Appendix I


THE CONCEPT of type specimens or paradigm cases of theoretical constructs is commonplace in traditional astronomy, geology, biology and chemistry. In chemistry, pure samples of a chemical element listed in the Periodic Table of chemical elements, samples say of hydrogen or uranium, are type specimens or paradigm cases of the theoretical classes in question. In traditional biology, each species and sub-species of plants or animals listed in the taxonomic classification is keyed to one or more type specimens carefully preserved in cases, bottles, presses, and so forth, in various museums and other institutions. In astrophysics and geology, type specimens (paradigm cases of theoretical classes) are keyed to specific geoid bodies or geophysical entities.

There is, however, a strategic difference between the chemical classification and most others: The chemical classification includes both quantitative and qualitative, both Stratum-Period and Group characteristics, while the traditional biological and geoid classifications omit the latter. This happened because the atomic Groups are classes of coaction potentialities between the atom in question and its chemical habitat (classes of so-called chemical properties), whereas traditional taxonomic classifications are confined to entities and omit their habitats. They stop short of the next necessary step, classifying the coactions between them. Since coactions are traditionally called moral relations, it is their omission that deprives these traditional disciplines of moral force; and, of course, it is their inclusion which confers upon Unified Science and its organised disciplines their moral force (see Glossary). This will become very clear when we discuss human cultures, where moral relations have long been recognised.

The decisive advance displayed by ecology lies in its empirical study of, and emphasis upon, the coactions between the traditionally classified entities and their habitats. Unified Science contributes theoretical definition and classification of these coactions; their mapping into the framework called Periodic Table and the Periodic Coordinate System.

The first step, then, in defining type specimens in this domain, is to select ecosystems with clearly discernible controllers such as, say, beaver valleys, and to compile the most reliable written, pictorial, and film records of them in existence. The next step is to draw up the ecosystem's web-of life, on the general pattern displayed in Figure II-14b. This involves clear assessment of each participant's Characteristic Number, relating each organismic and abiotic factor to the Periodic Table in each major respect. This will disclose role-duplications, triplications, and higher multiplications; reveal many unsuspected forms of indirect coaction; display gaps in our image of the web and lead us to fill them in. This procedure will yield us far more complete and detailed understanding of each participant's own ecosystem--its own organism habitat system--than we now have, and prepare the third step. This is to assess the quantities of the processes comprising the strategic organismic or abiotic factors' webs. This will, in turn, permit us to simulate strategic webs with a computer, modifying, introducing, or eliminating factors at will and predicting the consequences. This will permit empirical verification, with subsequent changes and improvements of our image (theory) until its accuracy is as great as necessary for feasible and effective control.

This project should coordinate large sectors of biological data and research, as the verification and completion of the Periodic Table of the Chemical Elements did for chemical data after 1869. This is a pre-condition for technology assessment.


Pages 243-244

Appendix II


THIS FRAMEWORK of the Periodic Table of Human Cultures can now be used to assemble some of the accumulated masses of anthropological data, much as the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements was used in 1869 for masses of data amassed by chemists. Such assembly begins most easily with the two aspects of natural classification : quantitative ( R ) on the table's left-hand side, and qualitative ( ) on its right-hand side.

These two aspects are displayed by the two traditional kinds of anthropological classifications. Large masses of anthropological data have been prepared for what J. S. Mill called natural classification by these preliminary classifications' famous authors.

Periodicity and Stratification ( R ) are displayed, for instance, by "The Material Cultures and Social Institutions of the Simpler Peoples" of Hobhouse, Wheeler and Ginsberg whose nomenclature has been incorporated into the Periodic Table. This huge classification is developed much further in Murdock's "Ethnographic Atlas". And these two classifications' most famous precursor was Lewis Morgan's classification of human cultures in "Ancient Society", 1877. While less detailed and precise, it went beyond them by including Period 5 (Literates) which Morgan called Civilization. The Periodic Table accommodates this Period, as also Periods 6 (Lower Industrialises), 7 (Higher Industrialists), and as many others as may become necessary.

