaphysics, in spite of its being far from exact, accomplished a great
deal. What prevented metaphysics from achieving more was its use of
unmathematical method, or, to be more explicit, its failure to understand
the importance of dimensions. Metaphysics used words and conceptions of
multi-dimensional meanings which of necessity resulted in hopeless
confusion, in “a talking” about words, in mere verbalism. An example will
serve to make this clear. If we were to speak of a cow, a man, an
automobile, and a locomotive as “pullers,” and if we were not to use any
other names in connection with them, what would happen? If we
characterized these things or beings, by one common characteristic,
namely, “to pull,” havoc would be introduced into our conceptions and in
practical life; we would try to milk an automobile or we would try to
extract gasoline from a cow, or look for a screw in a man, or we would
speculate about any or all of these things. Too obviously nonsensical—but
exactly the same thing happens, in a much more subtle way, when we use
such words as “life in a crystal” or “memory in animals”; we are thus
mentally making a mistake no less nonsensical than the talk of “milking an
automobile” would be. Laymen are baffled by the word dimension. They
imagine that dimensions are applicable only to space, which is three
dimensional, but they are mistaken; a moving object is
four-dimensional—that is, it has three dimensions as any object at rest,
but, when the object is moving, a fourth dimension is necessary to give
its _position_ at any one instant. We see, therefore, that a moving body
has four dimensions, and so on. As a matter of fact, scientific psychology
will very much need mathematics, but a special _humanized_ mathematics.
Can this be produced? It seems to me that it can.
It is a well known fact that experimental sciences bring us to face facts
which require further theoretical elaboration; in this way experimental
sciences are a permanent source of inspiration to mathematicians because
new facts bring about the need of new methods of analysis.
In this book a new and experimental fact has been disclosed and analysed.
It is the fact that humanity is a time-binding class of life where the
time-binding capacity or the time-binding ENERGY is the highest function
of humanity, including all the so-called mental, spiritual, will, etc.,
powers. In using the words mental, spiritual, and will powers, I
deliberately accept and use them in the popular, ordinary sense without
further analysing them.
Once the word and concept _Time_ enters, the ground for analysis and
reasoning at once becomes very slippery. Mathematicians, physicists, etc.,
may feel that the expression is just a “well adapted one,” and they may
not be very much inclined to look closer into it or attentively to analyse
it. Theologians and metaphysicians probably will speculate a great deal
about it vaguely, with undefined terms and incoherent ideas with
incoherent results; which will not lead us toward a scientific or true
solution, but will keep us away from the discovery of truth.
In the meantime two facts remain facts: namely, mathematicians and
physicists have almost all agreed with Minkowski “that space by itself and
time by itself, are mere shadows, and only a kind of blend of the two
exists in its own right.” The other fact—psychological fact—is that _time_
exists psychologically by itself, undefined and not understood. One chief
difficulty is always that humans have to sit in judgment upon their own
case. The psychological time as such, is our own human time; scientific
time as such, is also our own human time. Which one of them is the best
concept—which one more nearly corresponds to the truth about “time”? What
is time (if any) anyway? Until now we have gone from “Cosmos” to “Bios,”
from “Bios” to “Logos,” now we are confronted with the fact that
“Logos”—Intelligence—and Time-binding are dangerously near to akin to each
other, or may be identical. Do we in this way approach or go back to
“Cosmos”? Such are the crucial questions which arise out of this new
concept of Man. One fact must be borne in mind, that “the principles of
dynamics appeared first to us, as experimental truths; but we have been
obliged to use them as definitions. It is by definition that force is
equal to the product of mass by acceleration, or that action is equal to
reaction.” (_The Foundation of Science_, by Henri Poincaré); and
mathematics also has its whole foundation in a few axioms, “self evident,”
but _psychological facts_. It must be noted that the time-binding
energy—the higher or highest energies of man (one of its branches anyway,
for sake of discrimination let us call it “_M_”) when it works properly,
that is, mathematically, does _not_ work _psychologically_ but works
ABSTRACTLY: the higher the abstraction the less there is of the
psychological element and the more there is, so to say, of the pure,
impersonal time-binding energy (_M_). The definition of a man as a
time-binder—a definition based on facts—suggests many reflections. One of
them is the possibility that one of the functions of the time-binding
energy in its pure form, in the highest abstraction (_M_), works
automatically—machine-like, as it were, shaping _correctly_ the product of
its activity, but whether _truly_ is another matter. Mathematics does not
presume that its conclusions are true, but it does assert that its
conclusions are correct; that is the inestimable value of mathematics.
This becomes a very comprehensive fact if we approach and analyse the
mathematical processes as some branch (_M_) of the time-binding process,
which they are; then this process at once becomes impersonal and cosmic,
because of the time-binding involved in it, no matter what _time_ is (if
there is such a thing as time).
Is the succession of cosmos, bios, logos, time-binding taking us right
back to cosmos again? Now if we put _psychological_ axioms into the
time-binding apparatus, it will thrash out the results _correctly_, but
whether the results are _true_ is another question.
To be able to talk about these problems I have to introduce three new
definitions, which are introduced only for practical purposes. It may
happen that after some rewording these definitions may become scientific.
I will try to define “truth” and for this purpose I will divide the
concept “truth” into three types:
(1) Psychological, or private, or relative truth, by which I will mean
such conceptions of the truth as any one person possesses, but different
from other types of truth (α1, α2, ... αn)
(2) Scientific truth (αs), by which I will mean a psychological truth when
it is approved by the time-binding faculties or apparatus in the present
stage of our development. This scientific truth represents the
“bound-up-time” in our present knowledge; and finally,
(3) The absolute truth, which will be the _final definition_ of a
phenomenon based upon the final knowledge of _primal causation valid in
infinity_.
For simplicity’s sake I will use the signs α1, α2, ... αn for the
“psychological,” “private,” or “relative” truths, between which, for the
moment, I will not discriminate.
αs1, αs2, ... αsn, will be used for scientific truths, and finally
αinfinity for the absolute truth valid in infinity.
