Unified Science's Moral Force1
|What Nietzsche has called `sovereign becoming' is upon us and theory, far from having where to stand beyond it, is chained to its chariot, in harness before it or dragged in its tracks-which, it is hard to tell in the dust of the race, and sure it is only that not theory is the charioteer (Hans Jonas)2.|
We now do have a theory that stands beyond the theory described by Jonas, theory generated by the one-field disciplines. This theory, which stands for Unified Science, represents Nietzsche's "sovereign becoming" itself, and does so cybernetically (see Figure V-1 overleaf).
|FIGURE V-1 The one-field sciences' reciprocal development of deductive theory and inductive observation and experimentation.--Rightward arrows represent feedforths; leftward arrows, feedbacks.3|
In the one-field sciences, new theory is based upon (follows) empirical data, and is thus dragged in the chariot's tracks. But it then gives rise to new observations with new instruments and techniques, and through them to new technologies, thus moving in harness in front of the chariot. Soon, however, these new data give rise to improved or radically new theory, the old again dragging the chariot's tracks. Then, being reorganized, theory rushes once more ahead of practice, "in harness before it", generating further new observations and technologies.3
Unified Science's theory obviously stands beyond those of the one-field sciences: their theories are part of the data of Unified Science : they are a component of a natural system, human culture, which is in turn part of the world's System-hierarchy, the subject of Unified Science.
No specialized science's theory is, or can be becoming's charioteer for, as Jonas and Figure V-1 point out, "Theory itself [theory of each special science~ has become a function of use as much as use a function of theory. Tasks for theory are set by the practical results of its preceding use, their solutions to be turned again to use, and so on. Thus [special-science] theory is thoroughly immersed in practice." p. 209.2
The aspect of the empirical sciences which is least immersed in practice, the so-called pure sciences, maintain and develop themselves by concentrating on low level systems (such as atoms), or parts of high systems (such as DNA molecules). They develop separate vocabularies, notations, and concept systems, and screen out information about things which they regard as outside their fields, as shown back in Figure IV-10.
This screening results in isolated, discrete bodies of knowledge whose technological applications regularly produce unanticipated and often disastrous "side effects." The input of each science, being discrete from those of other sciences, produces the crisis called the multi-versity, Figure IV-9. Never does any of these sciences clarify or even touch upon the whole truth, most of which is outside any one-science's field.
"It is in the realm of concrete judgements and choice that the practical use of theory comes about," Jonas pointed out in 1959. "But this knowledge of use is different not only from the knowledge of the [special science's] theory used in the case, but from that of any [non cosmic] theory whatsoever, and it is acquired or learned in ways different from those of [special science] theory . . . thus there is theory and use of theory, but no theory of the use of theory." p. 199.2
|FIGURE V-2 The Coaction Compass defines the relations of the data mapped into it, both to each other and to the Central Order.3|
This statement, sharpened by inserted qualifications, was true for Hans Jonas in 1959. He then, however, describes Unified Science as it is set forth in Figure V-2: "At the opposite end of the scale is the knowledge concerning ends repeatedly alluded to--of which today  we do not know whether it admits of theory, as once it was held eminently to do. This knowledge alone would permit the valid discrimination of worthy and unworthy, desirable and undesirable uses of science, whereas [fragmented] science itself only permits discrimination of its correct or incorrect, adequate or inadequate, effectual or ineffectual use." pp. 199-200.2
Assembling the A, B, C coordinate systems in the central column of the Unified Science Chart (at the rear), and sharpening their coaction cardioids to their logical and geometric points, we obtain the following compass-like representation of Unified Science's frame of reference, the Periodic coordinate system.
The Periodic coordinate system orients any empirical system mapped into it, including the special-sciences' theories, as clearly and precisely as a physical map and compass orient an aeroplane or ship. Unified Science is not immersed in temporal local practices, but immerses them: it shows their directions sub specie aeternitatis: it orients their structures by their relations to and , the ultimate limits of existence envisaged by modern science and philosophy. Cosmic direction is built into Unified Science as firmly as geographic direction is built into physical compasses. To the extent that the Periodic coordinate system shows what Werner Heisenberg calls "our relationship with the central order", it can in the final analysis be our compass.
Do not Figures V-1 and V-2 show that this knowledge, intuited long ago by Plato and now by Jonas in Literate metaphors, has come full circle, and reappears here in the geometric language and idiom of the Higher Industrial culture?
"Obviously," Jonas points out, "it is a different kind of knowledge that has to do with the desirability of ends, and a different kind that has to do with feasibility, means, and execution." p. 198.2 Figure V-2 elucidates this difference : the data of the special sciences and technologies (data mapped into the Periodic coordinate system by means of their characteristic numbers, as for instance in Figures II-14a and b) have to do with feasibility, means, and execution. The process of mapping these data into the Periodic coordinate system shows their desirability or undesirability in terms of their vector-direction : if they transmute the system over-all and in the long run (diachronically) toward they are evil and undesirable; if toward , they are desirable and good. And every human being who loves life and seeks its preservation and advancement will concur. The acquisition of the data, which occurs by means of special sciences, results in knowledge of feasibility, means and execution; the orientation of this knowledge by means of the Periodic coordinate system results in knowledge of the desirability of ends. The two together constitute our map and compass.
The condition for Jonas' two different forms of knowledge to coexist and further each other is that they be mutually compatible, and that both be amenable to empirical verification or disproof. Both of these conditions are fulfilled by Unified Science, an assertion which is sure to be put to adequate tests.
It has, in fact, been tested constantly during the thirty-odd years of its development. During this time, Unified Science has itself undergone the cybernetic kind of development diagrammed in Figure V-1. Its nature, however, has determined the direction of its development: this direction has consisted in the kinds of change that physical compasses have displayed: the Periodic coordinate system has become ever more precise, versatile, reliable, and widely applicable. For where the nature and purpose of an instrument is normative--as it is in compasses, whether physical or moral--increase of normativity is the built-in direction of the instrument's development. By the same token, where a theory's nature and purpose is the discovery and refinement of relationships sub specie localis, as are those of the one-field sciences (Figures IV-9, 10), its built-in mode of development is an increase of analytical detail, and its cosmic direction is unascertainable except relative to a normative frame of reference.
"In its positive aspect", Jonas out, "good will is for the good and must therefore be informed by a conception of what is good . . . If there is a knowledge of it, not [one field) science can supply it. Mere benevolence cannot replace it--nor even love, if love without reverence; and whence can reverence come except from a knowledge of what is to be revered?" Then comes the paralyzing portent of despair: "But even if a guiding knowledge of the good, that is, true philosophy were available, it might well find its counsel to be of no avail against the self generated dynamics of science in use." p. 197.2
From where does Unified Science derive its concept of good and evil? From the customs of a given time and locality? Certainly not. From ancient manuscripts or books? Not at all--though its concepts agree with and confirm certain of these. From mystical visions and enlightenment? Yes, in the sense that flashes of insight, wonderful dreams, visions and peak experiences have been the lot of scientists in every field.5 Peculiar to Unified Science is the convergence of insights from all fields: all fields of science, first of all; but also from literature, music, and art and also from religion, the synthesis of humankind's non-scientific experience. Speaking in Unified Science's own terms, its conception of good and evil is derived from and confirmed by the structure and behavior of every Group, Stratum, Period, Major Stratum and Major Period in the universe. Its conception of good and evil is informed in thousands of empirical, mutually reinforcing ways. Its knowledge of evil and good is indeed not supplied by any one-field science, but by their assembly into a coordinate system whose axes are related to the world's universal directions of change, entropic, atropic, and ectropic; directions derived from the assembly of cosmic data and ascertainment of their change-directions.6
A powerful moral force is generated by this organization of knowledge, and by incessant empirical verifications of the moral law they manifest: R = f ( ).
Jonas naturally assumes that even if an acceptable normative discipline were to emerge it would lie outside the domain of science and therefore could not control its development. This assumption leads him nearly to despair: "The effecting of changes in nature, as a means and as a result of knowing it are inextricably interlocked," he declares. (And they are thus diagrammed in figure V-1.) "And once this combination is at work it no longer matters whether the pragmatic destination of theory is expressly accepted (for example by the `pure' scientist) or not. The very process of attaining knowledge leads through manipulation of things to be known, and this origin fits of itself the theoretical results for an application whose possibility is irresistible--even to the theoretical interest, let aione the practical, whether or not it was contemplated in the first place." p. 205, italics mine.2
Jonas, however, is contradicted by the unexpected fact that Unified Science turns out to be science. (It is, of course, also philosophy, as shown below.) The fact is that Unified Science itself, as well as its components, are empirically and logically verifiable. What happens appears clearly in terms of Figure V-1 when it is altered by the following substitution: for Deductive Theory, we substitute One-field Disciplines (Figures IV-9, 10) . What happens next is suddenly new and unexpected: the Periodic coordinate system is anchored to ultimate and unchangeable absolutes, and , absolutes generated by science itself; absolutes which science can approach but cannot replace or change essentially. Unified Science can be refined and elaborated by the empirical sciences. But because it is science, it can and does do what Jonas believed could not be done: it can coordinate and morally direct the one-field sciences' development (Figures IV-11, 12).
A basically new kind of system has herewith emerged; one whose unalterable norms, discovered by science itself, scientists are bound by their own rules, standards and principles to respect and observe. Unified Science can therefore check and redirect the cancer-like growth of the one-field sciences, technologies and ideologies whose terrible and here-to-fore uncontrollable power Jonas has so brilliantly described.
Some such developments are already being redirected: America's vast Super Sonic Transport project, for instance, was scrapped by the United States Government at enormous financial cost, and a powerful revival attempt was later resisted even by its manufacturers themselves. Dr. George T. Lodge has consolidated this position by demonstrating the preponderance of undesirable over desirable consequences of Super Sonic Transport.7 What we see here emerging is the technological ombudsman which Alvin Toffler described in Future Shock.8 Computer simulation of webs-of-life and webs-of-mind (Chapters II and IV) will probably become its most effective method. The time will soon come when no proposed technological innovation will be executed until it has been subjected to moral analysis; that is, oriented relative to the Periodic coordinate system and judged to be constructive and ectropic over-all. May not, then, Unified Science be called "sovereign becoming's" charioteer?
