Alfred Korzybski - Time Binding

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.
htm
European Society for General Semantics
TIME-BINDING:
The General Theory
BY
ALFRED KORZYBSKI
TIME-BINDING:
The General Theory
BY
ALFRED KORZYBSKI
Presented in abstract before the

International Mathematical Congress, August, 1924.
Toronto, Canada.
NEW YORK
E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY
681 Fifth Avenue
http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (1 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm
Copyright, 1924 by
ALFRED KORZYBSKI
Warsaw, Poland, and New York City
All international rights reserved.
Printed by the Graphic Press, 39 W. 8th St., N. Y. C.

Photographs by the Fernand Studios, N. Y. C.
TIME-BINDING: The General Theory
by ALFRED KORZYBSKI
Presented in abstract before the International

Mathematical Congress, August, 1924, Toronto, Canada.
(This paper is a summary of a larger work on Human Engineering soon to be published.
ALL HUMAN knowledge is conditioned and limited, at present, by the properties of light and human
symbolism. The solution of all human problems depends upon inquiries into these two conditions and
limitations.
Einstein's theory is a fundamental inquiry and application of the known properties of light; the irrefutable
minimum of his theory results in an entirely new world conception, as beautiful and cheerful as the old ones
were gloomy and despairing.
The minimum of our inquiry into the structure of human knowledge and symbolism is also irrefutable, and
this beginning, imperfect as it may be, has already enormous beneficial consequences.
Einstein's theory was the application of modern scientific methods to the universe, man excluded. The
present inquiry includes man in the field of modern science. As a result, both theories meet on a common
ground.
The theory presented here is broader than Einstein's. It may be proved that the whole of the theory of
relativity can be deduced from the application of correct symbolism to facts; so that the general theory of
Time-binding includes the general theory of relativity as a particular case.
For a full understanding this essay should be read twice, at least, because the beginning presupposes the
end, and vice versa. This theory is built upon the minimum of the best ascertained scientific facts of 1924.
Its scientific soundness has to be judged on theoretical grounds (1924). Its working cannot be judged by
arguments, only by application. Fortunately, it works with the reader who has understood it. If it does not
work, the reader has not understood.
(5)
We cannot argue as to whether the sun is shining, we must go and see. In the case here presented,
arguments alone are also not legitimate.
Statements containing variables are called "propositional functions"; they are neither true nor false. When
values are assigned to such variables the expressions become propositions, which are either true or false.
(Russell.)
Many words are names for stages of processes and are therefore variables, as for instance, "civilization",
"science", "humanity", "mathematics", etc., etc. To generate a proposition with such words, we must assign
to them a value through the use of co-ordinates. For our purpose, it will be sufficient to use only the time-co-
ordinate, which will be indicated by the year in parenthesis, such as "science (1924)."
Obviously "science (1924)" is a different affair from "science (1500)," or "science (300 B. C.)." In the field
of this investigation the term "science" means, for the majority, "science (300 B. C.)," or, at best, "science
(1800 A. D.)." For such readers, this inquiry will be incomprehensible.
Most, not all, of the details of this general theory are vaguely known; it seems that the main novelty consists
in the building up of an autonomous system. Such systems, if scientific, are useful; they economize thought
and bring to light truths as well as fallacies. In a deeper sense fallacies, if scientific, are often as useful as
truths, because they open new and unexpected fields for inquiry. Probably no system is true, although this
statement does not include mathematics which does not claim to be true but to be correct.
The scientific revolution started with Geometry, and, in a deeper sense, it is carried on by Geometry. Until
Gauss, Lobachevski, Bolyai, Riemann, etc., the Euclidean Geometry, being unique, was theologically
believed to be the geometry of the space. The moment a second geometry was produced, "just as good," self-
consistent, yet contradictory to the old one, the geometry became a geometry. None was unique. One
absolute was dead. Until Einstein (roughly) the universe of Newton was for us the universe. With Einstein it
became a universe. The same happened to man. A new "man" was produced, "just as good" and a trifle
better, yet contradictory to the old one.[1] The man became a man, otherwise a conceptual construction, one
among the infinity of possible ones.
(6)
Granting, for the time being, all that mathematicians say about mathematics (1924), there are two aspects of
mathematics which have been neglected.

That which has symbols and propositions is a language. This aspect must be taken into account.[2] Besides,
if we free mathematics entirely from theology, mathematics may be viewed as an activity of these bags of
protoplasm called "Smith," "Brown," etc. This aspect makes mathematics a form of behaviour of man. No
psychology of man can ever be valid so long as we disregard entirely this most characteristic behaviour of
man. It explains the utter failure of the old mythological psychologies, and the failure of those
contemporary students of psychology whose scientific standards and mental age are somewhere B. C.
Lately the natural sciences have firmly established the fact that an organism should be treated "as-a-
whole" (Loeb, Ritter, etc.). The theory of relativity has established another fact, that all we know and may
know is a "joint phenomenon" of the observer and the observed. Indeed there is no such thing as an
"observer," without something to observe, neither such thing as the "observed," without somebody making
the observation.
Any inquiry into the affairs of man with any pretense of being scientific (1924), must take into account
these two fundamental principles or fail.
Our daily language, and, in most cases, our so-called scientific language together with its logic, originated
mostly in a pre-scientific epoch and are largely elementalistic and absolutistic; which must hamper
successful reasoning and solutions.
It has been known for some years that we cannot speak sense about man in the old language. Although
Wittgenstein has proved this point, he did not show us the way out. The way out is simple. We must form a
new vocabulary, which would be in accord with the above-mentioned principles.
Some authors have already used new terms successfully, yet they did not explain the importance of these
new terms. For instance the late J. Loeb introduced the term "Tropism" to cover the forced movements of
the organism "as-a-whole"; the present writer introduced the term "Time-binding" to cover all the factors
"as-a-whole" which made man, a man. We may agree that man differs somehow from ani-
(7)
mals by the capacity for building this accumulative affair called civilization. In the old way we could argue
endlessly about "what made civilization possible." Some say that "thinking" made it, others say that
"speech" is responsible (Watson), or writing, etc., etc. As a matter of brute fact, all such statements, taken
separately, are false, because civilization is a joint affair of all of them and an infinity of others, as yet not
abstracted.
The new words do perform the task, because they do not split what, for our purpose, should not be separated
(Poincaré). This explains why the language of this paper is not our usual one.
The old subject-predicate language and logic veil the inter-relatedness of nature (Whitehead); the new,
brings these relations to a sharp focus (Korzybski).