To make it easier to explain, I will illustrate the suggestions by an
example. Let us suppose that the human time-binding capacities or energies
in the _organic_ chemistry correspond to radium in the _inorganic_
chemistry; being of course of different dimensions and of absolutely
different character. It may happen, for it probably is so, that the
complex time-binding energy has many different stages of development and
different kinds of “rays” _A_, _B_, _C_, ... _M_....
Let us suppose that the so-called mental capacities are the _M_ rays of
the time-binding energy; the “spiritual” capacities, the _A_ rays; the
“will” powers, the _B_ rays; and so on. Psychological truths will then be
a function of all rays together, namely _A_ _B_ _C_ ... _M_ ... or _f_
(_A_ _B_ _C_ ... _M_ ...), the character of any “truth” in question will
largely depend upon which of these elements prevail.
If it were possible to isolate completely from the other rays the “mental”
process—the “logos”—the _M_ rays—and have a complete abstraction (which in
the present could only be in mathematics), then the work of _M_ could be
compared to the work of an impersonal machine which always gives the same
_correctly_ shaped product _no matter what is_ the material put into it.
It is a fact that mathematics is correct—impersonal—passionless. Again, as
a matter of fact, all the basic axioms which underlie mathematics are
"psychological axioms"; therefore it may happen that these "axioms" are
not of the αinfinity type but are of the _f_ (_A_ _B_ _C_ ...) personal
type and this may be why mathematics cannot account for psychological
facts. If psychology is to be an _exact science_ it must be mathematical
in principle. And, therefore, mathematics must find a way to embrace
psychology. Here I will endeavor to outline a way in which this can be
done. To express it correctly is more than difficult: I beg the
mathematical reader to tolerate the form and look for the sense or even
the feelings in what I attempt to express. To make it less shocking to the
ear of the pure mathematician, I will use for the “infinitesimals” the
words “very small numbers,” for the “finite” the words “normal numbers”
and for the “transfinite” the words “very great numbers.” Instead of using
the word “number” I will sometimes use the word “magnitude” and under the
word “infinity” I will understand the meaning as “limitless.” The base of
the whole of mathematics or rather the starting point of mathematics was
“psychological truths,” axioms concerning normal numbers, and magnitudes
that were tangible for the senses. Here to my mind is to be found the
kernel of the whole trouble. The _base_ of mathematics was _f_ (_A_ _B_
_C_ ... _M_ ...); the _work_, or the development, of mathematics is _f_
(_M_); this is the reason for the “ghosts” in the background of
mathematics. The _f_ (_M_) evolved from this _f_ (_A_ _B_ _C_ ... _M_ ...)
_base_ a wonderful abstract theory absolutely correct for the normal, the
very small, and for the very great numbers. But the rules which govern the
small numbers, the normal, or psychological numbers, and the great
numbers, are not the same. As a matter of fact, in the meantime, the
physical world, the psychological world, is composed exclusively of very
great numbers and of very small magnitudes (atoms, electrons, etc.). It
seems to me that, if we want really to understand the world and man, we
shall have to start from the beginning, from 0, then take the next very
small number as the first _finite_ or “normal number”; then the old
finites or the normal numbers would become very great numbers and the old
very-great numbers would become the very great of the second order and so
on. Such transposed mathematics would become psychological and philosophic
mathematics and mathematical philosophy would become philosophic
mathematics. The immediate and most vital effect would be, that the
_start_ would be made not somewhere in the middle of the magnitudes but
from the beginning, or from the limit “zero,” from the “0”—from the
intrinsic “to be or not to be”—and the next to it would be the very first
small magnitude, the physical and therefore psychological continuum (I use
the words physical continuum in the way Poincaré used them) would become a
mathematical continuum in this new philosophic mathematics. This new
branch of philosophic, psychological mathematics would be absolutely
rigorous, correct and _true_ in addition to which, maybe, it would change
or enlarge and make humanly tangible for the layman, the concept of
numbers, continuum, infinity, space, time and so on. Such a mathematics
would be the mathematics for the time-binding psychology. Mathematical
philosophy is the highest philosophy in existence; nevertheless, it could
be changed to a still higher order in the way indicated here and become
philosophic or psychological mathematics. This new science, of course,
would not change the ordinary mathematics for ordinary purposes. It would
be a special mathematics for the study of Man dealing only with the
“natural finites” (the old infinitesimals) and great numbers of different
orders (including the normal numbers), but starting from a real, common
base—from 0, and next to it very small number, which is a common
_tangible_ base for _psychological_ as well as _analytical_ truths.
This new philosophic mathematics would eliminate the concept of
“infinitesimals” as such, which is an _artificial_ concept and is not as a
_concept_ an element of Nature. The so-called _infinitesimals are Nature’s
real, natural finites_. In mathematics the infinitesimals were an
analytical—an “_M_”—time-binding—necessity, because of our starting point.
I repeat once again that this transposition of our starting point would
not affect the normal mathematics for normal purposes; it would build
rather a new philosophic mathematics rigorously correct where analytical
facts would be also psychological facts. This new mathematics would not
only give correct results but also _true_ results. Keeping in mind _both_
conceptions of time, the scientific time and the psychological time, we
may see that the human capacity of “Time-binding” is a very practical one
and that this time-binding faculty is a _functional_ name and definition
for what we broadly mean by human “intelligence”; which makes it obvious
that time (in any understanding of the term) is somehow very closely
related to intelligence—the mental and spiritual activities of man. _All
we know about _“time”_ will explain to us a great deal about Man, and all
we know about Man will explain to us a great deal about time_, if we
consider _facts_ alone. The “ghosts” in the background will rapidly vanish
and become intelligible facts for philosophic mathematics. The most vital
importance, nevertheless, is that taking zero as the limit and the next to
it very small magnitude for the real starting point, it will give us a
mathematical science from a natural base where _correct_ formulas will be
also true formulas and will correspond to psychological truths.