"To the Greeks," says Jonas, "be it Plato or Aristotle, the number of the truly knowable things is finite, and the apprehension of first principles, whenever obtained, is definitive--subject to intermittent renewal but not to obsolescence through new discovery and better approximation." pp. 206-207.2
The present book affirms in its title that with its appearance , mankind has come full circle. It claims that to nearly all scientists--one-field specialists and Unified-Scientists alike--the point of maximum entropy , and the region of maximum ectopy , are incapable of obsolescence through new discovery and better approximation; and that the number of truly knowable systems is not infinite but finite. Until these limits were conceived and the Systemshierarchy extending between them was defined, it had been, as Hans Jonas says, "inconceivable to the modern experience of knowledge . . . that any state of theory, including the conceptual system of first principles governing it, should be more than a temporary construct to be superseded by the next vista to which it opens the way when all its implications are matched againstall the facts." pp. 206-207.2
Unified Science's absolutes are permanent. So future shock--the fear that permanence is dead--has lost its sting.8 Jonas' book, from which I have been quoting, bears a predictive sub-title: Toward A Philosophy of Biology. In its Epilogue, he defines the objective toward which his work is directed, and clearly points the road by which it has here been reached: "Ontology as the ground of ethics was the original tenet of philosophy. Their divorce, which is the divorce of the `objective' and `subjective' realms, is the modern destiny. Their reunion can be affected, if at all, only from the `objective' end, that is to say, through a revision of the idea of nature. And it is becoming, rather than abiding, nature which would hold out any such promise."
Unified Science is a profound revision of most peoples' idea of nature; and it is stated in terms precisely of process, of becoming. The insight which Jonas then shows us is prophetic: "From the immanent direction of its total evolution there may be elicited a destination of man by whose terms the person, in the act of fulfilling himself, would at the same time realize a concern of universal substance." Unified Science proclaims this immanent direction to be increasing organization; and its destination, ectropy's highest region, to be . "Hence," Jonas continues, "would result a principle of ethics which is ultimately grounded neither in the autonomy of the self nor in the needs of the community, but in an objective assignment by the nature of things (what theology used to call the ordo creationis) such as could still be kept faith with by the last of a dying mankind in his solitude." p. 283.2 Some call this principle Omega, others call it God.
In writing his book, Jonas was moving toward the kind of structure which Walter Lippmann has called the Public Philosophy,9 the structure which is shared by all great religions and ideologies. This structure has remained constant through all of the public philosophy's changes, from the animism of Lower Hunters, Period 1 ; through the Great Religions of the Literates, Period 5; to the emergence of the Higher Industrialists, Period 7, which the unification of sciences into a public philosophy permits and requires. In Figure IV-11 we have diagrammed this permanent ideocratic structure.
Every public philosophy encompasses vocabularies, observations and theories from all its culture's fields; that is to say, all those which its paradigmatic concepts can encompass and order. All others, each public philosophy must and does screen out.l0 Whenever this ceases to happen, the civilization breaks down ipso facto: its controller has broken down.
Hence the first part of the sub-title of Lippmann's exceedingly important book: "On the Decline and Revival of Western Democracy." The two parts of Lippmann's sub-title correspond to our civilization's two alternatives. Our Lower Industrial Period (Figure IV-I) is, in any case, a transitional phenomenon; and it can develop in just two directions: either it will continue to decline, turn out to be a cultural abortion--a cultural embryo which, never having succeeded in generating its public philosophy has, during this century, been expiring as history's most despicable garbage heap, destined at last to consume itself by internal combustion. Or else reviving, it will turn out to have been generating its public philosophy successfully and will, with its help, transmute into predominantly positive coactions and consolidate our planet's climax ecosystem, the Higher Industrial Period.
My prediction has always been, and is, that we will make it to the top! In 1942 I announced The Religious Force of Unified Science.11 Then--after Lippmann had formulated the more general concept, public philosophy (1959), and Unified Science had fully emerged--the position became clear and specific: Unified Science: The Public Philosophy of the Space Age.12,13 How do we know that Unified Science, and it alone, can be our public philosophy? This is the Age of Sciences; and more particularly, of systems-theoretic sciences; and Unified Science coordinates sciences in terms of general systems theory.14 Being systems science, it admits empirical data. Being unified, it admits them from all disciplines and fields of experience. (Some of its multiple inputs are specified on the left-hand side of Figure IV-11, Proposed Transformation of Multiversity into University.) Being steered by a coordinate system whose axes represent the General System's work component and controller (Figures II-10 and chart), it orders all these data relative to all their theoretically possible coactions, and these relative to the world's ultimate absolutes, and . Ordering all knowledge and experience relative to and , it shows clearly the universe's strongly positive value-bias. Showing a positive value-bias, it corresponds unequivocally to the positive value-premise of all the great religions.15 And having done this, Unified Science has come Full Circle: it supports, and is supported by, the public philosophies of all the great Literate civilizations, past and present, and the majority of our own civilization's people.l6 And doing this in the language and idiom of science, it bears our civilization's signs of legitimacy and seals of truth.
Is this not reversal of what Toynbee called schizm of the soul? Is it not reversal of the disaster which causes, and results from, the schizm of the body politic, schizm of the body ecologic, and disintegration of civilization? Toynbee calls schizm-reversal transfiguration and palingenesia.16 In The Public Philosophy,9 Walter Lippmann describes what, for our civilization, palingenesia would be: "A convincing demonstration . . . that the principles of the good society are not, in Sartre's phrase, invented and chosen--that the conditions which are to be met if there is to be a good society are there, outside our wishes, where they can be discovered by rational inquiry, and developed and adapted and refined by rational discussion." He then concludes as follows:
"If eventually this were demonstrated successfully (as I affirm it can) it would...rearm all those who are concerned with the anomy of our society, with its progressive barbarization, and with its descent into violence and tyranny. Amidst the quagmire of moral impressionism they would stand again on hard intellectual ground where there are significant objects that are given and not merely wished. Their hope would be re-established that there is a public world sovereign above the infinite number of contradictory and competing private worlds. Without this certainty, their struggle must be unavailing . . . For political ideas acquire operative force in human affairs when, as we have seen, they acquire legitimacy, when they have the title of being right which binds men's consciences. When they possess, as the Confucian doctrine has it, `the mandate of Heaven.'
In the crisis within Western Society, there is at issue now the mandate of Heaven." pp. 180-181.9
What is the form which this mandate must today assume ? In our Scientific-Industrial civilization, the title of being right which binds men's consciences bears the sign of logical consistency and the seal of empirical validation. Some of the sciences' traditional terms of discourse have now, I believe, been altered in the manner which Lippmann advocates, producing the result he intuited and expressed more movingly than any scientist. However, belonging to the Literate Culture as he does, he could point out but could not himself lead the way into the Promised Land. The recreation of public philosophy in our society must be led by the keepers of its signs and seals of legitimacy--by scientists. They are achieving it by converging the sciences into a single discipline. For this is the Public Philosophy of the Space Age. This they can achieve because, and only because, with all its novelty and power, it is in basic harmony with the old Literate public philosophy which the fragmented sciences had brought into decline. The major forces of disintegration will, under this mandate of Heaven, be turned around and organized constructively.
In Chapter I, Harold Cassidy affirms that there has been discovered "a scientifically based pattern of a universal kind which is displayed in some respect by all of human knowledge and experience of nature and man . . . If I say that, in my opinion this pattern . . . constitutes an invariant relation that enables translation between various developing fields of knowledge and experience, then at least metaphorically one can understand me to mean that, like the Lorentz Transformations, it makes the applicable relativity tolerable."
What is an invariant relation? It is a relation such that, as the French saying has it, plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose. The more things change, the more they remain the same. That sameness--as we move up the changing System-hierarchy, Figure II-1--is the universal pattern which Cassidy discerns; the major paradigm of Unified Science, Figures V-2 and V-5.
In order for this simple sameness to be repeated throughout the richly strange universe, there must be in existence a set of relational variables which all systems have in common. Moreover, there must be a totality of sets, and a relation among this totality's parts, such that all systems of the Systems-hierarchy display it, too, in common. This constant relation among the sets of relational variables is the invariant that all things must have in common for Cassidy's statement to be correct. It must exist, however, on a higher level than they, for it is their higher derivative, the constancy of change which Jonas calls becoming.
The next situation which is now upon us is made clear in Willard V. Quine's incisive exposition of what has here-to-fore been ontology's apparent relativity.46 This relativity is inherent in the one-field sciences' discrete studies of systems parts sub specie localis, Figure V-1, and is the transitory basis of existentialism, cultural relativity, promiscuity, and negative and zero value-biases, the modern forms of schizm of the soul.
"Ontological relativity," Quine points out, "is not to be clarified by any distinction between kinds of universal predication--unfactual and factual, external and internal. It is not a question of universal predication. When questions regarding the ontology of a theory are meaningless absolutely, and become meaningful relative to a background theory [such as, for instance, that of Unified Science), this is not in general because the background theory has a wider universe . . .
"What makes ontological questions meaningless when taken absolutely is not universality but circularity. A question of the form `what is an F?' can be answered only by recourse to a further term: `an F is a G.' The answer makes only relative sense: sense relative to the uncritical acceptance of `G'." p. 53.46 What Quine means thus appears to be infinite regress, of which circularity is a special case.
In Unified Science the buck called infinite regress stops at Alpha . What is a molecule? A combination of atoms. What is an atom? A combination of particles. What is a particle? A combination of partons. What is a parton? We are in process of answering that question now. But we are no more caught in infinite regress than are physicists in attempting to reach absolute zero, 0°K. We may never reach Alpha, as they may never reach 0°K. But what we and they are approaching are not infinities, but absolute limits.
So also in the opposite direction: what is a geoid system, a cell, a plant, an animal, a man a Each of them is a combination of systems anterior to itself in the System-hierarchy.18 Again we are no more caught in infinite regress than are physicists in attempting to reach the highest temperature or speed. We may never reach Omega . What we, however, are approaching is not infinity, but an absolute and permanent limit.
Unified Science avoids infinite regress by deploying the one-field sciences' data System-hierarchically from , through to Anti-, (Figures II-10 and the fold-out chart). The former meaninglessness of ontological questions resulting from infinite regress is hereby precluded.
