Olga required Perry to do considerable writing, which he referred to facetiously as his ‘homework’ or his ‘examinations’. There was an entire series in which he was asked to define terms. In the earlier papers the words to be defined were comparatively simple, such as ‘walking’, ‘road’, ‘apple’, ‘cat’. Perry started in on these blithely determined to show that he positively was not chasing butterflies. But these papers came back to him with discrepancies and confusing terms pointed out and with a request for more nearly unmistakable definitions. He grew hot and sweaty and struggled with attempts to say in words just exactly what he meant. Then his second attempts came back with a congratulatory note on the care with which he had made his definitions, but with a comment on his definition of ‘horse’: ‘Does this definition include clothes’ horse, saw horse, horse play, horse dice? Please examine your other definitions with this comment in mind.’ Grimly he sat down to modify the definitions which he had believed to be so beautifully exact. He hit upon the following dodge, a phrase which he added to each definition:‘—and many other meanings, determined by the context, the speaker and listener, and the idiom of the period.’ Finally he stated the proposition that a word is adequately defined when it is used in such a fashion that it means the same thing to the listener as it means to the speaker. He sent this in with the hope that it would settle the matter. He was soon undeceived for he was requested the next day to define ‘human nature’, ‘patriotism’, ‘justice’, ‘love’, ‘honor’, ‘duty’, ‘space’, ‘matter’, ‘religion’, ‘god’, ‘life’, ‘time’, ‘society’, ‘right’, and ‘wrong’. After three days of fruitless struggle in an attempt to do something with these words, he sent back the following statement: ‘Insofar as I am able to tell these words have no meaning whatsoever, for I am unable to devise any means of defining them so that they mean the same to the speaker as to the listener.’ The answer that came back was cryptic: ‘Let the problem lie, but do not abandon it. Could you design a turbine without a knowledge of calculus and of entropy?’ He was then requested to formulate a mechanics of a pseudo-gravitation based on a law of attraction by inverse cubes instead of inverse squares. He became fascinated with the beautiful logical consequences of this problem and produced a monograph on the resulting ballistics. He was then asked if he could design sights for a gun to be fired under the postulated conditions. This request struck him as ridiculous and he demanded an explanation of Olga.
“Olga, what is all this rigamarole? What possible use is it for me to design a worthless gun?”
Olga smiled a long slow smile. “I would like to tell you the meaning but I can’t. If you knew the meaning the rigamarole would not be necessary. But you must discover meaning for yourself. We are trying to help you discover the meaning of the words you didn’t define.”
“I’d like to lay hands on the guy who thought up this last little joke.” She took his hand and placed it on her shoulder. “You did? Olga, I thought you were a pal of mine.”
“I am, Perry, but it’s part of my business to see that your treatment is approached through fields you understand and to watch its effect on you. However I think we can skip a step at this point. You obviously don’t want to bother with designing this gun sight. But you could design it, could you not?”
“Certainly. Nothing to it. You see—” Perry launched into a flow of the technicalities used in ordnance and ballistics, and described with sweeps of his hands what would happen to a shell unlucky enough to be constrained by an inversed-cube type acceleration. “—and all this is in vacuo, of course. I wouldn’t attempt to predict without empirical data the effect of a gaseous medium constrained by the same field.”
“That’s enough, Perry. I didn’t understand a third of what you said, but I’m convinced that you could design the gunsight. Suppose we had such a gun and set it up here. Could you hit that sailboat over there across the lake?”
“Of course not.”
“Why not?”
“Why, the mathematical formulas under which it was designed don’t apply to the conditions under which the gun is fired. The more carefully you aimed the more certain you would be of missing.”
“Does that suggest anything to you, Perry?”
“No, not offhand.”
“You remember those words you didn’t define—Weren’t those words the names for things by which a man guides his life?—Honor, love, truth, justice, duty, and so forth?”
A look of dawning comprehension came into his face. “Yes, yes, I think so.”
“Aren’t these things just as powerful to move a man as the hunger of the belly or the stirring of the loins.”
“Yes, yes indeed. More powerful.”
“Then they aren’t meaningless. But like that gunsight, unless the meaning you attribute to them bears a correct relationship to the world in which you act, you cannot possibly use them as guides to go where you wish to go. Yet without these guides, a man himself is as meaningless as a gun that can’t be aimed.”
“You make it sound very plausible, yet a man is not a shell in a gun and truth and honor are not gunsights.”
“No, they aren’t. Let us drop the analogy before it leads us into absurdities. Nevertheless I think you see that what I said is true, quite independently of the analogy. Men are moved to act by very complicated motivations tagged duty, love, sin, and so forth. You yourself are moved by them and yet you are unable to define what you mean by these terms. You have accepted these concepts more or less unconsciously yet you know so little about them that you cannot possibly know whether they lead where you want to go, or to disaster. If you attempted to pilot a plane with as little knowledge of the controls, you would be sure to wreck it. You are here because you did such faulty piloting of your own life, and smashed another person in the chin in the process.”