We have found that man is an exponential function where time enters as an
exponent. If we compare the formula for organic growth _y==e__kt_, with
the formula “_P R__T_,” we see that they are of the same type and the _law
of organic growth_ applies to the human _time-binding energy_. We see,
too, that the time-binding energy is also “_alive_” and multiplying in
larger and larger families. The formula for the decomposing of radium is
the same—only the exponent is negative instead of positive. This fact is
indeed very curious and suggestive. Procreation, the organic growth, is
also some function of time. I call “time-linking” for the sake of
difference. Whether the energy of procreation or that of “time-linking”
can be accounted for in units of chemical energy taken up in food, I do
not know. Not so with the mind—this “time-binding,” higher exponential
energy, “able to direct basic powers.” If we analyse this energy, free
from any speculation, we will find that this higher energy which is
somehow directly connected with “time”—no matter what time is—is able to
_produce_, by transformation or by drawing on other sources of energy, new
energies unknown to nature. Thus the solar energy transformed into coal
is, for instance, transformed into the energy of the drive of a piston, or
the rotary energy in a steam engine, and so on. It is obvious that no
amount of _chemical_ energy in food can account for such an energy as the
time-binding energy. There is only one supposition left, namely, that the
time-binding apparatus has a source for its tremendous energy in the
_transformation of organic atoms_, and—what is very characteristic—the
results are _time_-binding energies.
This supposition is almost a certainty because it seems to be the only
possible supposition to account for that energy. This supposition, which
seems to be the only supposition, would bring us to face striking facts,
namely, the transformation of organic atoms, which means a direct drawing
upon the cosmic energy; and this cosmic energy—time—and intelligence are
somehow connected—if not indeed equivalent. Happily these things can be
verified in scientific laboratories. Radium was discovered only a few
years ago and is still very scarce, but the results for science and life
are already tremendous because scientific methods were applied in the
understanding and use of it. We did not use any zoological or theological
methods, but just direct, correct and scientific methods. There is no
scarcity in “human radium,” but, to my knowledge, physicists have never
attempted to study this energy from that point of view. I am confident
that, if once they start, there will be results in which all the so-called
“supernatural, spiritual, psychic” phenomena, such as are not fakes, will
become scientifically understood and will be consciously utilized. Now
they are mostly wasted or only played with. It may happen that the science
of Man—as the science of time-binding—will disclose to us the inner and
final secrets—the final truth—of nature, valid in infinity.
It is very difficult to give in such a book as this an adequate list of
the literature which may help to orient the reader in a general way in the
great advance science has made in the last few years. This book is a
pioneer book in its own way, and so there are no books dealing directly
with its subject. There are two branches of science and one art which are
fundamental for the further development of the subject; these two sciences
are (1) Mathematical philosophy and (2) Scientific biology, the art is the
art of creative engineering.
In mathematical philosophy there are to my knowledge only four great
mathematical writers who treat the subject as a distinct science. They are
two English scientists, Bertrand Russell and A. N. Whitehead; one
Frenchman, Henri Poincaré (deceased); and one American, Professor C. J.
Keyser. Messrs. Russell and Whitehead approach the problems from a purely
logical point of view and therein lies the peculiar value of their work.
Henri Poincaré was a physicist (as well as a mathematician) and,
therefore, approaches the problems somewhat from a physicist’s point of
view, a circumstance giving his philosophy its particular value. Professor
Keyser approaches the problems from both the logical and the warmly human
points of view; in this is the great human and practical value of his
work.
These four scientists are unique in their respective elaborations and
elucidations of mathematical philosophy. It is not for me to advise the
reader what selections to make, for if a thorough knowledge of the subject
is desired the reader should read all these books, but not all readers are
willing to make that effort toward clear thinking (which in the meantime
will remain of the _highest_ importance in science). Some readers will
wish to select for themselves and to facilitate their selection I will lay
out a “Menu” of this intellectual feast by giving in some cases the
chapter heads.
For many temporary reasons I was not able, before going into print, to
give a fuller list of the writings of those four unique men; but there is
no stroke of their pen but which should be read with great
attention—besides which there is a very valuable literature about their
work.
(1) The purely mathematical foundation:
RUSSELL, BERTRAND.
“The Principles of Mathematics.” Cambridge University, 1903.
(I am not giving any selections from the contents of this book because
this book should, without doubt, be read by every one interested in
mathematical philosophy.)
“The Problems of Philosophy.” H. Holt & Co., N. Y., 1912.
“Our Knowledge of the External World, as a Field for Scientific Method in
Philosophy.” Chicago, 1914.
“Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy.” Macmillan, N. Y.
Selection from contents: Definition of number. The Definition of order.
Kinds of relations. Infinite cardinal numbers. Infinite series and
ordinals. Limits and continuity. The axiom of infinity and logical types.
Classes. Mathematics and logic.
“Mysticism and Logic.” Longmans Green & Co. 1919. N. Y.
Selection from contents: Mathematics and the metaphysicians. On scientific
method in philosophy. The ultimate constituents of matter. On the notion
of cause.
WHITEHEAD, ALFRED N.
“An Introduction to Mathematics.” Henry Holt & Co. 1911. N. Y.
“The Organization of Thought Educational and Scientific.” London, 1917.
Selections from contents: The principles of mathematics in relation to
elementary teaching. The organization of thought. The anatomy of some
scientific ideas. Space, time, and relativity.
“An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Natural Knowledge.” Cambridge,
1919.
Selection from contents: The traditions of science. The data of science.
The method of extensive abstraction. The theory of objects.
“The Concept of Nature.” Cambridge, 1920.
Selection from contents: Nature and thought. Time. The method of extensive
abstraction. Space and motion. Objects. The ultimate physical concepts.
“Principia Mathematica.” By A. N. Whitehead and Bertrand Russell.
Cambridge, 1910-1913.
This monumental work stands alone. “As a work of constructive criticism it
has never been surpassed. To every one and especially to philosophers and
men of natural science, it is an amazing revelation of how the familiar
terms with which they deal plunge their roots far into the darkness
beneath the surface of common sense. It is a noble monument to the
critical spirit of science and to the idealism of our time.”
“Human Worth of Rigorous Thinking.” C. J. Keyser.