Also precluded are the major ambiguities which Quine groups under the inscrutability of references p. 38. One aspect of this inscrutability arises (in English and other traditional languages) through failures to distinguish a system (say a rabbit), its undetached parts, and its stages. Unified Science overcomes this source of confusion by means of its Characteristic Numbers. In the web-of-life, Figure II-14b, the rabbit is defined as
There remains now what Quine calls the problem of ostension. The terms of empirical science depend upon two kinds of pointing or ostension, direct and deferred. Quine defines direct ostension thus: "The ostended point, as I shall call it, is the point where the line of the pointing finger first meets an opaque surface. What characterizes direct ostension, then, is that the term which is being ostensively explained is true of something that contains the ostended point. Even such direct ostension has its uncertainties, of course, and these are familiar. There is the question how wide an environment of the ostended point is meant to be covered by the term that is being ostensively explained. [In Unified Science this is specified by the Period number.] There is the question how considerably our absent thing or substance might be allowed to differ from what is now ostended, and still be covered by the term that is being ostensively explained. Both of these questions can, in principle, be settled as well as need be by induction from multiple ostensions . . . " pp. 39-40.46 The multiple parts of Characteristic numbers are multiple deferred ostensions.
As for deferred ostension, it is ostension by inference: "It occurs when we point to the gauge, and not the gasoline, to show that there is gasoline. Another such example is afforded by the Gödel numbering of expressions." p. 40.46 For instance, the delayed ostension involved in relating the four parts of Characteristic numbers, as expounded in Figure II-14, to the languages of the one-field sciences, and through these to the objects and processes of nature.
Now comes the crunch, what Quine calls "the perennial philosophical problem of induction". Only solution of this problem can transfigure the ontological relativism characteristic of the precarious Lower Industrial Period's civilization into Lippmann's "convincing demonstration . . . that the principles of the good society . . . are there, outside our wishes, where they can be discovered by rational inquiry and developed and adapted and refined by rational discussion."9
"To trust induction as a way of access to the truths of nature", Quine points out, "is to suppose . . . that our quality space matches that of the cosmos. The brute irrationality of our sense of similarity, its irrelevance to anything in logic and mathematics, offers little reason to expect that this sense is somehow in tune with the worlda world which, unlike language, was never made. Why induction should be trusted, apart from special cases such as the ostensive learning of words, is the perennial philosophical problem of induction". pp. 125-6.46
This problem's solution is implicit in the structure of the Systems-hierarchy: the sense of similarity is clearly displayed in the formation even of atoms, and is displayed in the formation and behavior of all natural systems classed in each of this hierarchy's Major Periods thereafter, the human mind included. Protons display this sense of similarity in constantly orbiting one natural kind of thing, electrons; and electrons in constantly selecting two kinds of things (Ontological Relativity Chapter 5), nuclei composed of protons and neutrons, around which to orbit. And so forth through all the abiotic, biotic and cultural structures and systems of the universe up to the human mind, logic and mathematics most decidedly included. All these display what strikes us as the rationality of our sense of similarity, rationality of which logic and mathematics are the highest known expressions. Does not the universe's teleonomic Werden or becoming--culminating in language, mathematics, and logic--give us every reason to expect our sense of similarity to mesh with the senses of similarity of all systems antecedent to ours in the System-shierarchy? This is the natural conclusion which springs from what Jonas has called for and Unified Science is based upon: revision of the idea of nature, and of its becoming.
What could it be but our heretofore disparate and unassembled idea of nature--including the traditional separation of the study of logic and mathematics from studies of antecedent parts of the System-hierarchy--that makes the brute (and a fortiori the plant, geoid system, molecule, atom and particle) appear irrational; that sees our sense of similarity as "brute irrationality"; and makes it appear irrelevant to its own highest descendants, the hierarchy's highest components, logic and mathematics?
When these traditionally separate studies are unified, as they are now, Man's mind, including its ostensive coining of words, is recognized as the System-hierarchy's highest known Major Stratum, the Kingdom of Man. It is then evident that to the extent that the structure and contents of Man's mind consist of Unified Science, its quality space must, and does, match that of the cosmos; and that it does so both logically and empirically. Through geometric synthesis of the multiple ostensions of the one-field sciences, the coining and learning of words (the special case in which the one-field specialist trusts induction) is generalized into the broadest system of deferred ostensions, Unified Science; "the universe writ small."
We do, of course, "need a background language," as Quine says, "to regress into." And here again the question arises, "Are we involved now in an infinite regress?" He answers it thus: "If questions of reference of the sort we are considering make sense only relative to a background language, then evidently questions of reference for the background language make sense only relative to a further background language. In these terms the situation seems desperate, but in fact it is little different from questions of position and velocity. When we are given position and velocity relative to a given coordinate system, we can always ask in turn about the placing of origin and orientation of axes of that system of coordinates; and there is no end to the succession of further coordinate systems that could be adduced in answering the successive questions thus generated." p. 49.46
This is the unsatisfactorily incomplete kind of answer to which one-field specialization in formal science leads. Immediately, therefore, Quine relates it to other parts of the System-hierarchy.
"In practice of course we end the regress of coordinate systems by something like pointing." And that something is mapping: equating origin and axes to empirical phenomena which are, of course, hierarchically organized. "And in practice," Quine goes on, "we end the regress of background languages, in discussions of reference, by acquiescing in our mother tongue and taking its words at face value." Once, that is, the concepts of these words' denotata have been organized System-hierarchically, as they are in Unified Science.
"Very well," he goes on, addressing himself to formal specialists. "In the case of position and velocity, in practice pointing breaks the regress. But what of position and velocity apart from practice? What of the regress then? The answer, of course, is the relational doctrine of space; there is no absolute position or velocity; there are just the relations of coordinate systems to one another, and ultimately of things to one another. And I think that the parallel question regarding denotation calls for a parallel answer, a relational theory of what the objects of theories are. What makes sense is to say not what the objects of a theory are, absolutely speaking, but how one theory of objects is interpretable or reinterpretable in another." PP 49-50.46
The point of the Unified Science enterprize is to organize the one-field disciplines so that the objects and theory of each discipline are interpretable or reinterpretable in terms of those of the others, Figures IV-11, 12.
Quine describes the method here employed as follows: "The reduction of one ontology to another with help of proxy function: a function mapping the one universe into part or all of the other." p. 55.46 This kind of mapping has been the principal activity throughout this book as shown, for example, in Figure II-1 and the Unified Science Chart.
The language and theory developed in this process, what Quine calls the background language and background theory of the one-field disciplines, are ipso facto the language and theory of Unified Science. "Our dependence upon a background theory," he says, "becomes especially evident when we reduce our universe U [the universe of one scientific discipline] to another V by appeal to a proxy function. For it is only in a theory with an inclusive universe, embracing U and V [plus all the other scientific disciplines], that we can make sense of the proxy function. The function maps U into V and hence needs all the old objects of U as well as their new proxies in V." p. 57.46
Partial syntheses--syntheses of groups of sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology, or psychology and sociology--do not resolve the ontological problem. Quine implies this as follows:
"All that is required toward a function is an open sentence with two free variables, provided that it is fulfilled by exactly one value of the first variable for each object of the old universe [one discipline] as value of the second variable [another discipline] ." Such a function is implicit throughout the System-hierarchy. It is implied, for instance, in Figure II-1. "But the point is that it is only in the background theory, with its inclusive universe, that we can hope to write such a sentence and have the right values at our disposal for its variables." p. 58.46 That is the theory of Unified Science.
How can the small human mind presume to grasp the enormous universe as a whole, as Unified Science affirms it can? Quine answers this question by way of the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem as follows: "It says that if a theory is true and has an indenumerable universe, then all but a denumerable part of that universe is dead wood, in the sense that it can be dropped from the range of the variables without falsifying any sentences.
"On the face of it," Quine points out, "this theorem declares a reduction of all acceptable theories to denumerable ontologies. Moreover, a denumerable ontology is reducible in turn to an ontology specifically of natural numbers, simply by taking the enumeration as the proxy function, if the enumeration is explicitly at hand. [As, for instance, in the Periodic table of chemical elements.] And even if not at hand, it exists; thus we can still think of all our objects as natural numbers, and merely reconcile ourselves to not always knowing, numerically, which number an otherwise given object is." p. 59.46
Ontological relativity's "infinite" regress, including its circularity, has herewith been shown to be finite, its indenumerability shown to be irrelevant, its multiple ostensions codified, its deferred ostensions referred to the Systems-hierarchy, its "inscrutability" of reference made scrutable, its many background theories reduced to a meta-background theory.
How has this come about?
It came about by reversing some, and changing some of the tacit assumptions or paradigms which underlie the unorganized, and thus malignant growth of one-field specializations comprising the multiversity. It came about during some thirty-odd years of scientific revolution.
"The key to the progress of the natural sciences in Europe [and thus to the rise of the Lower Industrialist out of the Literate culture], lay very largely in a growing habit of testing theories against careful measurement, observation, and upon occasion, experiment," the historian William McNeill points out. "Astronomers and physicists undertook closer observations and more exact measurements only after Copernicus (d.1543) had put an alternative to traditional Ptolemaic and Aristotelian theories before the learned world; and Copernicus did so, not on the basis of observations and measurements, but on grounds of logical simplicity and aesthetic symmetry." p.593.17
Today, Aurelio Peccei, president of the scientific Club of Rome, is calling for "A Copernican change of attitude".19 For the modern industrial world, this change of attitude is presented in the book you hold before you now: it is an alternative to our malfunctioning congeries of specialized one-field scientific and humanistic theories. We present this alternative to you on the basis of observations and measurements, such as Arthur Jensen's, and on the grounds of logical simplicity. And, far beyond these grounds, we present it because this Copernican change of attitude is necessary to the survival of the Empire of Man and of its otherwise doomed participants--human, animal, vegetable, and mineral.
The universal pattern displayed in Unified Science has existed right along. Why, then, has it not been obvious ever since the modern sciences emerged, four centuries ago? For the same reason that it was not obvious, until Copernicus, that the Earth revolves around its axis and the sun.