There is a profound difference, indeed, between a man-made green leaf and a non-man-made green leaf. In
the first, green color was added, it is a "plus" affair, it was "made." In the second, color was not added, it is
a functional affair, it was not made, it "happened," "became."
Quite obviously, a subject-predicate "plus" language and logic can cover man-made "plus" affairs, but
cannot cover functional affairs, "happenings," "becomings"—where, for instance, the natural greenness of
the leaf is inherent in the leaf itself, which is not the case with a man-made leaf.
Only a functional logic and language can cover functional natural phenomena (Korzybski). Such logic and
language have been built by modern mathematical discoveries (Whitehead, Russell, Keyser, etc.). To treat
man at least as fairly as we treat a green leaf, the same methods must be used.
Universal Peace—(be it family, school, industrial, economic, political, scientific, personal, international and
what not) depends ultimately on Universal Agreement.
Universal Agreement—is finally based on Rigorous Demonstration. Rigorous Demonstration—absolutely
depends on Definitions.
Definitions—are ultimately conditioned by
Correct Symbolism.
So, if we want universal agreement, we must start with correct symbolism. Before a theory of correct
symbolism may be written down it must already have started with correct symbolism. It must be felt
instinctively. A prototype of correct symbolism we may find in mathematics.
(8)
A word is a symbol. Before a sign may become a symbol something must exist for this sign to symbolize,
else the sign has no meaning; it is not a symbol, not a word, but a noise. For our purpose we may speak, in
the rough, of two kinds of existence, namely, the physical existence, somehow connected with persistence,
and logical existence. By logical existence we mean in this case a thinkable thought, otherwise free from
self-contradiction (Poincaré). A "word" which labels a self-contradictory "idea" is not a word, not a symbol,
because it symbolizes nothing; if spoken, it is a noise, or if written, a blot of black on white; it is
meaningless, no matter how many thousands of volumes have been written about it.
If we use such noises as significant words, it is a fraud played on the other fellow. Such acts should and will
be some day, listed in the criminal codes of civilized countries as among the most harmful crimes against
civilization.
With this introduction permanently in mind we may proceed, provided we agree that we will try to talk
sense about "man." If this unusual request is granted, our task is not difficult; without it, it is impossible.
Let us imagine a genetic series, father-son-grandson, etc. We start with "Amoeba I" (A1), and end the series
with "Albert Einstein" (AE). Somewhere near the end there is an individual, "Adam" (A). All individuals
are very "real," and every one of them is different. According to one of the important rules of correct
symbolism we label every individual with a different name, so that every individual has one and only one
name.
We wish, (it is only our pleasure) to produce two other words "man" and "animal." I said "We wish"; it is so
because there is no such thing in the world as "a man" or "an animal." These labels are names for
abstractions of high order, for "ideas" and not things. Smith, Brown, Jones, etc., are "realities," objects, but
they all are different, and the collective name "man" is given to an idea and not a thing. This point is
extremely important, and I would suggest to the reader to be entirely convinced on this point before he
proceeds, otherwise he will not be able to follow the rest.
Incidentally we see that the naturalistic, as well as anti-naturalistic creeds are false, because both are based
on the false assumption that "a man" or "an animal" is a thing.
If we want to talk sense about the ideas "man" and "animal", we must have them sharply defined, otherwise
confusion must fol-
(9)
low. We do not want to produce unnecessary new words; we inquire whether the old terms in which we
used to speak about the terms "man" and "animal" will serve our purpose, which is to talk sense. There is
one condition, among others, which must be fulfilled, namely the terms must be sharp. We pick any of the
old terms, let us say, for instance, the term "thinking."
How do we get this term? We find that we watched the behaviour of Smith, Brown, Jones, etc.; we passed
through a mental process of abstraction, generalization, assumption, inference and what not, and in this way
we got our term "thinking." We do the same with, let us say, "Fido" (I select Fido because the majority of us
know and like dogs). We watch the behaviour of different dogs, Fido I, Fido II, Fido III, etc.; we pass
through the same processes of abstraction, etc. and we conclude, "Fido thinks." Obviously the term
"thinking" is not sharp, and because it is not sharp, we must abandon it as useless. We may retain this term
for family use, but science is a public activity, and for public use nicknames will not do.
The problem now is such that we want to keep the useful terms "man" and "animal" and we have no terms
in which we could talk sense about them. There is only one way out, namely, to produce new terms which
will be sharp. As "man" and "animal" are not things but logical entities, the finding of those sharp
definitions is a problem of ingenuity only.
We observe again our genetic series; we note that "man" is an accumulative class of life with a special high
rate, in that the son may start where the father ended, and that "animals" are not accumulative, or, if
accumulative, they are so with a different and slower rate. With Korzybski we label these two different rates
of accumulation "Time-binding" for "man," and "Space-binding" for "animals."
Amoeba I Adam Albert Einstein

I........................................................ I......................... I...........................
————animal———— ——————man—————
Non-accumulative class of life or
accumulative class of life, with
if accumulative, with a different
a rapid rate, which we label:
and slower rate, which we label:
"Time-binding"
"Space-binding"
These differences are sharp.
The foundation for a deductive science of man is thus laid down.
(10)
If we inquire into the mechanism of this rapid accumulation (Time-binding, PRt) we should be entitled to
expect that we will strike the very core of our problem. This actually happens with most unexpected results.
We must stop here to emphasize, and it cannot be over-emphasized, namely, the power of the method. We
cannot talk sense in the old "psychological" terms, therefore we deliberately avoid such terms; we carry on
our inquiry in a "queer" engineering way and language, yet the results are deeply psychological. This
inquiry unravels to us the deepest secret of man as man, a secret which neither psychology nor philosophy
had ever disclosed and capitalized (the last three words represent one idea). The explanation is simple: This
could not be done before the physico-mathematical revolution of modern science.
II
THE reader is warned about an extremely important principle entirely disregarded in practice, namely, that
what can be shown cannot be said (Wittgenstein). If we show something which we call "a pencil," it is an
entirely different affair than when we speak of "a pencil." The content of the first is inexhaustible, the
second is a concept, with finite content, fixed by a definition.
The following applies to things, and therefore the actual thing should always be shown.
We take something (anything) let us say a pencil; we show it and ask, "What is this?" This is a process, a
chunk of nature, a clog of electricity, a mad dance of electrons; this is something acted upon by everything
else, and reacting upon everything else; this is something which is different all the time, something which
we can never recognize, because when it is gone, it is gone, etc.
This something which we can never recognize we call an event (Minkowski, Lorentz, Einstein, Whitehead,
Planck, Millikan, etc.). The number of characteristics an event has, is infinite.
Yet in this event which we cannot recognize there is something fairly permanent which we can recognize.
This we call an object (Whitehead). We label our object with a special symbol which we call a word.
The accompanying picture represents the Anthropometer, a plastic diagram to illustrate what has been said.
C represents the "event"; it is a broken-off paraboloid which indicates extension to infinity, while the holes
represent characteristics, infinite in number.
(11)