(2) The physicist’s point of view:
POINCARÉ, HENRI.
“The Foundations of Science.” The Science Press, N. Y., 1913.
Selection from contents: Science and hypothesis. Number and magnitude.
Space. Force. Nature. II. The value of science. The mathematical sciences.
The physical sciences. The objective value of science. III. Science and
method. Science and the scientist. Mathematical reasoning. The new
mechanics. Astronomic science.
(3) The human, civilizing, practical life, point of view:
KEYSER, CASSIUS J.
“Science and Religion: The Rational and the Super-rational.” The Yale
University Press.
“The New Infinity and the Old Theology.” The Yale University Press.
“The Human Worth of Rigorous Thinking.” Essays and Addresses. Columbia
University Press, 1916.
Selection from contents: The human worth of rigorous thinking. The human
significance of mathematics. The walls of the world; or concerning the
figure and the dimensions of the Universe of space. The universe and
beyond. The existence of the hypercosmic. The axiom of infinity: A new
presupposition of thought. Research in American Universities. Mathematical
productivity in the United States.
“Mathematical Philosophy, the Study of Fate and Freedom. Lectures for
Educated Laymen.” Forthcoming Book.
Selection from contents of general interest: The mathematical obligations
of philosophy. Humanistic and industrial education. Logic the muse of
thought. Radiant aspects of an over-world.—Verifiers and falsifiers.
Significance and nonsense.—Distinction of logical and psychological. A
diamond test of harmony.—Distinction of doctrine and method.—Theoretical
and practical doubt.—Mathematical philosophy in the rôle of critic. A
world uncriticised—the garden of the devil. “Supersimian” Wisdom.
Autonomous truth and autonomous falsehood. Other Varieties of truth and
untruth. Mathematics as the study of fate and freedom. The prototype of
reasoned discourse often disguised as in the Declaration of Independence,
the Constitution of the United States, the Origin of Species, the Sermon
on the Mount.—Nature of mathematical transformation. No transformation, no
thinking. Transformation law essentially psychological, Relation function
and transformation as three aspects of one thing. Its study, the common
enterprise of science. The static and the dynamic worlds. The problem of
time and kindred problems. Importation of time and suppression of time as
the classic devices of sciences.—The nature of invariance. The ages-old
problem of permanence and change. The quest of what abides in a fluctuant
world as the binding thread of human history. The tie of comradeship among
the enterprises of human spirit.—The concept of a group. The notion simply
exemplified in many fields, is “Mind” a group. The philosophy of the
cosmic year.—Limits and limit processes omnipresent as ideals and
idealization, in all thought and human aspiration. Ideals the flint of
reality.—Mathematical infinity, its dynamic and static aspects. Need of
history of the Imperious concept. The rôle of infinity in a mighty
poem.—Meaning of dimensionality. Distinction of imagination and
conception. Logical existence and sensuous existence. Open avenues to
unimaginable worlds.—The theory of logical types. A supreme application of
it to definition of man, and the science of human welfare.—The psychology
of mathematics and the mathematics of psychology. Both of them in their
infancy. Consequent retardation of science. The symmetry of thought. The
asymmetry of imagination.—Science and engineering. Science as engineering
in preparation. Engineering as science in action. Mathematics the guide of
the engineer. Engineering the guide of humanity. Humanity the civilizing
or Time-Binding class of life. Qualities essential to engineering
leadership. The ethics of the art. The engineer as educator, as scientist,
as philosopher, as psychologist, as economist, as statesman, as
mathematical thinker—as a Man.
Appendix II. Biology And Time-Binding
The life of one man is short, and to very few is it given to achieve much
in their lifetime. Extensive achievements are made almost entirely by many
men taking up the work done by a discoverer. In such a case, we arrive at
a _complete_ “truth,” not by the production of one man but by a chain of
men, but the initial discovery not only has to be produced but correctly
defined before it can be used and that is the important point to be made.
What we do not realize is the tremendous amount of mental work that is
lost by an incorrect use of words.
Human thought—that unique, subtle and yet most energetic phenomenon of
nature—is in the main wantonly wasted, because we do not use, or take
pains to use, suitable language; at the same time, false definitions lead
to consequences not merely wasteful but positively harmful. When ideas and
facts are falsely defined, they tend to bring us to false conclusions, and
false conclusions lead us in wrong directions, and life and knowledge
greatly suffer in consequence. Our progress is not a well ordered pursuit
after truth, as pure chance plays too large a part in it.
Until lately, logic was supposed to be the science of correct thinking,
but modern thought has progressed so far that the old logic is not able to
handle the great accumulated volume—the great complicated mass of existing
ideas and facts—and so we are forced to look for another instrument much
more expedient and powerful. There is no need to establish a new science
to replace logic; we simply have to look closer into the sciences at hand
and realize the fact, which was with us all the time, namely, that
mathematics and mathematical reasoning is nothing else than the true logic
of nature—nature’s universal tongue—the one means of expression that is
the same for all peoples. This is not a play on words, it is a fact which,
after investigation, everybody must admit. Everybody who wants to think
logically must think mathematically or give up any pretense of correct
thinking—there is no escape and all who refuse to investigate the justice
of this statement put themselves outside the pale of logically thinking
people. The application of rigorous thinking to life will even
revolutionize scientific methods by the introduction of right definitions,
correct classifications, just language, and so will lead to trustworthy
results. Very probably all our doctrines and creeds will have to be
revised; some rejected, some rectified, some broadened; bringing about
unanimity of all sciences and thus greatly increasing their effectiveness
in the pursuit of truth. This application of mathematics to life will even
revolutionize mathematics itself. In App. I it is suggested tentatively
how this may be accomplished.
As the seemingly ultimate and highest experimentally known energy is the
human time-binding energy, this new concept may lead to a change in our
present concepts of matter, space and time, in much the same way as the
discovery of radium has affected them. This problem can be solved only by
_scientific_ experiments with the _time_-binding energy.