Grouping ( ) is displayed in small, incipient classifications such as the comparative studies of values by Clyde Kluckhohn and others; and Ruth Benedict in Patterns of Culture among many others. These sets of abstract data were made operationally constant, and thus classifiable, by Ethel Albert's "Theory Construction for the Comparative Study of Values in Five Cultures". At any given time, she pointed out, every culture is what chemists call a mixture: its members display most or all of the theoretically possible values in various proportions. Nonetheless, every culture displays what Albert calls a dominant value premise by which all others, which she calls deviant, tend to be suppressed. Deviant values thus tend to be what physicists call potential. Under certain conditions, however, one or more of these deviant values may become actual or kinetic, and tend to split the society; to generate conflicts within it. If it displaces the previously dominant value-premise in the society's controller, part or all of the culture is transmuted into another Group. By pointing out the role of the dominant values, Albert's theory thus permits qualitative classification of cultures and of their qualitative (Group) transmutations, past and future.

The Periodic Table of Human Cultures permits social scientists to relate these two kinds of classification to each other. It thus permits us to formulate and test the Moral Law, whose scientific version reads as follows : The properties of human cultures are functions of their moral relations. Stated in geometric terms this is, of course, the human case of the General Periodic Law,

R = f ( ).

How can this law be tested in the psycho-social domain? In the same way as it has been tested in the physical domain. There, mixtures were carefully separated into their constituent elements. Mendeleev mapped these elements into the loci in the incipient Periodic table where they seemed to fit best in regard both to atomic weight and properties. In some cases, however, discrepancies appeared. So Mendeleev tested the accepted atomic weights (the analogue of coaction or dominant value bias as shown in the first two chapters) or the accepted properties; and, in a number of cases, he found one or both to be incorrect. These corrections almost always confirmed the Periodic Law, thereby invalidating traditional misconceptions.--Unified Science predicts that similar fitting and verifying of accepted properties and value-biases in the biological and psycho-social sciences will similarly confirm the Moral Law, and advance these sciences with similarly growing speed and power.


Let us illustrate this research program by means of two or three cultural type specimens or paradigm cases.

The Pueblo Indians' cultures-those of the Zuni, Hopi, Acoma--belonged clearly, at the time they were described by Ruth Benedict, to Period 4: Higher Agriculturalists. And their dominant value-premise was clearly cooperation; that is to say, Group IV ( + , + ). So this culture is to be mapped into the space provided for that particular kind of system.

At the opposite side of the Periodic coordinate system (though not of the Periodic Table) lies Group VIII ( - , - ). (We cannot here consider specimens of its three Sub-Groups.) A type specimen of this Group was the culture called Dobu at the time in question. It belonged fairly clearly to Period 4, Higher Agriculturalists, and is also to be mapped into the space provided. Another type specimen of this Group appears to be the Kwakiutl culture of the Northwest coast of America at the time in question. You, the reader, can verify these statements by reading Benedict's description of the Kwakiutl and those of other antropologists. When last I inquired about the Kwakiutl, the Canadian ofhcial in charge wrote that the tribe had much less than a hundred members left. That sort of thing is very much what the ( - , - ) dominant value bias would lead one to expect.

The next step would be to map a few score type specimens into the Periodic Table. But in doing so, it is important to take into account the so-called sighting errors to which one is most likely to be prone.

Anthropological Sighting

Classification of the many hundreds of human cultures, past and present, into these few Periodically repeated Groups, and prediction of their transmutations, can occur usefully to the extent that the principal variables peculiar to psycho-social sighting are recognized and compensated for. This may be called anthropological sighting on the analogy of tank, anti-aircraft or bomber sighting, where the velocities of the sighter of the target, and of wind must be ascertained, correlated, and compensated for.

One culture variable, already mentioned, is the degree of value mixture and of value dominance in each culture sample at a given time. The greater the dominance of one value-premise, and the others' corresponding absence or suppression at the time in question, the more clearly and conclusively the culture can be classified. The speed and direction (jointly called velocity) of a deviant value's emergence and challenge, determines the likelihood of the culture's transmutation: of its breakdown to a lower Period, its build-up to a higher Period, or its shift to a different Group in the same Period. Toynbee has expounded important laws of transmutation in Literate cultures (Period 5).--This variable is analogous to target velocity.