(12)
B is the object of finite size with a large, yet finite, number of characteristics.
A is the label—a word. The holes, also, represent characteristics.
What is an object? An object is a first abstraction, a first rough summary, a first integration, etc., of the
infinite number of characteristics of the event, into the few characteristics of the object. This process of
abstracting is indicated by lines F.
What is the label? The label is a symbol. A symbol for what? For an abstraction of first order
In the history of mankind two, and only two, answers have been given to this all-important question; one
was that the symbol was for a "percept," the other that for a "concept." Both of these answers are
elementalistic, and therefore fallacious. Our positive answer settles one of the most troublesome and
important problems of the theory of knowledge, as to the meaning of the symbol. We see that I cannot know
what YOU abstract, unless YOU tell ME. Otherwise the meaning of the symbol MUST be given by a
DEFINITION
We get the meaning of our symbol by defining it, that is by abstracting a second time (F1) from the many
characteristics of the object into the still fewer characteristics of the label. The symbol is a second order
abstraction. Then follow abstractions of higher orders.
How about Fido? We defined objects in terms of recognition, therefore "who recognizes has objects." It
means, by definition, that Fido "has objects." Are his objects the same as ours? Similar, but not the same
(D). For instance, we can not recognize our own gloves among a thousand of gloves, but Fido can. Has Fido
"symbols"? Yes, he barks at a cat and another Fido "knows" somehow, something. But his symbols are not
articulate (E).
We see that Fido's objects (D) are first-order abstractions; what he lacks is the second and higher-order
abstractions. It must be remembered that the new language of orders of abstractions has the flexibility and
exactness of number series. We could ascribe to Fido many orders of abstractions, but man would have still
higher. I take here the simplest case; the other refinements would not alter the method, and this is important.
We see that the difference between "Fido" and "Smith" is in the order of abstractions, and this difference is
sharp.
Here a crucial question arises. No doubt Fido did the abstracting; does Fido know, and can Fido know that
he abstracts? The answer is positive (due to the method): Fido does not know and cannot know
(13)
that he abstracts, because it takes science to know that we abstract, and Fido has no science, as a matter of
brute fact.
This faculty for building higher and higher abstractions is the mechanism of the characteristic rapid
accumulation, which makes man a man.
If, for instance, we could see an electron in its flight, the world would be a maze; no law, no order, no
intelligence would be possible.
The first nerve, the first dynamic gradient (Professor Child) (a) was not stimulated by all of (b) but only by
a small part (c). (a) got the experience of (b) by exploring, summarizing, abstracting the (c's), and so it goes
all through life, man included.
Life and "intelligence" and abstracting start together, this being the result of the physico-chemical structure
of living organisms. The function builds the organ (Professor Child). The mechanism of the rapid human
accumulation is the faculty for higher and higher abstractions, which accelerate its progress at a
permanently increasing rate.
The term "abstracting" is used here in the "organism-as-a-whole" way, where "senses" and "mind" are not
divided; we know that the old elementalistic methods are not valid.
The complexities of life and of the organism become intelligible in terms of orders of abstractions, and it
must be repeated again, that it is immaterial how many orders of abstractions we ascribe to an organism—
the method remains the same.
We may illustrate what was said by a simple experimental fact. We all know an electric fan. When the fan is
rotating rapidly we do not see the separate blades (a) but we see a disk, a shield (b). "Matter" and "objects"
are such shields or disks; in other words a "joint phenomenon" of the rotating blades and our abstracting
organism. We cannot put our finger through the disk, although it
(14)
is a fiction, because the rotation of the blades is much more rapid (for one of the reasons) than the velocity
of our finger. Similar reasons explain why we cannot put our finger through a table; it takes an X-ray to be
able to do so, in some instances.
The Anthropometer shows to the physical eye, that in human economy (A) is not (B) and (B) is not (C) (this
must be shown on the Anthropometer); in animal economy (A) is (B) and (B) is (C); in other words, the
animal does not discriminate between the three. If man omits to discriminate, he copies the animals in
thinking.
This simple fact is the solution of practically all human troubles. The reader should not be misled by the
childish simplicity of this all-important issue. As a matter of fact we nearly all, until this day copy Fidos in
our thinking, by not being conscious that we abstract. This habit so permeates our old theories and practice,
that one has to have the Anthropometer before him for some time to overcome this pernicious habit. Those
who copy Fido must be dogmatists, categorists, absolutists, "know-alls"; they must be fanatics, intolerant;
when they meet others of their kind, a fight must follow, etc. They do not want to think, they are not
interested to investigate, for why should they? They "know it all," they are self-satisfied in their ignorance,

they "know" that they "know all," which is all there is to know about it. They will persecute others who
think. For them thinking and science are crimes, or, at best, unnecessary waste of time; and, if forced to
think, it is a serious pain to them. They take everything for granted, critical thought and the spirit of inquiry
is entirely foreign to their makeup.
Man to be a man and think as a man must be a relativist, which is an inevitable consequence of the
application of correct symbolism to
(15)
facts. He knows that he does not know, but may know indefinitely more, that his knowledge is only limited
by his own ingenuity and nothing else. This feeling liberates his creative faculties, arouses his interest, his
energy, builds up his character and puts his strivings on a very high level. His sporting spirit is aroused; he
wants to know more; he wants to inquire and think; in fact, with the understanding of the Anthropometer he
must think, there is no escape for him, and thinking becomes a pleasure to him as well as a necessity.
This explains, also, the well-known fact that with the Fido-way imposed upon mankind, it was impossible
to make a man think. But with the Anthropometer introduced into homes and elementary schools, it is
impossible to stop man from thinking.
A man who understands and applies the Anthropometer will never take a word for granted; instead, he will
ask indefinitely, "What do you mean?" and this, ultimately, leads to inquiry into facts, correct symbolism,
and universal agreement. The important thing is to get the feeling that we abstract, firmly rooted into the
minds of the children.
This achieved, the rest follows automatically.
All disputes such as the fight between the vitalists and the mechanists; the modernists and the
fundamentalists; naturalists and anti-naturalists; the Newtonians and the relativists, etc., evaporate, since
these are mostly due to the objectification of higher abstractions, the Fidoism in our thinking processes.
The elimination of the Fido-ways would affect, in an extremely beneficial manner, our old economic
system; it would bring sanity where, at present, there is none.
What is money? Money is a symbol. A symbol for what? For all human Time-binding faculties; animals
have it not. No doubt bees produce goods—honey, but these goods of the bees are not wealth until man puts
his hands on them. Money is not edible or habitable, it is worthless if the other fellow refuses to take it. The
reality behind the symbol is human agreement, or else the value behind the symbol is doctrinal. Fido does
not discriminate between A and B, and B and C (see the Anthropometer). He worships the symbol alone.
"In Gold we trust" is his motto, with all its destructive consequences. Man must not forget the reality which
is behind the symbol. It is amusing to see how the so-called "practical man" deals, mostly, with fictitious
values, for which he is willing to live and die. When he has the upper-hand and ignorantly plays with
symbols, dis-
(16)
regarding the realities behind the symbols, of course, he drives civilization to disasters. Life is full of them.
We see also the utter folly of anyone making a race to accumulate symbols, worthless in themselves,
destroying the mental and moral values which are behind them. For it is useless to own a mentally
disorganized world, such "ownership" is a fiction, no matter how stable it may look on paper.
Commercialism, as a creed, is such a folly.
Some day even economists, bankers and merchants will understand that such "impractical" works, as the
present one, for instance, on the stabilization of doctrinal values, are directly working toward the
stabilization of an economic system; which the former, in their ignorance, do their best to keep unscientific
and, therefore, unbalanced.
But such thoughts are beyond the Fidos, and the world is drifting rapidly toward further catastrophes.[3]
We may outline a few more, important consequences. The understanding and the training with the
Anthropometer would help scientists in all lines of research, for there are no "facts" free from some
"doctrine." There are only "facts" with bad logic and facts with good logic. Gross empiricism is a delusion,
and he who professes it as a creed is probably more mistaken than the old metaphysicians were.
Deduction works relatively until we bump our nose Deduction works absolutely, if correct. We never can
on these particulars left out. bump our nose, because no particular is left out.