In many, even in most, of the cases, the analysis of these phenomena
presents great technical difficulty, but why confuse our minds by being
afraid of, or being a slave of words? If instead of calling wine _wine_,
we called it by its chemical formula, would this, in any way, change the
quality of wine? Of course not. All the “qualities” will remain because
they are facts, and cannot be altered by words.
A most pathetic picture of the havoc and chaos which wrong use of words
brings into life and science is exhibited in all fields of thought by the
endless and bitter fighting over words not well defined. Mathematics has
been able to make its most stupendous achievements because of its method
of exact analysis of the continuum, dimensions, classes, relations,
functions, transfinite numbers, etc., and also of space and time.
Hitherto, not all of these conceptions in their sharply defined form have
had direct application to our daily life or to our world conception. The
thoughts expressed in App. I may suggest this “missing link”—connecting
mathematics more intimately with life.
Modern science knows that all energies can be somehow transformed from one
kind to another and that all of them represent one type of energetic
phenomena, no matter what is the origin of each. For example, a galvanic
or chemical battery produces the same kind of electricity as the
mechanical process of friction or the interaction of cosmic laws as in the
dynamo. In some instances, when our systems are suitably adjusted, the
transformations are reversible, that is, the energy results in a chemical
process—an accumulator; the chemical process results in electricity—the
galvanic battery; motion results in electricity—the dynamo; electricity
results in motion—the electric motor; etc. We know all energies are
somehow related to each other, in that their transformation is possible.
The effects produced by the same type of energy are absolutely the same—no
matter what its origin. The marvel of an electric lamp is the same marvel,
whether the origin of the electricity be chemical, mechanical or cosmic as
in the dynamo. The experiments in scientific biology have proved this to
be true in living organisms and just this is the tremendous importance of
the discoveries in scientific biology. Light and other energies react on
organisms in the same way as the chemical reactions and these phenomena
are reversible. More than that, living complex organisms have been
produced which grew to maturity through a chemical or mechanical treatment
of the egg, and this has been accomplished in the infancy of scientific
biology! (See _The Organisms as a Whole_, by Jacques Loeb.)
All phenomena _in nature_ are _natural_ and should be approached as
_such_. The human mind is at least an energy which can direct other
energies; it is incorrect and misleading to call it _super_natural. It is
of course true that we do not fully understand the nature of the human
mind and we shall learn to understand it when and only when we acquire
sense enough to recognize it as _natural_. If we persist in saying and
believing that the “spiritual evidences cannot be explained on a material
base,” this statement should be equally applicable to electricity or
radium. If this statement is false for these phenomena, it is equally
false for the mind or the so-called spiritual and will powers. The
scientific understanding of these phenomena will not “degrade” these
phenomena, _because that cannot be done. Facts remain facts and no
scientific explanation of a phenomenon can lower or degrade that which is
a fact._ Electricity is electricity and nothing else, no matter what its
origin; human time-binding energies (embracing all faculties) are the
highest of the known energies—equally magnificent and astonishing—no
matter what the base; and the scientific understanding of them will only
_add_ to our respect for them and for ourselves; it will unmistakably help
us to develop them indefinitely by mathematical analysis. The _base_ is
not the phenomenon—sulphuric acid and zinc _are not_ electricity;
time-binding energies _are not_ a pound of beefsteak, although a pound of
beefsteak may help to save life and be therefore _instrumental_ in the
production of a poem or of a sonata; but by no means can a beefsteak be
taken for either of them.
I have attempted, with some measure of success I trust, to solve these
problems in science and life; the results are astonishing, as they lead us
to a much higher and more embracing ethics than society has ever had. By
this analysis I prove that the understanding of this most stupendous but
NATURAL phenomenon of human life brings us to the scientifical source of
ethics and I prove that the so-called “highest ideals of humanity” have
nothing of “sentimentalism” or of the “_super_natural” in them, but are
exclusively the _fulfilment_ of the _natural laws_ for the _human class of
life_. The recognition of the fact that the phenomena of the human mind
are natural and as such conform to natural law has the further advantage
over the “supernatural” attitude in that we can no more evade a law of
human nature than the law of gravity; in other words, human ethics will
have the validity of natural law. With the supernatural attitude, it was
simple enough to avoid the issues of life, by a simple statement—“I do not
believe”—and that was enough to break all bonds and be free from the
“supernatural morale”—but to get away from the “natural morale” and
_remain_ HUMAN is IMPOSSIBLE. Whereas, with an artificially formulated
morale it was easy enough to break away by a simple mental speculation,
and feel perfectly satisfied as long as one escaped the jail; with a
morale made clear that it is a NATURAL LAW for the human class of life,
the curtain of sophistry and speculation is removed and everyone who
breaks away from the NATURAL LAWS FOR HUMANS, WILL KNOW BY HIMSELF, THAT
HE IS OUTSIDE THE LAW—FOR HUMANS.
Engineers are not metaphysicians, their field is not one of clever
argument but one of proved facts; their work is not to befog the air with
cloudy expressions or sophistry, but to create; their method is scientific
and their tool is mathematics. It is known that in remote antiquity, in
some temples electrical phenomena were known and were used to keep the
ignorant masses in awe and obedience. Shall we follow the methods used by
those magicians or shall we squarely face facts? Shall we look upon life,
and the usually so-called mental, spiritual phenomena, etc., as
_super_natural, simply because we do not understand them? It seems evident
that everything which _exists in nature, is natural_, no matter how simple
or complicated a phenomenon it is; and on no occasion can the so-called
“_super_natural” be anything else than a completely natural law, though it
may, at the moment, be above or beyond our present understanding. The
attitude of mind which admits the _super_natural blinds and frustrates any
analysis or any attempt at analysis. The unprejudiced analysis of the
so-called “supernatural” does not _alter_ any part of the strange and high
functions of it. The phenomena of the human time-binding energy are and
will remain the most precious, subtle and highest of known functions, no
matter what the origin. _Facts_ may not be _denied_ or _falsified_ if
analysis is to arrive at correct conclusions. The high dimensionality of
the human mind, the so-called spiritual and will powers, _are facts_ and
must be _accepted_ as such. It is about time to establish an exact science
to deal with them. The problems of animal life were approached without
prejudice, no supernatural “spark” was bothering us in our analysis—an
animal was an animal and nothing else—we did not intermix dimensions,
therefore we see that the “social structure” of the animals on a farm
never breaks down as they are managed on a scientific base with an
understanding of _their_ proper standards. Animals to-day live more
happily than man. We don’t allow animals to practice the “survival of the
fittest,” or “competition,” which is far too destructive. Our present
social system imposes these disastrous methods upon man alone, and the
result is that the hideous proverb “Homo homini lupus” has become true.