"Consider," says Thomas Kuhn, "the men who called Copernicus mad because he proclaimed that the Earth moved. They were not just wrong or quite wrong. Part of what they meant by `earth' was fixed position. Their earth, at least, could not be moved. Correspondingly, Copernicus' innovation was not simply to move the earth. Rather, it was a whole new way of regarding the problems of physics and astronomy, one that necessarily changed the meaning of both `earth' and `motion.' Without those changes the concept of a moving earth was mad." pp. 148-9.10
So with the discovery of universally invariant relations which form the basis of science-synthesis. It involves a whole new way of regarding the problems of the physical, biological, and psycho-socio-political sciences.20
This is the kind of concrete, verifiable change of theory which epitomizes a Copernican change of attitude and permits empirical scientists to line up for and against this scientific revolution.
The scientific community has been groping for decades in the invariable precursor of a scientific revolution: deepening crisis.10 Today, as in the past, the crisis has called forth a host of immature, competing theories; in our case, attempts at scientific synthesis. However, since this crisis extends far beyond the sciences--since it was brought on by the cancer-like proliferation of separate and independent disciplines, scientific and humanistic (Figure IV-9) and its resolution demands synthesis--the synthesized theories cannot be just scientific. They must include the ancient literary tradition in whose terms the spiritual syntheses of pre-industrial Strata and Periods have always been, and must today continue to be couched: the language of arts, religions and philosophies.21
Calls for up-dating and synthesis of religions, which is essential to our industrial civilization, have been voiced by powerful theologians: "Christianity without Religion" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who was hanged by the Nazis), and "The Humanity of God" by Karl Barth in Germany; "Depersonalized Religion" by the Jesuit scientist Teilhard de Chardin in France; "Honest to God" by the Anglican Bishop John A. T. Robinson in England;22 "The Shaking of the Foundations" by Paul Tillich in America; Sun Myung Moon's "Divine Principle" in South Korea, Japan, and by now many other nations.23
John A. T. Robinson, and others who call for an up-dating of religion, being theologians and thus one-field specialists themselves, could understandably not specify just how to do it. The consequent uproar was therefore unproductive theological debate: "The Honest to God Debate".24 It had to be a man who combines in his personality the literary with the scientific culture, who foresaw and predicted the nature of the brewing revolution: C. P. Snow. Snow stated in 1963 that the Two Cultures; scientific and literary, were about to come together into a single entity, and even predicted where: in the United States.25
Though we had corresponded briefly, and I had publicly discussed "The Religious Force of Unified Science",11 he did not say that Unified Science would, by its definition and intrinsic structure, have to be this sort of synthesis. Nor did he say that the public philosophy of Higher Industrial Civilization can scarcely be anything but this over-all sort of synthesis. Nonetheless, he sensed and said clearly that the Two Cultures were about to unite. This prediction is now being fulfilled. And as this happens it will restore in our New World the ancient oneness of the human spirit.26
In 1955 Walter Lippmann hoped and pleaded for this restoration in The Public Philosophy--On the Decline and Revival of Western Democracy. I had replied that Unified Science is The Public Philosophy of the Space Age.12 And this involves a global, and thus Copernican, change of attitude.
This general synthesis presupposes, and depends upon, paradigm-changes such that the paradigms of all the relevant views and disciplines become compatible. And that is clearly what is happening today: each of the paradigms of Unified Science involves a profound change of its predecessor. And all of them combine into a coherent and largely verifiable system; a system of attitudes which tends to support the paradigms of advancing theologians, political scientists, economists, and men and women of the arts and literature.
The paradigms of Unified Science read as follows:
I. The universe is building up as well as down.48
II. Phenomena which seem empirically
different are basically similar.
The empirical differences which led early scientists to divide their studies of the universe's Major Strata into separate, independently developing disciplines--and beyond these, into the West's Two Cultures--are recognized in Unified Science as less important than the invariant relation which it shows them to have in common.
III. Natural systems [the simplest ones, of course,
excepted] are fundamentally inclusive.
The mutual exclusiveness of traditional scientific categories--such as the kingdoms of man, of animals, of plants, or of atoms--is of course recognized and honored. (Thought itself requires that it be.) But Unified Science affirms the strategic prepotency of inclusiveness, demanded by understanding of the System-hierarchy. The basic unit of Unisci theory is the system, not one or another of its parts. (Those are the main thought units of unorganized one-field specialists.) Unified Science affirms as axiomatic that every natural system except the lowest includes systems lower than itself in the System-hierarchy. Inclusiveness is implicit in Unisci's fifth paradigm: this axiom afhrms the preponderance of positive coaction. And its acceptance as a strategic attitude involves our thought-parts in positive, moral coaction over-all.
IV. The lowest members of the System-hierarchy are certainly
teleomorphic and teleonomic, and may be
The hierarchy's latest and highest members' structures and behaviors, which appear to be its end or goal (telos) are implicit in, and generally determined by, the hierarchy's earlier and lower members.
Since this hierarchy's highest known emergent member is the mind-spirit of Man, it follows that the structure and operation of its collectivity of lower members must similarly be mind-like, over all.
V. The universe has a positive value-bias.
Systems whose major components cooperate are stable or evolve Omega-ward; systems whose major parts conflict are unstable and break down toward Alpha. Since evolution is predominantly upward, the universe must have a positive value-bias. Unified Science's Natural Law is thus also Moral Law.
This, I submit, is a scientific revolution. It is a discontinuous way of regarding the problems of the physical, biological and psycho-socio-political sciences. It is a Copernican change of attitude, for it is not only moral but, in a profound sense, religious. For with its help we can consistently discern and, with unparalleled precision, constantly correct our relationship to the central order which, in the language of religion, is called the One or God.
Over the past thirty-odd years, Unisci conversions have occurred in several ways. To acquaint you with this important change--the personality-change which transmutes a person or a group of people from the Lower to the Higher Industrial Period--I will report some of them here in the manner of a unified scientist with training in anthropology.28
The first such transmutation of attitude occurred at Brooklyn College some twenty-five years ago. (I omit the person's name. She can, if she wants to, make it known herself.) Its background is as follows: my courses had been rather successful. Some of my students had formed a small club, the Systematic Social Science Club, to give them and me more time to discuss systematic social science, as we then called it, than there was in the regular classes, and to let them bring friends who were interested but who for various reasons could not take my courses. Our little club had, in sheer self defense, turned the tables on the Marxist Club, the local Communist-front organization which had successfully infiltrated and was controlling many of the student societies on that campus.29 All we had done was to clear their oratory of communications noise and fouling in the simple manner (as I later discovered) which Leibniz had advocated. And it had worked almost miraculously.
"If," Leibniz had written, "we could find characters or signs appropriate for expressing all our thoughts as definitely and as exactly as arithmetic expresses numbers or geometric analysis expresses lines, we could in all subjects insofar as they are amenable to reasoning accomplish what is done in Arithmetic and Geometry . . . . That would be an admirable help, even in political science and medicine, to steady and perfect reasoning . . . .For even while there will not be enough given circumstances to form an infallible judgement, we shall always be able to determine what is most probable on the data given. And that is all that reason can do." pp. 15-16.21
|FIGURE V-3 Geometric mapping of the Marxist theory of human coactions. Transmutation of society from exploitation (quadrant 2) is afhrmed to occur by "liquidation of the system's controller" (quadrant 3 or 4), and this to result in "classless" society.--The possibility of class cooperation (quadrant 1) is denied.
The Systematic Social Science Club had used my first model of Leibniz's General Characteristic very effectively. (It was simply the rectangular Cartesian coordinate system.) When one of the Marxist Club's best cadres came to our club meeting, as one usually did, and began to orate, one of our best cadres went to the blackboard, drew a coordinate system, and labeled it as follows:
Each time the Marxist discussed exploitation, a check mark went into quadrant 2: - for the workers, + for the employers ( - , + ). When he spoke of expropriating the exploiters, a check went into quadrant 4: + for the workers, - for the employers ( + , - ). If he mentioned the mutual ruin of the contending classes, a mark went into quadrant 3: - for the workers, - for the employers ( - , - ).
Quadrant 2 always got the most checks. And we naturally agreed with the Marxist that these coactions between workers and employers are common and widespread. But then we asked him, or her, why quadrant 1 was empty; why she or he never mentioned anything that falls into quadrant 1.
"What's that?" they would demand.
"Plus for the workers, plus for the employers: ( + , + )."
"But that's class-cooperation!" the Marxist would exclaim. "Marx and Lenin have said many times that there is no such thing as class cooperation. Anyone who advocates it must be an agent of the Bourgeoisie!"
One of our people would then ask the Marxist where he would map the twenty-odd thousand profit-sharing companies that, we had learned in class, already then existed in the United State. (Today there are many more.)30
There would be, of course, division of opinion. Nonetheless the powerful performance of profit-sharing and multiple-management would begin to sink in.31
Another of my students would then describe Switzerland's Social Capital--the vertical front I had discovered in Switzerland.32 A part of the Swiss public, the Majority, working cooperatively with the most brilliant and moral part of the Minority (management), were regulating an important part of the economy. Wherever a monopolistic company or association had forced prices so high as to be exploitive ( - , + ), Der Regulator (the Federation of Migros Cooperatives) built a factory, set up a chain of newspapers, organized a mass action, and so on, which forced the predators' prices down, so that they and the Swiss public became cooperative ( + , + ). This brilliant strategy--invented by Migros' founder, Gottlieb Duttweiler--has clearly redirected the Cold War in Switzerland: the monopolistic brand industries have been forced to lower prices, to improve quality, and to pay better wages and farm prices. In spite of bitter resistance they have been obliged to decrease their predation or even, in some cases, actually to transform it into cooperation with the Swiss public. Throughout large sections of the Swiss economy class struggle--predation and parasitism--is thus being changed by Migros into class cooperation.
|FIGURE V-4 Geometric mapping of the transmutation of an important part of Switzerland's economy from massive exploitation to massive class cooperation; from monopoly capitalism to an early form of Social Capitalism.|
As the student spoke, this social transmutation was mapped into a sequence of coordinate systems on the blackboard. According to a recent poll, Americans now consider Switzerland to be the world's best governed country. But practically no one understands the reason why. The reason is, that this country has undergone, and is still undergoing, an economic-political revolution. This almost invisible revolution has transformed large parts of Switzerland's economy from Capitalism into what they call Social-Capitalism. And this has made Switzerland much richer and pleasanter than it was before. For instead of being conducted by military, and thus destructive operations, it has been conducted by constructive economic-political-educational operations. This change occurred as follows:
Coordinate system 1 represents the traditional Capitalist System, as it existed in Switzerland in 1925 and still exists in varying degrees in nearly all countries of the partially Free World. Side by side, there are symbiotic ( + , + ) industries and businesses, and monopolistic, predatory ones ( - , + ); there are symbiotic labor organizations, and some who, by monopolistic union practices, systematically exploit and sometimes ruin management ( + , - ).