(17)
Mathematical abstractions differ from our daily abstractions by the fact that mathematical abstractions
include the particulars, in mathematics we go by remembering (Lambert, Cassirer); the opposite is the case
with our daily language, wherein abstractions leave the particulars out. We go by forgetting, until we bump
our nose in our deductions on some particular left out.
The majority of our disasters is due to the not knowing or neglecting of this all important issue. The
Anthropometer, giving the consciousness that we abstract, brings these issues forcibly home.
We mostly all (mathematicians included) objectify our high abstractions, which is a confusion of order of
abstractions. But mathematics is unique in this respect, that mathematical abstractions have all particulars
included, and therefore these objectifications are not dangerous. This explains why mathematicians very
seldom show "practicality" in life; they objectify daily abstractions with great assurance in the same way
they do with mathematical abstractions, and disasters must follow.
The objectification of high abstractions is a terrible danger, because of these particulars left out, but the
moment we realize this, we are conscious of it, the danger is over.
If the event has an infinity of characteristics, then, obviously, from an event we can build up an infinity of
higher-order abstractions. Because of it the old "negative facts" become a much more fundamental source of
knowledge than the old "positive facts" (conventional). Einstein's theory is a brilliant example. When we
speak about something, what we actually do, is to exhibit the behaviour of a system of symbols, rather than
to say much about this world (Ogden). When the system misbehaves, then we learn something important
about this world.
The realization of it, the feeling of it, gives us these wings Couturat was speaking of, and Poincaré was
laughing at. It sets man free. The Anthropometer releases man from the old limitations of Fidoism, when
shown (not only said. A "knowing class of life" begins with "knowing," therefore, scientific method and
science is not a luxury for the privileged few; it is the very thing which differentiates "Smith's" "thinking"
from Fido's "thinking." The consciousness of abstracting which is so fundamental for man, is the awareness
of a faculty, and in this special case we can use this faculty only when we are aware that we have it.
The Anthropometer shows that the event is an absolute variable, different all the time; the object is a
relative variable, different for
(18)
every observer, the label is a constant, when posited by a definition. It follows that we cannot agree
(theoretically) about an object, and cannot disagree on the label.

These undeniable facts lay down the foundation for a positive theory of universal agreement, inherent in the
structure of human knowledge. From an event we can abstract an infinite number of abstractions of first and
higher orders. Only folly can make us fight for these abstractions, which are only poor selections among the
infinity of possible ones. We do not need to doubt human reason, we should distrust our language. There is
a world of difference between these two conceptions and attitudes.
The Anthropometer is built upon two fundamental primitive feelings, namely: that we abstract, showing on
the Anthropometer "This (A) is not this (B), and this (B) is not this (C)"; while for Fido "This (A) is this (B)
and this (B) is this (C)"; all three are one. And that of difference and of counting the differences (we do not
need actually to count them, the feeling is there just the same). Exactness here is not required, although it is
always desirable; the feeling that we abstract is all that is needed. This feeling, I repeat again, is the
awareness of a circular faculty, and is, therefore, necessary for its exercise.
As a result, universal agreement becomes a possibility. We can give the "scientific temper" to the masses in
a very short time. The dreams of Bertrand Russell may become true.
The modern physico-mathematical discoveries become very simple when explained on the Anthropometer.
Einstein simply refused to copy Fido, and objectify higher abstractions such as "space" and
"time" (Minkowski) and "matter" (Whitehead).
III
AS SHOWN before, the meaning of a label must be given by a definition. This fact gives us the means to
investigate the structure of all human knowledge.
Whenever and wherever we start, we must start with a set of words which are undefined, because we have,
by assumption, no more words to define them. This means that human knowledge, at every stage,
presupposes knowledge of these few undefined words. This is called, in logical terms, the circularity of
human knowledge.
We have never before faced this issue candidly, and it has ever been responsible, as it is today, for most of
all intellectual gloom and
(19)
skepticism. This inherent structure of human knowledge was called the "weak spot" of knowledge, which,
of course, it is not.
It cannot be theoretically denied that human knowledge is a faculty such that the son can start where the
father ended; therefore it always should start from the latter-end (1924) and not from the beginning. This
fact, as yet entirely ignored theoretically, shows that the naturalistic philosophies should be reversed as to
logic and order when they tackle the problem of man.

The gross empiricists, overwhelmed with horror against the old metaphysics, went to the other extreme, into
a mythology equally false to facts.
When we inquire indefinitely, "What do you mean?" accidentally we spoil every nice "talky-talk"; but we
also come to a set of undefined terms, which are postulates. All the rest of our vocabularies (not names for
things) are theorems, logical necessities of the starting set of terms strictly interwoven with the metaphysics
of the maker of the vocabulary. It may be mentioned that a babe, before he begins to understand anything
and to revise his feelings about the world around himself, has already his metaphysics aggravated by the
metaphysics of his parents, teachers, etc., away back to our savage ancestors. Of course, these metaphysics
are false to facts, but just the same it is first as to order.
We see that all human knowledge is geometrical in structure (I might say mathematical, but for serious
reasons, I prefer to say geometrical). Somewhere at the border line there is the metaphysics. The system is
strictly interdependent and bound up by "Logical Destiny," to use this beautiful expression of Professor
Keyser.
The expression "circularity of human knowledge," was used here in its logical sense, which is misleading if
taken literally. We must
(20)
start somewhere, somehow, anywhere, anyhow, with a set of undefined terms, then go ahead, come back,
revise our base (a) for (b), go ahead again, revise our base (b) for (c), go ahead again, and so on endlessly.
Human knowledge is inexhaustible. No set is undefined absolutely, but only relatively so.

In practice, things are much more complicated because we seldom, if ever, have one vocabulary. But we
must untangle first the simplest theoretical issue. The vocabularies (silent postulates) imply the theorems,
the theorems imply the postulates. He who accepts uncritically the vocabulary made by X, accepts
unwillingly and unbeknowingly X's metaphysics. This fact is of very great importance. If we accept the
vocabulary made by X and the metaphysics made by Y, we are lost in inconsistency, the world is an ugly
mess, unknown and unknowable. This mess, which is nearly always followed up by rampant pessimism, is
the necessary consequence of the misunderstanding of what is here explained. With understanding, our
troubles vanish, the world remains unknown (because the Fidos have so long persecuted science) but it
becomes knowable.
With all of this permanently in mind, it is easy to understand anybody else, just as a mathematician when he
hears a theorem, he knows usually from which geometry it is taken.
If we do not understand the above, we are slaves; if we know it, we are free, because we can select our
master (Keyser, Poincaré).
The geometrical structure of human knowledge shows that man is extremely logical, if we grant him his
conscious and unconscious premises (language). Whoever has any doubts about all of the mentioned issues
should visit an asylum, where he would see the working of this general theory in its nakedness. In daily life
and in semi-insane cases the issues are veiled by customs, habits, overlapping vocabu-

(21)
laries, and other doctrinal complications. It is known that "insane" people are extremely logical. In many
instances "insanity" is cured by making the unconscious premises conscious. Psychiatry, as yet, has no
preventive methods. The Anthropometer is such a preventive educational method against many cases of
insanity and different unbalanced states, due to inherited or inhibited false doctrines. A man full of false
doctrines cannot be a perfectly normal, healthy and useful man; neither can he copy Fido in his thinking
processes without somehow registering it to the detriment of society and himself.
When someone claims to be a "Napoleon" we lock him up. How about the majority of us? Do we not fancy
that we are what we are not? That is rather a serious question.
The psychiatrists have all the time to fight "absolutism" and "dogmatism," which in many instances are
responsible for different forms of insanity. They do so without the full understanding of the mechanism of
it.
The whole advancement of science and civilization shows that this theory is true, but as we did not know
explicitly the structure of human knowledge, every revision from (a) to (b) and from (b) to (c) (see page 21)
etc., was always painful and slow. We see that, as the structure of the atom is reflected in a grandiose
manner in the structure of the universe, so is the structure of the knowledge of the individual man reflected
in the collective knowledge of mankind called science, and vice versa.
IV. Consequences and Applications
AT THE present stage of our inquiry it is impossible to foresee all the consequences and applications of this
general theory by means of the Anthropometer, but some of them are manifest from the beginning, and are
manifold and weighty. I will summarize them, roughly only, as material for thought and further analysis.
It must be emphasized again that merely talking about the Anthropometer will not help much. This
prototype of the event and the object and the label must be shown. The moment we point our finger at them
and say "this," it cannot be covered by words, and it economizes thousands of words at once. Whoever
disregards this positive condition and misses the benefit of it, should not blame the theory and the
Anthropometer, but his disregard of a vital condition and issue. The old Fido-way is so deeply rooted in our
theories, practice, habits, systems, etc., that although I have had it on my desk for more than a year, my own
Fidoism shocks me far too often. In a
(22)
century or so, of course, we shall not need it, but such is not the case at present.
Some of the consequences are educational and scientific, some are suggestions for activities. We will start