In modern science facts are not wanting, we have first but to know them.
If we take, for example, sulphuric acid and zinc and make what we call a
galvanic battery, we see that from two chemical substances a third—a
salt—is made in addition to which we have a peculiar energy produced
called electricity. Who does not know the marvelous properties of this
phenomenon?
Scientific biology has made tremendous progress lately; engineers cannot
afford to ignore the facts established in laboratory researches. The
problem of “life” and of other energies, hitherto considered
“_super_natural,” is well in hand, and proves to be none the less
astonishing though entirely natural. A number of scientists all over the
world are working at this problem and the scientific facts which they have
established, and which cannot now be denied, belong to-day to the realm of
practical life. Engineers, of course, have to know these facts;
mathematicians have to establish correct dimensions in the study of all
the sciences and people will have to study mathematical philosophy; only
then can the process of integration in any phase of thought be made
without mistakes. There is no escape from that, if _truth_ is what we
really want. But here one objection may be raised, an objection which for
some is a serious one indeed; namely, what will take the place of the old
philosophy, law and ethics, if human life is nothing else than a
physico-chemical process? To quote Doctor Jacques Loeb from his
_Mechanistic Conception of Life_: “If on the basis of a serious survey,
this question (_that all life phenomena can be unequivocally explained in
physico-chemical terms_—Author) can be answered in the affirmative, our
social and ethical life will have to be put on a scientific basis and our
rules of conduct must be brought into harmony with the results of
scientific biology. Not only is the mechanistic conception of life
compatible with ethics, it seems the only conception of life which can
lead to an understanding of the source of ethics.”
I hope to have proved in this book that _scientific_ ethics is based on
natural laws for the human class of life; that it is based on the
experimentally proved fact that Man is a Time-binder, naturally active as
such in time; and that this concept or definition of Man is rigorously
scientific and accounts for the highest functions of man—the highest of
the mental and spiritual perfections—without the need of any
“_super_natural” hypothesis.
Scientific biology proves the fact that life and all of its phenomena are
the results of some special physico-chemical processes, which manifest
themselves in some peculiar energies, of which the human mind is the
highest known form. These processes are known to be reversible, in that
some of these peculiar energies cause physico-chemical changes in their
own base; the process involved I propose to call biolysis, as I propose to
call biolyte the substances produced. These phenomena have a parallel
analogy in inorganic chemistry—in electricity—the difference being only in
the scale or dimension. When an electric current is passed through a
special battery called an accumulator or reversible battery, chemical
changes occur, in that new compounds are formed which possess a reversible
capacity; namely, in reproducing the former materials—that is, electricity
is generated. This process of forming chemical substances by the passing
of an electrical current is called electrolysis and the product so
produced is called electrolyte. At the same time it is a known fact that
organic chemistry is infinitely more complicated and variable than
inorganic chemistry. The energy produced by the reactions of some organic
chemical groups are, therefore, of a more complicated character and of
another dimension. One of these energies of organic chemistry which lately
has come into the scope of scientific analysis is called life—its
physico-chemical base is the protoplasm, which _result_ I call the
“time-linking” capacity or energy. This name is important for the
consequences it will bring about later on. The time-binding capacity or
energy of man (no matter what time is—if it is), which is unique to man,
is a most subtle complex; it is the highest known energy and probably has
many subdivisions. Ears are sensitive to the vibration of the air. Eyes
are sensitive to the more subtle vibrations of light; in a similar way,
the time-binding apparatus is sensitive to the most subtle energies;
besides which it has the capacity to register not only all of our
sensations but also the time-binding energies of other people; and it
apparently has the capacity to register the energies of the universe.
Here again we see the same continuity of phenomena; the protoplasm as a
complex organic physico-chemical unit which has the peculiarity to “live,”
to grow and multiply “autonomously” and this same autonomous peculiarity
_applies_ to the _time-binding energy_; it grows and multiplies
“autonomously” in its own dimension. The time-binding energy is a complex
radiating energy somewhat like the emanations of radium and it probably
also has many different subdivisions. _Note that the transformation of the
atom_ or the transformation of _radio-active substances after passing
different stages, is not complete but probably ends in lead, whereas the
transformation which occurs in the production of the time-binding energy
probably is complete or nearly complete and is that which I call the
time-binding energy. (See _App. I_.)_ All the higher characteristics of
man which it is customary to call the “mental, spiritual and will powers,”
etc., are embraced in this exact definition of energy—in the capacity of
time-binding. A diagram will better explain the continuity, evolution and
mechanism of this time-binding energy.
[ A series of circles, connected by lines, the leftmost circle being C1,
then next C2, and so on to C7. The first is connected to the second by
line T1, the second to the third by T2, etc. Each circle after the first
has within it an energy indication, E1, E2, etc. ]
Biology and Time-Binding.
_C__1_ is the physico-chemical base (for simplicity I represent the whole
complex as one base) of the human time-binding energy. _T__1_ is the
thought produced by a physico-chemical process (corresponding, for
illustration’s sake only, to electricity produced by a galvanic battery).
The thought _T__1_ in turn produces a physico-chemical effect _E__1_ on
the base _C__1_ (corresponding for the same reason to electrolysis and
electrolyte in electricity). _C__1_ and _E__1_ combined, or _C__2_
produces _T__2_ which again in turn affects the base and produces a
physico-chemical effect _E__2_, this new combination produces the energy
_T__3_, and so on ... theoretically without limits, as long as there is
_any source_ of energy upon which this special energy can draw. This
theory which I call the “spiral theory” represents a suggestive working
mechanism of the time-binding energy and is in accord with the latest
scientific discoveries. It explains the processes of all the mental and
so-called spiritual energies which have been such a puzzle to humanity,
and it also explains other phenomena which, until now, have had no
scientific explanation whatever.