The second sighting variable, which is analogous to certain defects of the sighting mechanism, is the classifier's own mental-moral organization: his own grasp of the Periodic Law of Human Cultures. (In the history of chemistry, this mental variable produced the decisive difference between Newland's failure with his Octaves and Mendeleev's success with his Periodic Table, as described by Posin.--A famous example of this variation in anthropology is Ruth Benedict's own change of moral insight from 1934, when she copyrighted Patterns of Culture, to 1941 when she lectured on the same subject at Bryn Mawr College. In 1934 her sighting apparatus was cultural egalitarianism, which she and many others incorrectly labeled cultural relativism. It consists in flat contradiction of the Periodic Law. She stated this unequivocally in Patterns of Culture's concluding sentence, thus: "We shall arrive then at a more realistic social faith, accepting as grounds of hope and as a new basis for tolerance the coexisting and equally valid patterns of life which mankind has created for itself from the raw materials of existence" (italics added). This flat denial of the Moral Law spread widely, and has intensified the breakdown symptoms in our culture which Toynbee called promiscuity, truancy, and drift. This is the Existentialists' disastrous way of dealing with the multiplicity of sighting mechanisms which constitutes each individual culture's and sub-culture's compass; namely, the false assertion that they are "equally valid" the abdication of responsibility of judging and assessing them relative to what Heisenberg calls a central order. (This subject is dealt with extensively in Chapter V.)

Frank Goble points out in The Third Force that by 1941, in her Bryn Mawr lectures, "Ruth Benedict was highly dissatisfied with the concept of cultural relativity, which was popular among anthropologists of her day, and with which her name has been closely associated. She struggled to develop a way of comparing various societies as unitary wholes or, in 20th-century terms, as "systems". She tried to correct her sighting error. Unfortunately, Benedict died in 1948. A part of her objective, however, was achieved by Ethel Albert a few years later, as shown above.

Benedict was nonetheless well on the way. Goble points out that "The terms that Ruth Benedict chose to describe the two types of society [which she had recognized as least equally valid] were `high synergy' and low `synergy.' The high synergy societies were those where people cooperated together for mutual advantage [Group IV societies, ( + , + )]." Her type specimens were the Zuni (Pueblo Indians), Arapesh, Dakota, and Eskimo.

"Ruth Benedict described the bad societies as `Societies with low social synergy where the advantage of one individual becomes the victory over another, and the majority who are not victorious must shift as they can' ". Her type specimens were Chuckchee, Ojibwa, Dobu, and Kwakiutl. Her sighting apparatus had clearly been rebuilt in conformity to the Moral Law, which is a long step in the directiion of the Periodic Table.

People, it seems, are endowed with moral ability in varying degrees, just as they are endowed with mathematical or linguistic ability. All the Great Religions, and above all the Christian, clearly display approaches to the Periodic Law. They are expressions of this moral sense in the terms of pre-Literate and Literate peoples, Period 5. With the emergence of Unified Science, the continuity of this moral ability's development in terms of Lower and High Industrial cultures, Periods 6 and 7, becomes clearly visible. The empirical sciences' three-century-long structural amorality, the detour which Arthur Koestler called "The Parting of the Ways", comes to an end as science comes Full Circle, merging C. P. Snow's Two Cultures and producing Walter Lippmann's long urged and hoped for Public Philosophy of Industrial civilization.

The third anthropological sighting variable is analogous to the sighter's or aimer's own velocity. This variable has been described in Chapter II, Section 7, and related to Einstein's sighting technique in physics by way of his free-falling elevator and rotating room analogies. There it was pointed out that highly autocratic or predatory cultures on one hand, strongly symbiotic cultures on the other, give rise in their inhabitants to strongly biased images of the world: People raised in the first tend to misinterpret cooperators as predators; people raised in the second tend to misinterpret predators as harmless cooperators.

To these and other ethno-centrisms should be added (or subtracted) the sighter's (ego-centric) temperament, his inborn tendency to distort his images of others in the direction of himself. Geometric classification of animal and human temperaments, and thus of this sighting variable, is presented in considerable detail in Unified Science Assembly of the Sciences Into a Single Discipline. This is done for human societies in our Chapter II: The Coordinate System of Political Science.

The other sciences differ from the psycho-social in the kinds of sighting errors they have to take into account. The relativity and indeterminacy principles in physics, for instance, belong to its sighting techniques. (Weighing and other measuring instruments supplement or correct sightig defects one level lower than the variables discussed here.) In all the sciences, the reduction of sighting defects and errors increases agreement among people in classification and communication.

Our Periodic Tables and the sighting techniques by which we decrease our sighting and classifying errors together constitute our model of Leibniz's Universal Characteristic.


Pages 245-250

Table of Contents