with the educational and scientific ones.
The inherent circularity and geometrical structure of human knowledge proves the interconnection of our
vocabularies with our metaphysics. We see, that if we want humans to be humans and think as humans, we
must start our education from the latter-end (1924) by beginning with modern "metaphysics" of Planck,
Einstein, Whitehead, Russell, Keyser, etc., made possible by the understanding of the Anthropometer and
the structure of human knowledge.
We would then find, at once, the interest of the masses aroused, and thinking would start on an
unprecedented scale, with all its beneficial results. The "scientific temper" would overrun mankind in a few
years, facts and correct symbolism would count, and the exponential law PRt would begin to work properly.
Man is ultimately a doctrinal being. Even our language has its silent doctrines, and no activity of man is free
from some doctrines, so that the kind of metaphysics a man has, is not of indifference to his world outlook
and his behaviour.
We cannot expect when we force a dynamic being into the patterns of Fido static doctrines, that we will get
anything else but an unbalanced being in an unbalanced civilization.
The Anthropometer should be introduced into elementary schools and we should start our education with it,
everywhere. We must teach a small modern scientific vocabulary and train our children to think habitually
in these new terms; which automatically carry with them a new non-absolutistic world conception. Such
simple and mechanical means (they must be mechanical and simple if we hope to give them to the masses)
would impart to all mankind, not the knowledge, but the cultural results of university training. Such
methods, the complete reversal of the old, would stop Fido-ways in theory and practice.
The language of "concepts" is very difficult because that is an elementalistic, absolutistic term (as auxiliary
it may be useful) and will not do as our fundamental term. This doctrine is very difficult to teach even to
university students, to say nothing of the masses. The language of "abstractions of different orders" is not an
elementalistic term; it is a "joint-phenomenon," "organism-as-a-whole" modern new term; it is natural to
man, it can be shown to him, and is easily
(23)
grasped by children and people of very low mentality when shown on the Anthropometer.
We see that modern philosophers have heavy duties and responsibilities toward mankind; heavier, perhaps,
and more important than the duties and responsibilities of engineers and doctors. With the modern physico-
mathematical discoveries and mathematical discoveries, as those of Whitehead, Russell, the "doctrinal
function" of Keyser, etc., "philosophy" has ceased to be a divertisement of the few, it has become as vital an
inherent factor in all human life, as air, water, and sunshine. There are communities who have very little to
do with engineers or doctors, but no community in the world is free from some kind of "philosophy."

Among savage tribes we see how doctrines have prevented entirely any progress at all. The more civilized
races have advanced simply because they were more rebellious, and never could stick to an unrevised
doctrine for too long.
This is why we have had this semblance of civilization at all! It is not enough to discard philosophy entirely,
on the ground that most of it is foolish. Granted our old philosophies were foolish enough, whoever thinks
he can discard them entirely without supplanting them by others, sometimes equally foolish, deludes
himself. The problems at hand require philosophy, and ignorant vagaries will not do. It is about time that
mankind should hold the philosophers responsible. Ignorance is not an excuse.
It may as well be admitted that our old educational methods would have to be reversed. Babies should start
their education playing more with microscopes than toys. Before they learn to spell they should firmly feel,
at least, the structure of "matter," the structure of human knowledge, and the mechanism of human
symbolism. Then they would be equipped to be humans.
Science is not a luxury for the few, but as it leads to the consciousness that we abstract, science and
scientific method is precisely that, which makes man think and behave as man.
Non-scientific, half-education (in the sense of 1924, which we could, maybe, consider "scientific education"
in the sense of 300 B.C.) is not a boon to mankind in 1924, far from it. That is very natural in the meantime.
The conditions, environment, social inheritance, racial experience, other complications, with all
accompanying and novel nervous and mental pressure upon man in 1924, are entirely different from these in
300 B. C. Is his mental, nervous resistance and health properly taken care of? Are our educators and
(24)
doctors themselves modern men? Sad to say the answer is NO. We still educate man, drug him with
doctrines thousands of years old, doctrines which are inconsistent and false to facts. We still keep him in a
savage-made universe. This deep discrepancy must unbalance him, and periodically unbalance his
institutions. The sooner we understand this and modernize the antiquated branches of knowledge, the better
for all of us. There is hope for us, if we stop folly. Our old doctrines do not work even with savage tribes, as
practice shows. From the modern point of view the savage tribes do not gain anything by passing from one
kind of savage-made doctrines to another set of savage-made doctrines. Experiments should be made, by
taking some newly-born from different savage tribes, placing such children in highly cultured scientific
families and give them full scientific education, and see what would happen. The new doctrines would work
maybe, where the old failed.
The Anthropometer presents a synthesis of modern scientific strivings in a form ready for application.
In the old way we delude ourselves talking about the "education of the masses," and in the old way it is
hopeless. What we need most at present and what could be accomplished very quickly is the re-education of
the educated. A proper insistence by the scientists, and a few books for this purpose would perform the task.
The understanding of the Anthropometer shifts the center of gravity from something which is impossible to
something which is possible.
With a re-educated educated class the world would soon become a different place to live in.
The benefits of new terms are that occasionally they throw a new light on old problems, or quite often they
help in settling, in a positive way, old controversies. When some controversial questions are settled the
world accepts them quickly. What was roughly known but ignored, because veiled by the old language is
brought by the new language to a sharp focus. After the results are obtained, they may be explained in any
language, but the results, in most cases, could not be gotten in another way.
As a matter of fact, civilization has advanced in the shape of the diagram given on page 21, but as we did
not know that this was the inherent structure of human knowledge, every revision of our assumptions was
slow and accomplished with great suffering and bewilderment. The creative scientists and teachers were
persecuted and
(25)
hampered, mankind has paid a hideous price. The new understanding will stop persecution and propaganda
of any kind.
The popular introduction of the Anthropometer would also prevent the publication of nine-tenths of books
and the delivery of the majority of speeches, inasmuch as most of them are based on Fido-ways. Such
elimination would relieve us of a great amount of useless ballast.
We must repeat here that the theories of relativity have a still more general underlying theory, namely, the
general theory of time-binding. As this theory is so general it is therefore easy to grasp and teach, even to
children. It explains the refusal to accept high-order abstractions, such as "matter," "space," and "time," for
first order abstractions, which they are not. This is the minimum of science (1924) with which each babe
should start its education.
There are a few interesting points about "matter," "space" and "time." Taken separately they are abstractions
of high order and not objects, or abstractions of first order. If we objectify the high abstraction, we get a
fanciful universe, self-contradictory, a nature which is against human nature. Being logical, we invent
something supernatural to account for a nature against human nature. If "time" is an object, if it has
objective existence, then, obviously, it must have, as all objects have, a beginning and an end; then the
universe was made, it must have a "beginning of the beginning" (old "essences"), etc., etc., and the whole
old anthropomorphic mythology follows, by a purely logical process.
But if "time" is an abstraction of high order and not an object (first order abstraction), otherwise, if it does
not exist as an object, then, obviously, something which does not exist cannot have a "beginning," or a
"beginning of the beginning," the universe was not "made," etc. It just was, is, and will be. Obviously the
"primal substance" may quite happily be a myth in such a universe of transformation; we cannot exhaust it
in either direction.
Our universe is timeless. In another language, it is eternity in time, or, still in another language, infinity of
times (this is a generalization of experimental time). When times are very rapid we nervously summarize
times, and feel "time," a "duration." The "infinity of times" is nothing else, when translated in still another
language, than the law of conservation of energy. Incidentally it proves the existence of actual infinity.
(26)
The above explanations were given because the old Fido-ways are omnipresent. In a way they permeate all
mankind, and they must lead us to most acute mental disorders, reflected in behaviour. I do not know any
other phase of science in the whole history of civilization which would have a more profound and beneficial
influence upon the daily life of the man on the street, than the modern advancement of mathematical and
physico-mathematical sciences, when given to the masses and applied in education.
This understanding clears up another old fallacy. We are accustomed to hear that the old mythologies are
somehow "primary" with man. We see clearly that it is not true. Those mythologies are "secondary" with
man. What was primary is the objectification of high abstractions, the Fido-ways in our thinking processes.
Once this is eliminated by the Anthropometer, all the old vicious fictions automatically vanish.
If we confuse the orders of abstractions; if we fancy that the high abstractions are first-order abstractions,
which they are not, then we get "absolute matter," "absolute space," and "absolute time." If the world is
made up of "absolute matter," "absolute space," "absolute time" then of course such a structure cannot
account for "mind" and what not. The number of possibilities in such a universe are too limited, etc., etc.,
and all the rest follows. But if the world is made up of "quanta," "fields," etc., then all we see, we feel, we
know and can know are averages, summaries, abstractions of different orders, etc., etc. Only a language of
processes, transformations, variables, functions, integration, abstractions of different orders, probabilities,
etc., etc., can account for such a universe. Mathematics considered as an activity of the human organism,
reflects in its structure and form the structure and form of the universe. Being a language, it is the universal
tongue.
In such a universe all we deal with are combinations of high orders ("Matter" made up of molecules,
molecules of atoms, atoms of electrons, and so on, probably).
How the combinations of high order grow, as to numbers of possibilities, an instance taken from the
Principles of Science by Jevons will show. This simplest possible case which is far, far away from any
"simplicity" in nature, will show.
"The successive orders of the powers of two have, then, the following values, so far as we can succeed in
describing them:
First order ...................................................... 2