The animals are _not_ time-binding, they have _not_ the capacity of the
“spiral”; therefore, they have not autonomous progress. At the same time,
it will be obvious that if we teach humans false ideas, we affect their
time-binding capacities and energies very seriously, by affecting in a
wrong way the physico-chemical base. This energy is so peculiar that it
embraces, if I may use the old expression, the highest ideals (when the
time-binding energy is unobstructed and is allowed to work normally), and
also the most criminal ideas (when the time-binding energy is obstructed
by false teachings and in consequence works abnormally). We cannot make
animals moral or immoral because they have not this time-binding capacity.
Whereas human progress can be very seriously affected by false ideas; in
other words, the biolyte of false teachings in the animal dimension must
be very different from the biolyte of true ideas in the human dimension.
Nature or nature’s laws happily cannot be completely deviated from or
violated—the time-binding energy cannot be completely suppressed in the
time-binding class of life. The false teachings that we are animals and
essentially brutal and selfish can, of course, degrade human nature not
only down to the animal level but lower still. Happily now science can
explain and prove how fundamentally fiendish in effect are these teachings
in the life and progress of human beings. It will be a shock to those who
teach, preach and practice animal standards and in the same breath
contradict themselves in any talking about “immortality” and “salvation”;
a little thought makes it perfectly clear that “animal standards” and
“salvation” or “immortality” simply exclude each other. With the natural
law of time-binding realized, the way is open to entering scientifically
upon the problem of immortality. The time-binding energies as well as
“life” follow the same type of exponential function. “The constant
synthesis then of specific material from simple compounds of a
non-specific character is the chief feature by which living matter differs
from non-living matter.... This problem of synthesis leads to the
assumption of immortality of the living cell, since there is no _a priori_
reason why this synthesis should ever come to a standstill of its own
accord as long as enough food is available and the proper outside physical
conditions are guaranteed.... The idea that the body cells are naturally
immortal and die only if exposed to extreme injuries such as prolonged
lack of oxygen or too high a temperature helps to make one problem more
intelligible. The medical student, who for the first time realizes that
life depends upon that one organ, the heart, doing its duty incessantly
for the seventy years or so allotted to man, is amazed at the
precariousness of our existence. It seems indeed uncanny that so delicate
a mechanism should function so regularly for so many years. The mysticism
connected with this and other phenomena of adaptation would disappear if
we would be certain that all cells are really immortal and that the fact
which demands an explanation is not the continued activity but the
cessation of activity in death. Thus we see that the idea of the
immortality of the body cell if it can be generalized may be destined to
become one of the main supports for a complete physico-chemical analysis
of life phenomena since it makes the durability of organisms
intelligible....” (_The Organism as a Whole_, by Jacques Loeb.)
The outlook for those who live and profess selfish, greedy, “space-binding
animal standards” is not very promising as disclosed by the “spiral,” but
unhappily we cannot help them; only time-binding—only fulfilling the
natural laws for humans—can give them the full benefit of their natural
capacities by which they will be able to raise themselves above animals
and their fate.
The results obtained in scientific biological researches are growing very
rapidly and every advance in their knowledge proves this theory to be
true. If they differ in a few instances it is not because the principles
of this theory are wrong, but because they intermix dimensions and use
words not sufficiently defined which always results in confusion and the
checking of the progress of science.
Most of the problems touched upon in this appendix from a mathematical
point of view are based upon laboratory facts. We have only to collect
them and there is little need of imagination to see their general bearing.
Since we have discovered the fact that Man is a time-binder (no matter
what time is) and have introduced the sense of dimensionality into the
study of life phenomena in general, a great many facts which were not
clear before become very clear now.
I wrote this book on a farm without any books at hand and I had been out
of touch with the progress of science for the five years spent in the war
service and war duties. My friend Dr. Grove-Korski, formerly at Berkeley
University, drew my attention particularly to the books of Dr. Jacques
Loeb. I found there a treasury of laboratory facts which illustrate as
nothing better could, the correctness of my theory. I found with deep
satisfaction that the new “scientific biology” is scientific because it
has used mathematical methods with notable regard to dimensionality—they
do not “milk an automobile.”
For the mathematician and the engineer, the “tropism theory of animal
conduct,” founded by Dr. J. Loeb, is of the greatest interest, because
this is a theory which analyses the functions and reactions of an organism
_as a whole_ and therefore there is no chance for confusion of ideas or
the intermixing of dimensions.
“Physiologists have long been in the habit of studying not the
reactions of the whole organism but the reactions of isolated
segments; the so-called reflexes. While it may seem justifiable to
construct the reactions of the organism as a whole from the
individual reflexes, such an attempt is in reality doomed to
failure, since the reactions produced in an isolated element
cannot be counted upon to occur when the same element is part of
the whole, on account of the mutual inhibitions which the
different parts of the organism produce upon each other when in
organic connection; and it is, therefore, impossible to express
the conduct of a whole animal as the algebraic sum of the reflexes
of its isolated segments.... It would, therefore, be a
misconception to speak of tropism as of reflexes, since tropisms
are reactions of the organism as a whole, while reflexes are
reactions of isolated segments. Reflexes and tropisms agree,
however, in one respect, inasmuch as both are obviously of a
purely physico-chemical character.” _Forced Movements—Tropism and
Animal Conduct._ By Jacques Loeb.
I will quote here only a very few passages, but these books are of such
importance that every mathematician and engineer should read them. They
are, if I may say so, a “mathematical biology”—the survey of a life long
study of “tropisms,” which is the name given to express “forced movements”
in organisms. They give the quintessence of laboratory experiments as to
what are the effects of different energies such as light (heliotropism),
electricity (galvanotropism), gravity (geotropism), etc., in their
reaction and influence upon the movements and actions of living organisms.