Coordinate system 2 represents the formation of Switzerland's rrertical front in 1925. "A group of far-sighted leaders, headed by Gottlieb Duttweiler and supported today (1948) by one hundred and forty thousand common citizens-most of them with their families33--jointly created a region of cooperation in the following activities: Food distribution, industrial manufacturing, finance, farm production; press, movies, schools and book publishing; clothing, transport and tourist recreation, all this backed by a political movement especially strong in Zurich. These organizations have linked together enough of the spontaneous and scattered pockets of healthy Swiss resistance to both predation and parasitism to form a continuous cooperative front of both classes together, a vertical split from top to bottom of Swiss society. This is clearly shown by the fact that among the members of the Migros organizations and especially by the electors supporting its poiitical movement (the Landring of the Independents) we find every class of the Swiss population, workers as well as manufacturers; producers as well as consumers; employees as well as employers; people of literary, artistic, and scientific professions as well as their directors, publishers, and administrators."32
Coordinate system 3 represents Switzerland's Social-Capitalist revolution; the long and continuing struggle between the two sides of her vertical front. By creating mutually beneficial stores and industries, Migros gives the Swiss public a choice, an alternative to the monopolists' exploitive industries, stores, and so forth. This choice transmutes a strategic volume of the monopolists' trade from predation (Group VI) to zero (Group 0).34 Nobody is arrested or killed, no factories are destroyed. What people do is to transfer their trade, their economic ballots, from the Dominant Minority, the monopolistic exploiters, to their Creative Minority. The monopolists have mounted long, ferocious price wars, campaigns of vilification, and prosecutions in the courts. But the Swiss public has had the moral stamina and courage, and the intelligence to support their Creative Minority victoriously for nearly fifty years. They even forced down the prices of the international oil trust, and have now expanded their vertical front to defend their environment: Migros has declared war on the water polluting detergent manufacturers by giving the public equally good but non-polluting alternatives. The public is joining the fray enthusiastically.
Coordinate system 4 represents transmutation of the economy into Group IV ( + , + ), and possibly even into the Higher Industrial Period, the Human Period 7 (Figure IV-4). The ancient four temperaments (the modern "faces of Eve")--our inborn tendencies to predation, parasitism, and mutual destruction (or withdrawal) as well as to cooperation--are built into each kingdom of the universe, including every person in it. Migros declares over and over that they rely on their competitors to keep them honest.
My conclusion is that Migros is perhaps one of the most highly developed cases of a vertical split in an industrial society. That it decreases class struggle, actually as well as theoretically, may be seen from the fact that Migros and the Landring are attacked furiously and tenaciously just by those, and all those, who only feel at home in, and know how to operate only in the ancient and fatal horizontal way: on one hand by all the Marxists--Communist and Social Democratic--and on the other by monopolistic big-business groups and their satellites in the middle class. Both the Marxists and the reactionaries know that as long as Migros and the Landring build cooperation vertically between large and healthy sectors of the two classes, and spread truth, kindliness, and humor, Switzerland cannot be disintegrated and incorporated either into the Communist or into the neofascist coalition. On the contrary, these coalitions must be and are being disintegrated in Switzerland, and incorporated into the vertical structure.
The Marxist student was overwhelmed. He had never heard of this moral alternative to the disasters of the Marxists' horizontal front; to their implacable warfare between Majority and Minority by which the Communist Party, the New Class, wrests control from the Dominant Minority in country after country and destroys most of the Creative Minority along with it. The Marxists simply had nothing to say. And none of them ever came back to a meeting of our club which, incidentally, came to be called the Plus, Plus Club.
Presently we heard through the grapevine that there was an uproar in the Marxist Club. Its Communist organizer was furious. "I send you there to take them over," he had yelled, "and you come back and argue with me!"--So he reversed his tactics and hung up an Iron Curtain. His club members were forbidden ever to come to our meetings; even to talk to us privately.
This did not satisfy his best cadres.--Not being allowed to discuss means, they saw clearly, that many Communist arguments can't survive geometric mapping.--Many of them dropped out of the Marxist Club, and soon our Plus, Plus Club was organizing joint meetings with the Philosophy Club, Psychology Club, and Sociology Club, to hear constructive speakers such as, for instance, Erich Fromm.
When, later, I read Leibniz' prediction of the moral force of his Universal Characteristic, I realized that he had known what he was talking about, and that his prediction had been fulfilled at Brooklyn College. Even our first, Cartesian model of his General Characteristic had redirected the Cold War on the Brooklyn campus: it had damped the conflict, fostered by the Marxist Club's negative value-bias, changing most of that conflict into the cooperation furthered by the Plus, Plus Club's positive value-bias. In due course, this experience, and others like it, led Harold Cassidy and me to write, and privately distribute, Plain Truth--And Redirection of the Cold War.35
With this as background, I can now hope to convey some of the meaning of the following experience: One afternoon at Brooklyn College, when everyone had left the classroom and I was picking up my books and papers, one of the students, a quite pretty girl came back. Closing the door, she asked whether she could speak with me.
"Mr Haskell," she burst out, "I don't know what to do! The whole world has changed!--I didn't have any hope before; but now I have hope, even confidence! Now I know that the world has a future! I want to help you!--I'll do anything: scrub your floors, type your manuscripts--anything!" Tears were running down her beaming face.
I knew her only as a student who chose to sit in a back row and hardly ever spoke in class. Her papers had never struck me as exceptional. Yet here, suddenly and without warning, she was showing me the deepest understanding of them all! She had undergone even more than a Copernican change of understanding.--I asked her to sit down and let me think about what she had said.
After a while I told her that I understood what she was talking about. When I was a student, I had despaired far more, perhaps, than she. But unification of the sciences, in my mind, had opened for me a road to life, to the future. It was this opening which gave her and many of the other students hope. If she wanted to help me, the best way I could think of would be for her to join the Systematic Social Science Club, (the Plus Plus Club), and help it to organize Brooklyn College.
She dried her face, smiled, thanked me, and said she would do it. We shook hands.
Next day I inquired about her among the students. They said that she had been extraordinarily affected, and had cried several times after class. They were glad that she had talked to me, and that she now had something concrete to do. Here, I realized, was a remarkable event, a religious experience like some of those described by William James.36 I had experienced and described "The Religious Force of Unified Science" long before.11 Now I had seen it grip somebody else.
Within a few days this girl and her friends had collected, among the college's students, 250 signatures on a petition requesting of the college's Administration--instead of just modified sociology and anthropology courses--a completely new kind of course, Unified Science.
Naturally, her petition seemed fantastic to the administration, and was rejected. But it put in train a chain of events which, I see now, forced me against my will onto a far more feasible path. I was forced by left-wing colleagues out of the academic world for many years. But the course of action on which I then set forth may possibly result in a fast enough spread of Unified Science for Man's Empire to survive the catastrophes which its Lower Industrial Culture can no longer possibly avoid.
Unknown to myself, I presently "repeated" (on a higher level) one of the main steps by which leading 17th century scientists transmuted their obsolete medieval universities into the new kind of institution called for by the emerging Lower Industrial Culture: For many years in the mid-1600s, a group of the new (Copernican, Baconian and Galilean) scientists met in London, in and about Gresham College. They usually met after the lecture of the Professor of Astronomy, either in his rooms or at a nearby inn. Some people called them, rather aptly, The Invisible College.37 In time, however, when the British Monarchy was restored and the new King needed to make a new departure, he conferred upon this group--in which the original Copernican change was most highly developed--a Royal Charter, transforming it into the Royal Society.38 And the Royal Society--along with its sister societies all over Europe and America--transformed the slowly yet centripetally evolving medieval university into the centrifugal modern multiversity, capable of making enormous disintegrative progress (Figures IV-9, 10).
"It was indeed a new departure," observes Arthur Koestler. "The range and power of the main sense organ of homo sapiens had suddenly started to grow in leaps to thirty times, a hundred times, a thousand times its natural capacity. Parallel leaps and bounds in the range of other organs were soon to transform the species into a race of giants in power--without enlarging its moral power by an inch. It was a monstrously one-sided mutation--as if moles were growing the size of whales, but retaining the instincts of moles. The makers of the (first) scientific revolution were individuals who in the transformation of the race played the part of the mutating genes. Such genes are ipso facto unbalanced and unstable. The personalities of these `mutants' already foreshadowed the discrepancy in the next development of man: the intellectual giants of the (first) scientific revolution were moral dwarfs." p. 352.20
The present book has shown, I hope, that Koestler's diagnosis, while basically valid, is technically somewhat off the mark. (If it were not, no human effort could hope to be of any use at all.) The main defect of all the Lower Industrial peoples--except, perhaps, Switzerland's--is the same weakness in determining moral direction which Toynbee found to characterize disintegrating Literate civilizations; a defect whose symptoms he has called promiscuity, abandon, truancy, and drift.l6 The difference is not basically one of physical size--of moles and whales, of dwarfs and giants. It is, rather, one of speed and power: say Roman triremes versus modern hydrofoils or jets. Lack of a compass can make triremes drift or move promiscuously; but it transforms hydrofoils or j ets into roaring, searing balls of flame.--And, while Koestler senses correctly that mutations are at work in transmuting Literate into Lower Industrial civilization quantitatively (Figures IV-2 and IV-4), the failure of Industrial civilization to transmute qualitatively into Group IV ( +, + ), where alone it can survive, is probably not related to genetics. It is due to the order in which intellectual transmutations necessarily come about:
The Periodic Law is so constructed that only after vast knowledge of some given kind of system's properties (say the atoms') has been amassed, can it be seen that they are a function of anything, let alone of such an elusive, subtle thing as coaction, the moral relation between the system's work component and controller.--Because of this necessary sequence of events, even the finest human beings--which almost all the scientists I know most surely are--have first to become "giants" of cognitive intellect (Lower Industrialists) while long remaining moral "dwarfs"; that is, without scientific moral orientation.