Second order ..................................................... 4

(27)
Third order ..................................................... 16

Fourth order ................................................ 65,536
Fifth order number expressed by 19,729 figures.
Sixth order number expressed by figures, to express the number of which figures would require about
19,729 figures."
By way of contrast Jevons gives us "that the almost inconceivably vast sphere of our stellar system if
entirely filled with solid matter, would contain more than about 68•1090 atoms, that is to say, a number
requiring for its expression 92 places of figures. Now, this number would be immensely less than the fifth
order of the powers of two."
Due to the modern knowledge of the structure of the world we see that practically everything becomes
possible, and may be understood, no matter when. The feeling of these issues, with the lack of
understanding of the simple law of growth of the higher order combinations, gives, I think, the base for
mystical feelings, which vanish as such, once these issues are understood. We can know, never mind when;
all the rest is a matter of method and science. In this way the unknowable becomes knowable. Correct
symbolism covers all these facts, also, and leads to the same conclusions.
The concept of order is fundamental, not only because it underlies all mathematics but, also, because it is
easily and obviously translated in terms of senses. This gives a base for a scientific vocabulary.
The savage-made language of "cause" and "effect" has also order in it, only it is a very short series—it is a
two-term relation. Yet, in the world around us, there is no such thing in existence as a two-term relation,
and therefore when we use a two-term relation, cause-effect, these two terms are overloaded with non-
crystallized "thought" (emotion), hence metaphysics of the wildest kind. Science expands the series into an
indefinite number of members. Old ignorance and metaphysics go.
The expansion of this series is the coefficient of our knowledge.
The theory, as expounded in this paper, seems to suggest directions in which some activities could be
started.
There seems to be no doubt that the recent physico-mathematical and logic-mathematical advancement of
science is affecting all branches of human knowledge in many unexpected directions. It seems without
question, that the scientists could not deal with these problems without the help of professional
mathematicians. If the
(28)
mathematicians refuse to cooperate with other branches of science, Human Engineering included, it will
probably take one or more generations before the whole beneficial effect of modern discoveries would be
felt in education and life.
The situation today is such that, in many serious instances, naturalists who know "facts" speak nonsense
quite happily, about them. The mathematicians who alone speak sense, know very little or nothing about
facts. The results are: slow advance, groping in the dark, thousands of false doctrines, and endless
arguments in vacuo. Science is a joint phenomenon of logic and "facts"; as there are no "facts" free from
some doctrine, therefore science should be carried on as a joint phenomenon. Experimentalists, for
example, should have very able and creative mathematicians who would work at logic and language, and
they should work together, jointly. Life is too short for one to be a specialist in several lines at once; science
has outgrown the individualistic epoch, it must become a group activity.
All our doctrines should be revised and correct symbolism should be applied to facts. The old philosophy is
dead in disgrace, the world is without co-ordinating guidance. To be fair to philosophers, no single person
nowadays could perform this co-ordinating work alone. It again must become a group activity.
If we want to avoid complete mental anarchy, which must be followed up some day by grave disturbances
in our behaviour, this problem of revision and co-ordination must be our urgent and immediate task. The
people of the world have lost the old faiths in their theories, their leaders, and themselves; this state, again is
another phase of other creeds as yet not crystallized. Only heroic measures can save us from still worse
turmoils.
When, for instance, biologists make statements about mathematics, or mathematicians make statements
about biology, such statements are always short somewhere on knowledge, they never are competent.
Statements should be made by biologists on biology, but with the full understanding of other branches of
knowledge; by mathematicians on mathematics, but also with full understanding of other achievements.
Such work could be done only and exclusively by a permanent body of the world's best scientists being
relieved from all other duties who, after getting acquainted with each other's specialities, would work
together on the revision of language and doctrines, and would prepare this co-ordination of knowledge.
Such a permanent body could
(29)
issue a yearly or quarterly journal which would give to mankind the revised and co-ordinated doctrines of
each "present" day.
Such a method would allow mankind to start every generation where the last one left off, and the progress
of civilization would follow the exponential law PRt. A copy of this general doctrinal summary should be
placed in the hands of every teacher throughout the world, by legislation if need be. There is no doubt that if
scientists themselves insist upon some such plan, mankind would accept it. After all, a united opinion of
those who, in the major part, are the driving force of civilization, is irresistible. Scientists would start with
such an institution a new period of human history which would be called the "scientific era." This body
might be called the "Senate of Humanity" (this name was suggested to me by Professor A. Vasiliev, and I
gratefully acknowledge it).
If the peoples of the world were told that the best scientists of the world are working on their problems they
would settle down and wait, some hope would be restored, otherwise they will not wait. The publications of
the "Senate of Humanity" would be stripped of technicalities so that the general public would understand
them. They would save an enormous amount of work to scientists and laymen by giving short, yet reliable,
informations in an already co-ordinated and revised form. With these budgets of knowledge, not of
paradoxes, mankind would come gradually out of the Fido era, into the scientific era.
We need not delude ourselves. The most important hindrances, in the old ways, are found in language and
the logics; these problems would remain the most important for a long time to come, and the
mathematicians would have to play nolens volens, a most conspicuous rôle, a rôle worthy of their science.
It follows from the geometrical structure of human knowledge, that the solution of all human problems lies
in frankly putting all branches of human endeavor upon a postulational base. Postulational treatment gives
us unique benefits, among others, it facilitates inspection, gives clarified systems of doctrines, and unifies
all other methods. Our debates would become limited to experimental testing of our sets of postulates.
It may be mentioned that such a library is being established in New York City under the name of
"International Library of Human Engineering" (Principia Scientiæ Hominis), which will originate a
deductive science of man, and deductive natural and other sciences.
(30)
This library will be at present under the editorship of one mathematician and one engineer, with an advisory
board of scientists from all countries in all branches of science. For geographical and linguistic reasons,
local national boards of co-editors will also be formed.
Until the Senate of Humanity is organized, this library with its international scientific boards, will be the
research and organizing center for the future permanent international body of scientists. Its publications
would be the handbooks for the future chairs of Human Engineering which sooner or later must be
established in all important universities of the world. Human Engineering, as every other branch of
engineering, would be based on mathematical methods.
Such is the outline of immediate constructive steps which could be taken. The problems at hand are
manifold, weighty, and difficult, beyond the power of any single man to deal with. A great deal of
responsible preparatory work must also be accomplished. Such work of course must be a group activity, and
it is hoped that the international advisory boards of the library will be able to accomplish a good deal of this
preparatory work.