“Granting that what you say is true—and I don’t concede yet that I was wrong to hit that fellow—how do you discover proper meanings for these words that will enable me to conduct myself properly by them?”
“How did you discover how to design gunsights that would enable you to hit the mark?”
“Why the theory of gravitation makes it a mathematical necessity.”
“Are you sure? I seem to remember that the theory of gravitation was turned upside down and inside out in your lifetime. Did that cause all the gunsights to be junked?”
He slapped his thigh. “By God, you’re right. Exterior ballistics evolved by purely empirical means, trial and error. Whenever we got enough data to analyze we invented formulas to fit. We never tried to make the practice fit the theory. When the theory didn’t fit, we junked it and made up a new one. But it worked. We built machines in that way that were marvels of accurate prediction,” he said and thought, then his face clouded. “But how can you apply that technique to the problems of living?”
“Well, Perry, so far as I know there are just two ways of working out a practical theory of human relations that will enable us all to live happily together. One is the hard way of trying to work out empirical principles from what we know of the real world. The other is by divine revelation. I won’t say that the second way is impossible, but we moderns have grown to distrust it. Our conclusions in 2086 from the first method are embodied in the current code of customs. He who complies with that code will live with reasonably little conflict in 2086 whether he believes that the code is a list of final truths or simply rough generalizations. The code embodies our 2086 meanings for these troublesome words that you could not define. You have other meanings, unspoken, and in my opinion your meanings are both inaccurate and dangerous, for I believe that if you were able to define your code in spoken objective words you would find that your code did not correspond to the real world around you.”
“But that still doesn’t tell me how you arrive at these customs, or empirical formulas for conduct, or whatever you care to call them.”
“Much as you perfected the art of ballistics. By a willingness to junk theories that didn
’t fit the facts. For example, the churches, by and large, set their faces against divorce. Divorce was a ‘sin’. No attempt was made to study marriage and divorce objectively, divorce was ‘sin’ by divine revelation and that settled it. It is almost inconceivable the amount of harm that was done by that one false generalization alone. By rejecting the dogmatic viewpoint and examining the problem in its environment we reached quite different conclusions. In the 2086 environment divorce is not a ‘sin’, although it is possible to conceive different social patterns in which divorce would be ‘sin’. Consider again the subject of clothing as a taboo. Again a dogmatic generalization for social conduct decreed that it was ‘wrong’, ‘dishonorable’, ‘immodest’ to appear unclothed. Original sin was involved, complicated aesthetic ideas were given a false objective reality, and so forth. An amazing mass of philosophical nonsense was written on this one taboo alone by people who would never think of taking off their clothes in the presence of others in order to see what it felt like. Their faces were resolutely set against such irreverent experiment, even as the scholasticists of the Middle Ages refused to watch any experiment which threw doubt on the perfection of Aristotle’s Mechanics, and yet the experiment was always available and easy to perform. In 2086 from purely experimental considerations, the clothes taboo is destroyed. It does not appear in our code of customs, and one may dress or not as convenience and personal aesthetic taste indicates.
“Again, take politics. For centuries philosophers attempted to formulate the perfect state, reasoning from their own unexamined prejudices, which they usually assumed to be divine revelation. In 2086 we consider that the ‘perfect state’ is a meaningless sound having no objective reality. Instead we set up a political system to achieve whatever we wish to accomplish in 2086. We have no notion that it would have suited 1000 A.D. nor that it would suit contemporary Europe nor that we will leave it unchanged in the future. But we do believe that we have evolved a technique by which we can make the state serve our purposes in any age.”
She glanced at the chronometer. “I have other things that I must do now, and I believe that you should think over and develop for yourself any new ideas from this talk. Bye bye!”
VIII
These exercises in realistic thinking continued in various ways. Perry found himself unable to distinguish between activities which were a part of his treatment, events simply intended to entertain and thereby keep him happy in his environment, and activities which he had selected for his own edification or fulfillment. Early in his stay he had expressed a desire to continue with his study of modern mathematics. He was given every facility to do so, but in time lost interest in the face of other activities and, especially, his rapidly growing friendship with Olga. He was surprised to receive a call from Hedrick who urged him to pursue his mathematical studies to the limit and, if possible, to develop some new aspect of the art. Perry inquired if this were standard psychiatric procedure. Hedrick hastened to reassure him, “Not at all, not at all, but if a person under treatment has a mathematical pre-disposition the development of that bent may be used very handily to clear up his particular difficulty. Yours is a case in point. You think very admirably in the field of physics in which your terms are almost entirely mathematical. You are able to make useful predictions and are able to avoid fallacious identification of terms. You are able to appreciate and even invent little mathematical jokes based on a deliberate confusion of terms. You can ‘prove’ to me that one plus one equals one or air cars won’t fly, for our mutual amusement. This does you no harm because you have deliberately confused certain terms and used them with different meanings in the same problem in order to achieve a willfully ludicrous result. When your thinking in social relationships reaches the same order of development, you will no longer be tortured by the emotional upsets that impelled you to consult us.”
“Is that all that insanity amounts to, a confusion of terms?”