It was Mendeleev's completion of the Periodic Law a century ago in chemistry (and only Mendeleev intuited its cosmic or philosophical implications) which prematurely organized the physical sciences. And it will be the extension of this organization to the social and biological sciences which will complete this basically moral orientation, transmuting Koestler's "moral dwarfs" into (computer-assisted) moral giants, and giving our society's controller moral direction, and thus balance and stabilitv.
Today, in the Seventies, hindsight reveals these things. But back in the Forties, only a few colleagues and a handful of students had the faintest notion of what had to be done. I therefore instinctively organized the first Invisible College for our time: the Council for Unified Research and Education, Inc. was founded during the Centenary celebration of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
And what was its objective, from its beginning in 1948? We announced it visibly enough in Science: "An OSRD-like organization which may hope to succeed in advancing social (and biological) science through the stages of natural classification (J. S. Mill) and evolution theory (von Bertallanffy and Norbert Wiener), into that achieved by the physical sciences, where scientific fields are connected, and science is closely linked to philosophy and technology. The possibility of such coordination emerged with the independent discoveries of parts of the same conceptual scheme by students of plant, animal, and human coactions (as Leibniz had predicted) . . . Should this scheme prove to be a natural classification (J. S. Mill), it would create conditions for rapid coordination and advance of social science, as the Periodic Table did in chemistry."39,40
The announcement ended with a prediction that only a few Brooklyn College students could at that time begin to understand: "It is anticipated that the philosophical, scientific, and technological structures of Western and Eastern ideologies about conflict and cooperation will have been sufficiently clarified by then to make possible their gradual displacement by an advanced social science which is systematic, useful, and universally accepted, as physical science already is today."40
A few years later, I discovered that what C.U.R.E. had undertaken was, actually, to carry out the Royal Society's second but necessarily unfulfilled objective: in 1663 its Secretary, Robert Hooke, had announced the Royal Society's objectives in two parts: the first part was empirical and inductive: to discover the properties of all the natural kinds of systems. That is, to discover and describe the myriad parts of the universe. This first objective the Royal Society and its sister societies around the world have now carried out successfully enough: it has resulted in the multiversity, Figure IV-9. The second part of its program was deductive and theoretical: "The compiling of a complete system of solid philosophy."38 That is, to assemble this immense warehouse of heterogeneous parts into a coherent, working, viable whole: Unified Science.
By 1954 it had become clear that C.U.R.E. had undertaken a far more difficult task than we had realized in 1948. On Harold Cassidy's advice, we then became "invisible": C.U.R.E. suspended its meetings in order to concentrate on the necessarily mental-spiritual solution of its data-theory assembly problem. We worked on it "invisibly"--as individuals and pairs and small groups--for fifteen years. And in 1969, the hundredth anniversary of Mendeleev's Periodic Table, again at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, we briefly summarized the results of our invisible work. You see them outlined in this book.41
What we have done for science as a whole is at best only the sort of thing that Mendeleev did for chemistry. We have designed a model and some parts of a machine-tool for this model's manufacture. But fortunately we have done this much in time: In 1970, in his article on "The Club of Rome and the Predicament of Mankind," the Club's president, A. Peccei, published a call for a systematic viewpoint; a project which it takes decades to execute.
"The Club of Rome," says the Science Policy Bulletin, "comprises some 50 scientists, planners, intellectuals and industrialists from Asia, Africa, Western Europe, and North and Latin America, and is concerned with global problems of the techno-scientific (Lower Industrial) society. The `action oriented' Club of Rome `believes it is still possible . . . to meet this unprecedented tangle of problems beforc it outstrips our capacity for control.' The Club's first objective is `to acquire and spread an in-depth understanding of the present critical state of human affairs and of the narrowing and uncertain perspectives and options which are likely for the future, if present trends are not corrected. The second objective is, then, to recognize and propose new policy guidelines and patterns of action capable of redressing the situation and keeping it under control."42 Then comes the call for the leading link, the strategic factor: Peccei affirms that "the Club feels there is an urgent necessity for a `Copernican change' in attitude, to shift from a fragmented viewpoint to a systematic viewpoint."19
The book you are reading and its waiting line of sequels display this change of attitude, together with the concepts and metalanguage necessary for transmitting it. Their successful introduction into the multiversity will transform it in the manner foreseen and predicted in Figure IV-11, the New University. This revolutionized institution's alumni--organized specialists and generalists, Figure IV-12-will spread this New-Copernican attitude from kindergarten through primary, secondary, and tertiary schools, to graduate schools.
Correct and successful examination, diagnosis, prescription and prognosis are essential. But while the Club of Rome, our multiversities and the Scientific Community tend to stop there, the leadership procedure-sequence goes on, inexorably: after prognosis must come execution of the prescription. And this can be done only by the system's work component, the Majority, which Communists call the masses, and Swiss Social Capitalists call the general public. The Club of Rome wants to instruct the public. But to execute its prescriptions the public must be led! And finally, after each action, must come the feedback operation, retrospection: careful comparison of the execution's outcome with the prognosis, so as to correct and improve the system's later performances. Only retrospection closes the system's circuit and guarantees morally oriented development.
Theory becomes a social force only when it has gripped the masses, Marx declared. But the masses have, by definition, 1, 2, 3 and 4~ human level.s of abstraction, while theory includes levels 5, 6, and 7 (see Figures IV-1 to 4). To grip the masses, theory has to be transposed to every level. For without transposition, theory cannot grip the masses and is sterile. And who knows how to transpose theory better than organized specialists and generalists?
It is not, however, primarily scientists, but leaders of the great public who can execute prescriptions, carry out the patterns of action now being formulated. Their training is provided for in the New University's School of Management, shown on the left-hand side of Figure IV-9.
Yet plenty of our colleagues who cannot change are apt to drag their heels: some of the best established, most reputable ones refused even to look through Galileo's telescope or Pasteur's microscope! Their fate is to be dragged, kicking and screaming, in the dust of the chariot of becoming.
The men and women who will take upon themselves the chariots' heavy harness, and change the death-ward course of the world's development are, first of all, young people, and in all cases positively oriented ordinary citizens of vision and faith. How, then, can unified scientists and engineers, who must work out the diagnoses and prescriptions, move the Majority to their correct execution? By learning how these so-called common people think, talk, and act. And that means living among the people, the Literate and sub-Literate Cultures, and learning how to translate scientese into, and out of, their mythic or religious language without changing Unified Science's basic meaning.
What are religions? They are the unified sciences of pre-industrial peoples; the simpler peoples' coherent understandings of the world, in both its local and its universal aspects. That is what anthropologists mean when they say that primitive societies are sacred societies.27 If this is so, its converse follows logically: Unified Science is the religion of the industrial peoples, scientific culture. It is the modern updated form of religion called for by John A. T. Robinson and his theological colleagues around the world. If "in the final analysis our compass must be our relationship with a central order","4 and if Unisci provides this compass for the scientific portion of our global industrial society, then it fulfills for it the basic role which religion--in its diverse, increasingly sophisticated forms--has played in all the human Periods' literate and sub-literate cultures.
The great religious and artistic leaders of mankind have relied on, but stopped with, inspirations, revelations, and flashes of insight. They have stopped where creative scientists begin. What gives our scientists their immense authority, which has outstripped the authority of traditional priests and preachers, is their conscientious, detailed empirical verification of their revelations. This has, within each separate field, consistently winnowed out false revelations, corrected half-false inspirations, completed incomplete insights. The consequent structural correspondence of their thought with reality has conferred dominion upon modern technologists; the power to solve individual problems of health, transport, communication and so forth, at which men of traditional religion boggle. For unification of the corrected and verified separate scientific revelations now results in the moral orientation of the powerful scientific effort as a whole.
With moral orientation, science has come full circle: When unified, as here, science's revelations no longer conflict with, but reinforce and expand the most important revelations of the great religions. For the value-bias of both cultures, humanistic and scientific, has now become clearly positive. A host of ancient sayings, revelations, and myths have been, and can now be mapped geometrically, and their values assessed in the unequivocal idiom of science. Conversely, large and increasing bodies of scientific findings, and of the practices they generate, can be translated into effective religious and political idioms.
Unlike the detectors of the one-field scientific specialists, Figure IV-10, which screen out and reject most of religion's doctrines, and all its values, the detector of Unified Science, Figure VI-12, accepts the great majority of them. And more than that, it extends some, corrects some, completes some, and profoundly illuminates the whole, as the traditional religious attitude in turn illuminates, for many, Unified Science as a whole. The semi-conscious process which Toynbee groups under the general term mimesis herewith becomes the most important of technologies.
Joseph Campbell, author of the Masks of God, points out that though not true in a literal sense, a myth is not what it is considered to be in everyday speech--a fantasy or misstatement.43 It is rather a veiled explanation of the truth. "We have seen what has happened to primitive communities unsettled by the white man's civilization," he observes. "With their old taboos discredited, they immediately go to pieces, disintegrate, and become resorts of vice and disease. Today the same thing is happening to us."
Gerald Clarke's comment in a Time Essay has the sharpest point: "The mythologists (such as Joseph Campbell) are not providing myths, but they are indicating that something is missing without them. They are telling modern man that he has not outgrown mythology and will never outgrow it".44
The thing that has been missing is a reliable, practical, and spacious bridge between our old and enormous Literary Culture, whose language is basically myth in the sense of veiled truth; and our new Scientific Culture whose language is basically technical--in the sense of, for many, incomprehensible truth. I shall now bring evidence to show that with this bridge, the missing "something" is in place; that now at last science has come full circle. That the people who belong to our Two Cultures can now communicate across the Industrial world's cultural chasm, can orient each other, and together can transmute our Lower Industrial civilization as a whole into the Higher Industrial Period, Human Period 7. Switzerland has transmuted herself spontaneously. She is our little pilot plant, presenting us with decades of research and development, giving us vast amounts of data and experience on which to base our Creative Centrist alternative to the political ideologies of Extreme Left and Extreme Right (Figure II-16) on how to damp out their fatal rhythm of disintegration.