(31)

(32)
A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
SCIENCE, METHOD
BROAD, C. D. Scientific Thought. London & N. Y.

CASSIRER, E. Substance and Function and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Chicago.
CAMPBELL, N. R. Physics, The Elements. Cambridge.
ENRIQUES, FEDERICO. Problems of Science. Chicago.
JEVONS, W. S. The Principles of Science. London.
MACH, E. Science of Mechanics. Chicago. Conservation of Energy. Chicago. Scientific Lectures. Chicago.
Space and Geometry. Chicago. The Analysis of Sensations. Chicago.
OGDEN, C. K. The Meaning of Meaning. London & N. Y.
POINCARE, H. The Foundations of Science. New York.
MATHEMATICS, MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY, LOGIC
BALDWIN, J. M. Thought and Things, 3 Vols. London, New York.

BONOLA, R. Non-Euclidian Geometry. Chicago.
BOOLE, GEORGE. Laws of Thought. Chicago.

BRUNSCHVIC. Les Etapes de la Philosophie Mathématique.
CAJORI, F. A History of Mathematics. London, New York.
CANTOR, G. Contribution to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers. Chicago.
COUTURAT, L. The Algebra of Logic. Chicago.
DEDEKIND, R. Essay on Number. Chicago.
HUNTINGTON, E. V. The Continuum. Harvard Press.
KEYNES, J. M. .A Treatise on Probability. London, New York.
KEYSER, C. J. The Human Worth of Rigorous Thinking. Columbia Univ. Press.
KEYSER, C. J. Mathematical Philosophy. E. P. Dutton, N. Y.
LEIBNIZ. The Early Mathematical Manuscripts of Leibniz. Chicago.
LEIBNIZ. New Essays Concerning Human Understanding. Chicago.
LEWIS, C. I. .A Survey of Symbolic Logic. Univ. of California Press.
LOBACHEVSKI, N. The Theory of Parallels. Chicago.
MANNING, H. P. Geometry of Four Dimensions. New York.
RUSSELL, B. The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge. Scientific Method in Philosophy. Chicago. The
Problems of Philosophy. New York. Mysticism and Logic. New York. Introduction to Mathematical
Philosophy. London, New York.
SHAW, J. B. Lectures on the Philosophy of Mathematics. Chicago.
SOMMERVILLE, D. M. Y. Non-Euclidian Geometry. London, Chicago.
WEATHERBURN, C. E. Elementary Vector Analysis. London, Chicago. Advanced Vector Analysis.
London, Chicago.
(35)
WHITEHEAD, A. N. and B. RUSSELL. Principia Mathematica. Vol. 1. Cambridge.

WHITEHEAD, A. N. An Introduction to Mathematics. New York. The Organization of Thought
Educational and Scientific. London. An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Natural Knowledge.
Cambridge. The Concept of Nature. Cambridge. The Principle of Relativity. Cambridge.
WINDELBAND, W. (Editor). Logic. London, New York.
WITTGENSTEIN, L. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London, New York.
YOUNG, J. W. A. (Editor). Monographs on Topics of Modern Mathematics. London and New York.
YOUNG, J. W. Lectures on Fundamental Concepts of Algebra and Geometry. New York.
THE THEORIES OF RELATIVITY.
BIRD, J. M. Einstein's Theories of Relativity and Gravitation. New York.

BIRKHOFF, G. D. Relativity and Modern Physics. Harvard University Press.
BOLTON, L. An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity. New York.
CARMICHAEL, R. D. The Theory of Relativity (postulational) 2nd Edition. London, New York.
CARR, H. W. The General Principle of Relativity (Philosophical). London, New York.
CUNNINGHAM, E. Relativity, The Electron Theory and Gravitation. London, New York.
EDDINGTON, A. S. Space, Time and Gravitation. Cambridge. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity.
Cambridge.
EINSTEIN, A. Relativity. N. Y. The Meaning of Relativity. Princeton Univ. Press. Sidelights on Relativity.
N. Y.
FREUNDLICH, E. The Foundation of Einstein's Theory of Gravitation. N. Y. The Theory of Relativity. N.
Y.
KOPFF, A. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity. N. Y.
MOSZKOWSKI, A. Einstein, the Searcher. N. Y.
NORDMANN, C. Einstein and the Universe. N. Y.
NUNN, T. P. Relativity and Gravitation. London and N. Y.
SCHLICK, M. Space and Time. Oxford Univ. Press.
WEYL, H. Space-Time-Matter. N. Y.
WHITEHEAD, A. N. The Principle of Relativity. Cambridge.
WILSON, E. B. The Space-Time Manifold of Relativity. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and
Science.
VASILIEV, A. V. Space, Time, Motion. (Historical). N. Y.
THE NEWER PHYSICS.
BORN, M. The Constitution of Matter. London. New York.

COMSTOCK, D. E. and L. T. TROLAND. The Nature of Matter and Electricity. New York.
GRAETZ, L. Recent Developments in Atomic Theory. New York.
HAAS, A. The New Physics. New York.
KAY, G. W. C. The Practical Application of X-Rays. New York.
LORING, F. H. Atomic Theories. New York.
(36)
PLANCK, M. The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory. Oxford.

REICHE, F. The Quantum Theory. New York.
RUSSELL, B. The A B C of Atoms. London. New York.
SOMMERFELD, A. Atomic Structure and Spectral Lines. New York.
STOCK, A. The Structure of Atoms. New York.
PSYCHIATRY
ADLER, A. Organ Inferiority and its Psychical Compensation. Washington.