“Oh my, no. Even in your own case confusion in terms is not the only problem. You not only confuse the various meanings of some terms, but you also fail in certain respects to perceive the pattern of your structural relationship to your environment. This produces trouble which may be likened to that experienced by a thirsty traveler who believes that a heat mirage is a lake. Your trouble is not of that simple order of perception of physical phenomena, but in a much higher order of abstraction. Yet it is as difficult for me to explain to you the exact nature of your trouble as it would be for you to explain a mirage to an ignorant savage. Your only hope of getting the savage to understand a mirage in the fashion in which you understand it would lie in giving him a long course of basic instruction in modern science, having first—and this is very important—un-taught him a thousand superstitions and false identifications with which his mind is crowded. You are now in the process of unlearning your errors and superstitions. At the same time you are beginning to teach yourself a more satisfactory concept of the cosmos. But I haven’t answered your question. You are not insane, any more than our savage. You are simply confused, as the savage was. In each case the confusion can be eliminated by proper training. Yours might well have taken place in a children’s development center had you been of the proper age. Moreover, because of the maturity and exceptional ability of your mind we can enable you to re-train yourself in a fraction of the time necessary to train a child.
“With respect to other methods of treatment, naturally if a person is truly insane, suffering from physical lesions, whether congenital, traumatic, or pathological, we treat by physical means, surgery, chemical therapy, physical therapy, and so forth. Frequently there is little we can do other than care for them, keep them from harming themselves, or others, and prevent them from reproducing. But in any case in which the brain and nervous structure are not injured, we have not yet failed to achieve a satisfactory re-training into a state of full sanity. Yours is not even a difficult case, my boy. I feel sure that both of us will be satisfied with the result.”
Perry stirred uneasily in his seat. “What you say may be true and I would hesitate to contradict you in your own field. Certainly I have acquired a lot of new ideas and new concepts and new ways of thinking about things in the past weeks. Nevertheless, I don’t feel any different about the thing that landed me in this mess. I’m still in love with Diana, and I’m jealous as hell of her. I enjoyed taking a poke at that guy Bernard and would enjoy doing it again. I don’t want any man to lay a finger on her. In spite of my inability to define human nature, I think you know what I mean by the term, and I think its in human nature that I should feel as I do, and I don’t see how you can change human nature, mine or anybody else’s.”
Hedrick smiled and put the tips of his fingers together carefully, cocked his head on one side and replied, “You are right, my dear boy, entirely right, except about the immutability of human nature, in which you are partially wrong. I am quite prepared to believe that you are physically jealous of your woman in an acutely emotional manner. It is true that this emotion results from your own ‘human nature’ and that it is potentially present in all males and also in females, although it arises in females from a different source of more recent origin and less deep seated in character. The jealousy of the male for the female may be observed in animal life, in the battling of torn cats, the duels to death of stag deer, and the fighting cock bird. It is present in all animals, human and otherwise, and is both a necessary consequence and a determining cause of the survival of all bisexual life. It is very simple. The male who was unwilling to fight other males for the privilege of sexual intercourse did not reproduce; his line died out. Each generation, by and large, was descended from males who would fight for the females. Any factor in human nature which is necessary or helpful to the continuance and propagation of life may be termed a ‘survival factor’ and each generation will exhibit by necessity these factors; sexual urge, belly hunger, group loyalty, heliotropism, whatever they may be. You may term, if you wish, the resulting complicated manifold of instincts, d
esires, reflexes, emotions, and so forth, ‘human nature’, ‘animal nature’, or the ‘nature of life’. But you must remember that these are complex terms, implying many factors, and arising from myriad environmental circumstances in the history of the race. And you must remember that environments change. Now, a factor in ‘human nature’ remains a survival factor only as long as the environment continues to make it so. For example on a dairy farm sexual jealousy is no longer a survival factor for bulls; on the contrary a bull is not allowed to fight; his major survival factor is his ability to breed daughters who are big milk producers. It is useless to argue that he is in an artificial environment; the distinction is a specious one. A man-made environment is as ‘natural’ as that of the jungle, unless you insist on a purely verbal distinction that divorces ‘Man’ from the rest of nature.
“Perry, you now find yourself in an environment in which the factor of physical sexual jealousy is no longer a survival factor. On the contrary it decreases your chances to survive. Yet the factor still exists in your ‘nature’. You say ‘that is that’ and that nothing can be done about it, which would be true if you were a bull, but you are not a bull and there is an essential difference between modern man and other animals. Men are able consciously to examine their motives, emotions, and so forth, and by a conscious process to inhibit or divert a reaction, reflex, and so forth. He can control his emotions or modify them by conscious application, and thereby change ‘human nature’. You think not? Let us consider the case of another survival factor, the fear of falling from a height. You ride in air cars. Are you afraid of the height? Does it cause you any nervousness? Does it upset your digestion, prevent you from sleeping nights, cause you to wake screaming from nightmares? Today the fear of heights is potentially present in that inherited matrix you call ‘human nature’. It’s nearly as old as the sex urge.”
For Us, the Living Page 15