These experiments are conclusive and the conclusions arrived at cannot be
overlooked or evaded. The tremendous practical results of such scientific
methods are based upon two principles, namely: that, (1) the scientists
must think mathematically, their studies of the phenomena must be in
“systems” as a complex whole, and they must not intermix dimensions; (2)
they must see the danger and not be afraid of old words with wrong
meanings, but must use clear and rigorous thinking to eliminate the
prejudices in science—the poison of metaphysical speculating with words,
or verbalism. These books give ample proofs of how misleading and
obscuring are the words used and how basically wrong are the conclusions
arrived at by such scientists as still persist in using the
anthropomorphic or teleological methods of analysis. If a sceptical or
doubtful reader is interested to see an ample proof of how deadly is the
effect which an incorrect or unmathematical manner of thinking brings into
science and life—he also may be referred to these books. The following
quotations prove biologically that man is of a totally different
dimension—a totally different being than an animal. From Dr. Conklin I
quote only from his _Heredity and Environment_ and to save a repetition of
the title of the book, I will indicate the quotations by using only his
name. (All italics are indicated by A. K.)
“It would be of the greatest importance to show directly that the
_homologous proteins of different species are different_. _This
has been done_ for hemoglobins of the blood by Reichert and Brown,
who have shown by crystallographic measurements that the
hemoglobins of any species are definite substances for that
species.... The following sentences by Reichert and Brown seem to
indicate that this may be true for the crystals of hemoglobin.
‘_The hemoglobins of any species are different substances for that
species._ But upon comparing the corresponding substances
hemoglobins in different species of a genus it is generally found
that they differ the one from the other to a greater or less
degree; the differences being such that when complete
crystallographic data are available the different _species can be
distinguished_ by these _differences in their hemoglobins_’....
The facts thus far reported imply the suggestion that heredity of
the genus is determined by the proteins of a definite constitution
differing from the proteins of other genera. This constitution of
the proteins would therefore be responsible for the genus
heredity. The different species of a genus have all the same genus
proteins, but the proteins of each species of the same genus are
apparently different again in chemical constitution and hence they
may give rise to the specific biological or immunity reactions.”
_The Organism as a Whole_, by Jacques Loeb.
“_All peculiarities which are characteristic of a race, species,
genus, order, class and phylum are of course inherited_, otherwise
there would be no constant characteristics of these groups and no
possibility of classifying organisms. The chief characters of
every living thing are unalterably fixed by heredity. Men do not
gather grapes of thorns nor figs of thistles. Every living thing
produces off-spring after its own kind, Men, horses, cattle;
birds, reptiles, fishes; insects, mollusks, worms; polyps,
sponges, micro-organisms,—all of the million known species of
animals and plants differ from one another because of inherited
peculiarities, _because they have come from different kinds of
germ cells_.” Conklin.
“The entire organism consisting of structures and functions, body
and mind, develops out of the germ, and the organization of the
germ determines all the possibilities of development of the mind
no less than of the body, though the actual realization of any
possibility is dependent also upon environmental stimuli.”...
Conklin.
“The development of the mind _parallels that of the body_;
whatever the ultimate relation of the mind and body may be, there
can be _no_ reasonable _doubt_ that the two develop together from
the germ. It is a curious fact that many people who are seriously
disturbed by scientific teaching as to the evolution or gradual
development of the human race accept with equanimity the universal
observation as to the development of the human individual,—mind as
well as body. The animal ancestry of the race is surely no more
disturbing to philosophical or religious beliefs than the germinal
origin of the individual, and yet the latter is a fact of
universal observation which cannot be relegated to the domain of
hypothesis or theory, and which can not be successfully denied....
Now we know that the child comes from the germ cells which are not
made by the bodies of the parents but have arisen by the division
of the antecedent germ cell. _Every cell comes from a pre-existing
cell_ by a process of division, and _every germ cell comes from a
pre-existing germ cell_. Consequently it is not possible to hold,
that the body generates germ cells, nor that the soul generates
souls. The only possible scientific position is that the _mind_ or
soul as well as the body develops from the _germ_.
“No fact in human experience is more certain than that the mind
develops by gradual and natural processes from a simple condition
which can scarcely be called mind at all; no fact in human
experience is fraught with greater practical and philosophical
significance than this, and yet no fact is more generally
disregarded.” Conklin.
“Doubtless the elements of which _consciousness_ develops are
_present in the germ cells_, in the same sense that the elements
of the other psychic processes or of the organs of the body are
there present; not as a miniature of the adult condition, but
rather in the form of elements or factors, which by long series of
combinations and transformations, due to interactions with one
another and with the environment, give rise to the fully developed
condition.... It is an interesting fact that in man, and in
several other animals which may be assumed to have a sense of
identity, the nerve cells, especially those of the _brain_, _cease
dividing_ at an early age, and these identical cells persist
throughout the remainder of life.”...
“The hen does not produce the egg, but the egg produces the hen
and also other eggs. Individual traits are not transmitted from
the hen to the egg, but they develop out of germinal factors which
are carried along from _cell to cell, and from generation to
generation_....”
“The germ is the undeveloped organism which forms the bond between
successive generations; the person is the developed organism which
arises from the germ under the influence of environmental
conditions, the person develops and dies in each generation; the
germ-plasm is the continuous stream of living substance which
connects all generations. The person nourishes and protects the
germ, and in this sense the person is merely the carrier of the
germ-plasm, the _mortal trustee_ of an immortal substance.”
Conklin.
This is what I call “time-linking.” (Author.)
“Through intelligence and social cooperation he is able to control
environment for particular ends, in a manner quite impossible in
other organisms.... Other animals develop much more rapidly than
man but that development sooner comes to an end. The children of
lower races of man develop more rapidly than those of higher races
but in such cases they also cease to develop at an earlier age.
The prolongation of the period of infancy and of immaturity in the
human race greatly increases the importance of environment and
training as _factors of development_.” Conklin.
Another sidelight given on the “Spiral theory.” (Author.)