To illustrate this bridge's operation, I take some typical passages from the Autobioraphy of Harry Emerson Fosdick, a former pastor of my church, the Riverside Church in New York City.
"Mankind," wrote Dr. Fosdick, "desperately needs what Christianity at its best has to offer--that idea has become ever more urgent and commanding. I emphasize at its best because Christianity can be and often is perverted, corrupted, degraded, until far from serving good ends it becomes a deplorable evil. I grow weary at times with preachers who, without clarifying definitions, set over against each other words like `Christianity' and `secularism,' as though secularism were cursing the world and Christianity alone could save it. The fact is that so-called `Christianity' at its worst has produced some of the most hideous persecutions, wars and fanaticisms in history, and that today it is sometimes bigoted, superstitious, intolerant, socially disruptive, while so-called `secularism' is sometimes humane, ethically-minded and socially constructive." pp. 267-8.45
Dr. Fosdick's sermons and books display hundreds of concrete examples of Christianity and secularism at their best and also at their worst: These examples can now be mapped into the Periodic coordinate system, as in Figures V-3 and 4, and thus be given more clarifying definitions than humanists have here-to-fore commanded.
"I do not wish to use the word `Christianity' as though it were an unambiguous term," he wrote a little further on. "One needs to define what one means by it." He then uses what scientists call a type specimen or a paradigmatic case:46 "For me the essence of Christianity is incarnate in the personality of the Master . . . and in the fundamental principles of life's conduct which Jesus of Nazareth exhibited. I am sure that the world today desperately needs his faith and his way of life, and that without them there is no hope."45,47 Each concrete aspect of this paradigmatic case can be mapped unambiguously into the Periodic coordinate system, and the word `Christianity' thus rendered quite unambiguous.--A number of its parts will, I predict, be found to belong to the Literate Culture (Period 5), and to require transposition in order to regain their original meaning for Industrial culture. And others of its parts will have to be completed.
"This conviction [that we must emulate this paradigm] has been forced home on our generation by our disillusionment with some of the reliances in which we trusted for the salvation of the world--science and education, for example . . . They are only instruments and the crucial question on which everything in the end depends is what kind of people--with what undergirding conviction about God and man, with what quality of character and with what ethical standards--are going to use them." (Ibid.)
How relieved Dr. Fosdick would have been had he witnessed the moral orientation of the sciences resulting from their unification may be gathered two paragraphs later on: "Science (that is, the one-field disciplines) has brought mankind proximity, the ends of the earth woven together in intercommunication and interdependence, but it cannot provide the ethical quality which, transforming proximity into fraternal community, saves proximity from becoming tragedy." (Ibid.)
"I have lived into a generation," Dr. Fosdick continued, "where not science alone but education too `has created a world in which Christianity is an imperative."' He then lists almost all the defects which the crisis ridden university's now perfectly feasible assembly plant, Figure IV-11, has been shown to correct: "Facts without values, fragmentary specialties with no integrating philosophy of life as a whole, data with no ethical standards for their use, techniques with no convictions about life's ultimate meaning or with corrupting convictions--here, too, a panacea has turned out to be a problem. What quality of faith and character is going to use our educated minds?"p.271.
Answer: The quality wherein Unified Science and religion at its best coincide; and that is probably throughout.
The other major area in which Fosdick's religion and Unified Science reinforce each other he classes in his autobiography's index under Counseling, personal: "People come to church on Sunday with every kind of personal difficulty and problem flesh is heir to. A sermon (or, I presume to interject, a Unified Science lecture] was meant to meet such needs; it should be personal counseling on a group scale . . . . That was the place to start--with the real problems of the people. That was a sermon's speciality, which made it a sermon, not an essay or a lecture." Then Dr. Fosdick defines for his church services much the same objective which I had defined for each of my classes: "Every sermon should have for its main business the head-on constructive meeting of some problem which was puzzling minds, burdening consciences, distracting lives, and no sermon (or class) which so met a real human difficulty, with light to throw on it and help to win a victory over it, could possibly be futile." pp. 94.45
Now let us turn to concrete cases other than those at Brooklyn College back in the 'forties. Has Unified Science increased its capacity not just to instruct, but to inspire people to creative action?
One morning in February 1971, as I was working in my study here in New York, one of my students, an Englishman named John Harries, called me by telephone from New Haven, Connecticut. I had just started another seminar in Unified Science at Jere Clark's Interdisciplinary Center, Southern Connecticut State College.--Harries informed me that he was offering me a room free of charge, so I would not have to stay at motels after my evening seminars.
When I boggled, he explained that he was director of a group of students and young working people called the Unification Church. He said they had had a meeting and had voted to offer me a room in their house, free of charge.
I was, of course, delighted. But I said I would certainly want to pay my share of the house rent.
He answered that this would not be necessary: they wanted to subsidize my work!
When I protested that they could hardly have much of an idea of my work, since the course had just started and he had attended just one session, he laughed and said that if it would make me feel better, I could contribute whatever I saw fit.
But when, after the next seminar, I arrived at their house, they surrounded me with warmest hospitality. You would have thought I was their dearest relative!--They all slept on the floor--men, of course, strictly separate from women. But for me they brought a four-post bed from the cellar and set it up in a large private room. Each night, when the time came for their evening prayer session (at about I0:30), one of then took my suitcase and escorted me upstairs to my room. Thus was established, without a spoken word, a geographic separation between my uncompromisingly scientific classes and their uncompromisingly religious prayers. Quite possible embarrassments were thus forestalled.
But in due course I happened to pick up a copy of their Divine Principle and in my next seminar I translated some of its religious principles into scientese.23 Their horizontal and vertical principles seem to assemble into the Periodic coordinate system; their object and subject can then be interpreted as Work Component X and Controller Y; their give-and-take then becomes symbiosis ( + , + ), extending their vocabulary to all coactions, and so forth. Not everything translates, of course: from science's point of view, a lot of what they say has got to be regarded as symbolic. But they seem able to accept that. This leaves us smilingly convinced that we are, in our very different scientific and humanistic ways, describing the same thing.
A few weeks later I found myself at their United States headquarters in Washington, D.C., giving a lecture on The Intertranslatability of Unified Science and Unified Religion amid exclamations of "That's wonderful! That's absolutely perfect!"
I had, of course, to keep replying that it is most certainly not perfect, but that it may be perfectible.--That is a service which scientists must constantly and firmly render to men of religion, to keep our minds open to correction and to growth. What deadlier paralysis is there than the illusion of having reached perfection?
For the next term at Southern Connecticut State College, its 1971 summer session, the Unification Church sent students to New Haven from Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and a physicist and a political scientist across the continent from California. We lived together at the New Haven Center. The physicist, Glenn Strait, conducted two evening sessions there each week to coach and brief all those who needed it. Next morning at eight o'clock, unresolved questions were taken up in class. "Counseling, personal" sometimes went on by appointment, and sometimes by students' impulsively coming to my room.
By midterm, the class had divided itself along the Two-Culture line into Scientists and Humanists. I designed the examinations so that one set of specialized questions was directed to scientists, a different set to humanists. But all basic questions belong to both cultures. They were directed to, and answered by, everyone.
The class's extensive term papers, written along these clearly converging lines, turned out so splendidly that I suggested the possibility of publishing them as a book. The students enthusiastically elected an editorial board, and when the book is ready, and its title decided upon, we will submit it to a publisher. Have not the Two Cultures come together, as C. P. Snow predicted, in the United States? Early in 1972, the founder of the Unification Church arrived in the United States. Sun Myung Moon is a South Korean philosopher, raised as a Christian and trained in electrical engineering in Japan. His Church's half million profoundly dedicated members are citizens of some twenty-six countries in Asia, America, and Europe.
At our first meeting, in which Mr. Moon was flanked by three Korean interpreters, and I by the directors of two of his American centers, he announced that he wished me to organize an international conference so that the world could become acquainted with Unified Science.
I was, of course, elated. This would transform our invisible college into the visible executor of the fatally unfinished part of the Royal Society's program of 1663. Mr. Moon proposed that six eminent scientists be invited from Europe, four from Asia, and ten from America. He suggested that we invite fifty or sixty observers, and that C.U.R.E's membership be expanded to all the continents.
I replied that if no strings were attached--if C.U.R.E. could decide all questions of subject, persons, discussions, and so forth without interference from his Church of any sort, C.U.R.E., Inc. would gladly accept this offer.
Mr. Moon assured me that there would be no interference on the part of the Unification Church, just as there had been none with my courses at Southern Connecticut State College. He concluded by asking me to draw up a budget--including aeroplane tickets, a first class hotel, and all the rest--and to submit it to him as soon as possible.
The conference on Moral Orientation of the Sciences was thus scheduled to follow shortly the publication of our invisible college's Copernican change of attitude embodied in this book.
This publication is of course indispensable. But by itself it would certainly be too little. To paraphrase Harry Emerson Fosdick46 p. 99, a unified scientist's business is not merely to discuss moral orientation of the sciences, but to persuade scientists to orient themselves morally; not merely to debate the meaning and possibility of Unified Science, but to produce this moral synthesis in the lives of his listeners; not merely to talk about the available moral force of Unified Science to bring victory over academic disintegration and ecotechnical temptation, but to send people out from his classes and conferences with victory in their possession. A unified scientist's task is to create in his associates, fellow scientists and students the thing he is talking about. (End of paraphasis.)
One logical place to practice this is, of course, our Riverside Church where Dr. Fosdick preached. In December, 1971, I wrote its present Preaching Minister the following New Year's letter:
Dear Ernest Campbell, best wishes for the coming year! This year will mark the fusion of our ancient Literary Culture with our new Scientific Culture: and thus of religion with science. It was bound to happen: the deeper meaning of such symbols as and was bound to appear as sciences merge and illuminate each other. The Bible passages say ". . . the beginning and the end . . ."; now Unified Science completes these sentences and says of what.