The Neurotic Constitution.
DANA, C. L. Psychiatry in its Relation to Other Sciences. N. Y.
FREUD, S. Totem and Taboo. New York. General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. New York.
FOREL, A. Ants and some other Insects. Chicago.
GRASSET, J. The Semi Insane and the Semi Responsible. New York.
VON HUG HELLMUTH, H. A Study of the Mental Life of the Child. Washington.
JELLIFFE, S. E. Diseases of the Nervous System (with Dr. Wm. A. White). Technique of Psychoanalysis.
Washington. The Symbol as an Energy Container, J. of N. and M. D. Vol. 50, No. 6. Emotional and
Psychological Factors in Multiple Sclerosis. Ass. for Research in Nerv. and Ment. Dis. 1921. The
Parathyroid and Convulsive States. N. Y. Med. J., Dec. 4, 1920. Multiple Sclerosis and Psychoanalysis. A.
J. Med. Sc. May, 1921. Paleopsychology. Psychoanalytical Review. Vol. X, No. 2.
MEYER, A. Objective Psychology or Psychobiology. J. A. Med. Ass. Sept. 4, 1925. The Contribution of
Psychiatry to the Understanding of Life Problems. Address. What do Histories of Cases of Insanity Teach
Us Concerning Preventive Mental Hygiene During the Years of School Life. The Psychological Clinic
Press. Philadelphia. Inter-Relations of the Domain of Neuropsychiatry. Archives Neur. and Psychiatry. Aug.
1922. The Philosophy of Occupation Therapy. Arch. of Occup. Therapy, Vol. 1, No. 1.
KEMPF, E. The Autonomic Functions and the Personality. Washington.
WHITE, Wm. A. Outlines of Psychiatry. Washington. Foundations of Psychiatry. Washington. Mechanism
of Character Formation. New York. Principles of Mental Hygiene. New York. Insanity and the Criminal
Law, New York. The Mental Hygiene of Childhood. Boston. Thoughts of a Psychiatrist on the War and
After. New York. The Modern Treatment of Nervous and Mental Diseases (2 Vols.). (With Dr. Jelliffe.)
Text-book of Diseases of the Nervous System. (With Dr. Jelliffe.) An Introduction to the Study of the Mind.
Washington. Contribution of Modern Psychiatry to General Medicine. Mental Mechanism. Washington.
The Behavioristic Attitude. Reprint 101. Nat. Comm. For Mental Hygiene. New York. The New Functional
Psychiatry. Archives of Diagnosis, Oct., 1910. Principles Underlying The Classification of Diseases of the
Nervous System. J. A. Med. Ass., March 11, 1916. Psychoanalysis and the Practice of Medicine. J. A. Med.
Ass. June 2, 1917. Underlying Concepts in Mental Hygiene. Reprint 4 Nat. Comm. for Mental Hygiene.
New York. The Meaning of the Mental Hygiene Movement. Publ. No. 17. Massachusetts Soc. for Mental
Hygiene. Existing
(37)
Tendencies, Recent Developments and Correlations in the Field of Psychopathology. J. Ner. Men. Dis. July,
1922. The Meaning of "Faith Cures" and other Extra-Professional "Cures" in the Search for Mental
Health. A. J. Publ. Health, Vol. 4, No. 3. Psychoanalytic Parallels. Psychoan. Review. April, 1915.
Symbolism. Psychoan. Review. Jan., 1916. Individuality and Introversion (as above). Jan., 1916. The
Significance for Psychotherapy of Child's Developmental Gradients and the Dynamic Differentiation of the
Head Region (as above). Jan., 1917. The Autonomic Functions of the Personality (as above). Jan., 1919.
MISCELLANEOUS.
CANNON, W. B. Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage, New York.
CHILD, C. M. Individuality in Organisms. Chicago. Senescence and Rejuvenescence. Chicago. The Origin
and Development of the Nervous System. Chicago.
CONKLIN, E. G. Heredity and Environment. Princeton.
D’HERELLE, F. The Bacteriophage. Baltimore.
HERRICK, C. J. Introduction to Neurology. London, Philadelphia.
JENNINGS, H. S. Life and Death, Heredity and Evolution in Unicellular Organisms. Boston. Behavior of
the Lower Organisms. New York.
JOHNSTONE, J. The Mechanism of Life. London.
LOEB, J. The Mechanistic Conception of Life. Chicago. Comparative Physiology of the Brain and
Comparative Psychology. New York. The Organism as a Whole. New York. Forced Movements, Tropisms,
and Animal Conduct. Philadelphia. Proteins and the Theory of Colloidal Behavior. New York.
MORGAN, T. H. The Physical Basis of Heredity. Philadelphia.

McCOLLUM, E. V. The Newer Knowledge of Nutrition. New York.
PATON, S. Education in War and Peace. New York.
ROBACK, A. A. Behaviorism and Psychology. Cambridge.
ROBERTSON, T. B. The Chemical Basis of Growth and Senescence. Philadelphia.
RITTER, W. E. The Unity of the Organism. Boston.
SHERRINGTON, C. S. The Integrative action of the Nervous System. London.
WATSON, J. B. Behaviour. An Introduction to Comparative Psychology. New York.
WHEELER, W. M. Social Life Among The Insects. New York.
HUMAN ENGINEERING
CARMICHAEL, R. D. Logic of Discovery. (Forthcoming book.)

KEYSER, C. J. Mathematical Philosophy. E. P. Dutton. New York.
KORZYBSKI, ALFRED. Manhood of Humanity, The Science & Art of Human Engineering. E. P. Dutton.
New York. Time-Binding: The General Theory. (Forthcoming book.)
POLAKOV, W. N. Man and his Affairs. (Forthcoming book.)
RUEFF. Des Sciences Physiques aux Sciences Morales. Paris. (English translation forthcoming.)
[1] See my "Manhood of Humanity." The Science and Art of Human Engineering. E. P. Dutton & Co., N.
Y. C.
[2] See my "Fate and Freedom," in Mathematics Teacher, May, 1923.
[3] See the chapter on "Wealth" in my "Manhood of Humanity".

Alfred Korzybski - Time Binding

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Alfred Korzybski - Time Binding

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.

European Society for General Semantics

Presented in abstract before the

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (1 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

Printed by the Graphic Press, 39 W. 8th St., N. Y. C.

TIME-BINDING: The General Theory

Presented in abstract before the International

(This paper is a summary of a larger work on Human Engineering soon to be published.

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (3 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (4 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

Amoeba I Adam Albert Einstein

These differences are sharp.

The foundation for a deductive science of man is thus laid down.

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (8 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

A is the label—a word. The holes, also, represent characteristics.

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (11 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

This achieved, the rest follows automatically.

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (13 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (14 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (15 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (16 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (17 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

IV. Consequences and Applications

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (18 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

with the educational and scientific ones.

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (19 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

something which is possible.

First order ...................................................... 2

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (22 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

Third order ..................................................... 16

The expansion of this series is the coefficient of our knowledge.

gratefully acknowledge it).

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (25 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (26 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

BROAD, C. D. Scientific Thought. London & N. Y.

MATHEMATICS, MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY, LOGIC

BALDWIN, J. M. Thought and Things, 3 Vols. London, New York.

BOOLE, GEORGE. Laws of Thought. Chicago.

WHITEHEAD, A. N. and B. RUSSELL. Principia Mathematica. Vol. 1. Cambridge.

THE THEORIES OF RELATIVITY.

BIRD, J. M. Einstein's Theories of Relativity and Gravitation. New York.

THE NEWER PHYSICS.

BORN, M. The Constitution of Matter. London. New York.

PLANCK, M. The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory. Oxford.

ADLER, A. Organ Inferiority and its Psychical Compensation. Washington.

MORGAN, T. H. The Physical Basis of Heredity. Philadelphia.

CARMICHAEL, R. D. Logic of Discovery. (Forthcoming book.)

[2] See my "Fate and Freedom," in Mathematics Teacher, May, 1923.

[3] See the chapter on "Wealth" in my "Manhood of Humanity".

http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak5.htm (31 of 31)3/13/2004 8:44:38 AM

Você também pode gostar