Since I am a member of your Church, Dr. Campbell, you will probably be involved in these developments. People will ask you what your views are on me, as they have asked me how I can listen to you preach.--I've listened many times, so I can answer; I have, in fact, listened to preachers all my life--my father, grandfather, and (in print) great grandfathers among them.--What I have done is, to make it possible for conscientious scientists and their millions of students to listen to men of religion as they have not done, now, for decades. I have also made it possible for you to listen to them, as you have never really done.
Not actually, of course, to them; but to those among them who--reviewing their one--field, and thus amoral, specializations--participate in this unification of sciences, in which most of our ancient values reappear in modern form.
A dialogue now becomes possible: Unified Science appears to be what Teilhard de Chardin calls depersonalized religion; religion which can thus be invested with personality, such as that of Jesus. (That is what in-carnation now comes to mean.) But as mankind approaches and reaches our planet's saturation point, incarnation and mankind's ways must change accordingly. If they do not, implacablejudgement, which transgression of moral law brings on, will surely and certainly be executed; and that, by Mankind upon itself.--Unified Science corroborates many ancient, intuited predictions, terribly.--It also shows how to avoid their happening.
What, Dr. Campbell, are you going to do?
P.S. I'm xeroxing this letter and will include it in the concluding chapter of our book, nailing my theses to the cathedral gate.
To this, Dr. Campbell graciously replied:
"What I propose to do is first to congratulate you for seeing this venture through. Second, I intend to read the book insofar as my limited scientific perceptions will permit me to do. Third, I will give you my honest response to the book, something I frequently do in line of duty under the general heading of book reviews."--Our dialogue has thus begun.
The crucial dialogues, however, will be among scientists, for our first objective has to be moral orientation of the sciences. Only with its attainment, does our ultimate aim become even possibly attainable: moral orientation of the Earth. That is the way it's said in uni-scientese. In the ideolect of our religion this goal is called the Kingdom of God.
|FIGURE V-5 The Central Order (1972 model).|
Whatever its name. this objective will probably be approached-as far as it depends on Man--to the degree that our sciences (including political science), our philosophies (examples of which are listed in the fold-out chart), the arts, technology and religion come to apply the coaction compass to their developments.
|1.||This chapter was written at the suggestion of the publisher's editor, Dr. Ervin Laszlo, Professor of Philosophy at the State University College, Geneseo, New York, to whose many constructive proposals this book owes its final structure.|
|2.||Jonas, Hans, The Phenomenon of Life--Toward a Philosophy of Biology, Bell Publ. Co., New York, 1968.|
|3.||This diagram, based upon Two Modes of Thought by James B. Conant is taken from my xeroxed book Unified Science--Assembly of the Sciences into A Single Discipline, Volume I, Scientia Generalis, Chap. 7. It has been used as a textbook at the New School for Social Research in New York and Southern Connecticut State College in New Haven, and is being readied for publication. (See, Conant, James, B., Two Modes of Thought, Trident Press, New York, 1964. Haskell, Edward, Unified--of the Sciences into a Single Discipline, Vol. I, Scientia Generalis. Preface and a chapter by Harold G. Cassidy. Offset-printed by N.I.H. 1968; xeroxed by IBM Systems Res. Inst., New York, 1969.)|
|4.||Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Beyond, Harper & Row, New York, 1971.|
|5.||See, for example, The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field by Jacques Hadamard. Or Reason and Chance in Scientific Discovery by R. Taton. (See Hadamard, Jacques, The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton Univ. Press, 1945. Taton, R., Reason and Chance in Scientific Discovery, Philosophical Library, New York, 1957.)|
|6.||The term ectropy was, I repeat, coined by W. V. Quine in 1969, replacing such inelegant terms as negentropy and negative entropy.|
|7.||Lodge, George T., "Measurement of Man-Machine System Performance", Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress of applied Psychology, Liege, Belgium, 1971.|
|8.||Toffler, Alvin, Future Shock, Bantam Books, New York, 1970.|
|9.||Lippmann, Walter, The Public Philosophy--On the Decline and Revival of Western Democracy. Little, Brown, Boston, 1955.|
|10.||The concept, paradigm, both in Figure IV-10 and IV-12 is due to Thomas L. Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In the case of public philosophy, the concept is generalized to non-scientific ideologies. (See Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, First ed. University of Chicago Press, 1962.)|
|11.||Haskell, Edward F., "The Religious Force of Unified Science," Scientific Monthly, June, 1942, Vol. LIV, pp. 545-551.|
|12.||----, "Unified Science--The Public Philosophy of the Space Age," Connecticut Review, Hartford, Conn., April, 1969.|
|13.||"The Public Philosophy of the Space Age," a chapter in a symposium volume. Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, New York, 1972.|
|14.||Bertalanffy, Ludwig von, General Systems Theory--Foundations, Development, Applications. Braziller, New York, 1968.|
|15.||Toynbee, Arnold J., An Historian's View of Religion. Oxford Univ. Press, 1956.|
|16.||----, A Study of History, Abridgement of Vols. I-VI by D. C. Somervell. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1947.|
|17.||McNeill, William., The Rise of the West--A History of the Human Community. Univ. of Chicago Press, 1963.|
|18.||The present concept and definition of System-hierarchy were formulated in discussions among Cassidy, Quine and Haskell between 1964 and 1969.|
|19.||Peccei, A. "The Club of Rome and the Predicament of Mankind" in Science Policy News, September 1970 (pp. 13-14).|
|20.||As a matter of fact, it was obvious to at least one man: Aristarchus of Samos not only discovered the Earth's rotations some twenty-odd centuries before Copernicus, but even the elliptic shape of its orbit, which Copernicus never did discover. Copernicus, moreover, had heard about Aristarchus. (See Koestler, Arthur, The Sleepwalkers--A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe. Macmillan, New York, 1959.)|
|21.||This fact cannot be judged or even seen from the perspective of any one-field specialist: it seems to belong to anthropology, but it involves higher levels of abstraction. These include anthropology itself as a datum; also modern religion, philosophy, science, and ideology in general. This inclusiveness was predicted by Leibniz for the Universal Characteristic, of which the Periodic coordinate system is a model. (See Leibniz Selections, Phillip P. Wiener, editor. Scribner's, New York, 1951.)|
|22.||Robinson, John A. T., Honest to God, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1963.|
|23.||Kim, Young Oon, Divine Principle and its Application. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity. 1611 Upshur St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20011, 1968.|
|24.||Edwards, David L., editor, The Honest to God Debate. Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1963.|
|25.||Snow, C. P., The Two Cultures--And a Second Look. New American Library, New York, 1963.|
|26.||I am scheduled to teach a course at Southern Connecticut State College in 1972 titled, Unification of the Two Cultures: Scientific and Literary.|
|27.||Durkheim, Emile, Les formes elementaires de la vie religieuse, F. Alcon, Paris, 1912.|
|28.||The writer is an Associate of Current Anthropology and Fellow of the Society for Applied Anthropology,|
|29.||The writer knows something about Communist organization: He had been a member of the Communist party from 1933 to 1936, and had been president of a large Communist-front organization. He had chaired a delegation which had travelled to and worked with Communist organizations in ten countries, including the Soviet Union. During this trip he had been arrested three times. He had spent an afternoon in the home of George Dimitroff, General Secretary of the Communist International (near Moscow), discussing (in Bulgarian) the world-program of the Comintern. Though he had dropped out of the Communist Party in 1936, he was awarded the decoration "9th of September" by mail "For your social activity as a friend of Bulgaria."|
|30.||Jehring, J. J., Profit Sharing: The Capitalistic Challenge. Profit Sharing Research Foundation, 1718 Sherman Ave., Evanston, I11., ca. 1965.|
|31.||McCormic, Charles P., The Power of People-Multiple Management Up to Date. Harper, New York, 1949.|
|32.||Haskell, Edward F., "Switzerland's Vertical Front--The Migros Federation of Cooperatives in the Light of Systematic Social Science." A chapter in Gottlieb Duttweiler, dem Sechzig jährigen, Dank und Kritik. Speer-Verlag, Zurich, 1948.|
|33.||In 1971 Migros had 909,602 registered members in a nation of about 6 million.|
|34.||The nearly one million registered Migros members have several times as many fellow-travellers, who fight beside them in the Social-Capital trade wars and anti-pollution trade wars.|
|35.||Haskell, Edward F., and Harold G. Cassidy, Plain Truth--And Redirection of the Cold War. Privately printed and distributed, 1961.|
|36.||James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience. Longmans, Green, New York, 1902.|
|37.||"The Invisible College," a chapter in Roots of Scientific Thought--A Cultural Perspective. P. Wiener and A. Noland, eds. Basic Books, New York, 1957.|
|38.||Lyon, A., History of The Royal Society. Cambridge Univ. Press.|
|39.||The Offlce of Scientific Research and Development organized the United States' scientific effort to win World War II. (See Irving Stewart, Organizing Scientific Research for War, Atlantic, Little Brown, Boston, 1948.) C.U.R.E. is now organizing the world's scientific effort to win World Peace I. (See below.)|
|40.||Science, "Symposium on Cooperation and Conflict Among Living Organisms." Sept. 3, 1948 (pp. 263-4).|
|41.||Program, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston, Mass., Dec. 1969 (p. 248).|
|42.||Science Policy Bulletin, October 1970 (p. 2).|
|43.||Campbell, Joseph, The Masks of God (4 vols.). Viking/Compass, New York, last vol., 1968|
|44.||Clarke, Gerald, "The Need for New Myths," Time Magazine, Jan. 17, 1972 (p. 50).|
|45.||Fosdick, Harry Emerson, Autobiography of Harry Emerson Fosdick--The Livtng of these Days. Harper, New York, 1956.|
|46.||Quine, Willard van Orman, Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. Columbia Univ. Press, 1969.|
|47.||Compare to this the following statement by Werner Heisenberg: "If we ask Western man what is good and what is evil, what is worth striving for and what is to be rejected, we shall find time and again that his answers reflect the ethical norms of Christianity even when he has long since lost all touch with Christian images and parables. If the magnetic force that has guided this particular compass--and what else was its source but the central order?--should ever become extinct, terrible things may happen to mankind..." (p. 2174).|
|48.||Inferred from the discovery of the consecutive formation of atoxns in the expanding shells of quasars (Fig. II-2).|