Foundation for Integrated Education

Primary tabs

Pages

Sorokin_IX_F_7_181
of natural order by any other means whatsoever, it remainstrue that natural la'.'.'_.can only be discovered by givinpdeductive-exact" processes 'theHf prcper. place.Deductive-exact science has been known for centuries.Its principal successes began around 1S75*By 19?5 it had triumphed magnificently in the sciences ofmatter and energy.It therefore has become possible with the help of physicsand chemistry to restore confidence in natural law, andtherefore in freedom.research task, the fir;ing material rin these sciences and made available in readily understoodlanguage.The principal peculiarity Of deductive-exact science permitsit to function as an organizational principle. It startsfrom first principles which are often absolute and Perfect.It demonstrates, among other things, the reality of thenon-material. It accomplishes this by building the aforementioned type of postulates into a reasoned structure thatcan be tested empirically.Deductive-exact science therefore constitutes, as methodand as content, a valid public discourse of such extraordinar_-imoortance as to be indispensable. The content of exactscience is certain to be vastly enlarged, once its methodological resources are better understood. Even when greatlyincreased, this future content will still be but a part ofall we know. Further, what we know or can know, has slwaysto be balanced against accumulated current and future experience and there is a third component, action (or conductor behavior) in the human situation. In all of this thegains won by exact science are only a part, but they constitute the basis, or a firm si; p- Lgg p•■..nt, for a validpublic discourse about a meaningful universe. How can freemen orovide teachers or conduct a society without this muchof a publicly demonstrable discourse?
Sorokin_IX_F_7_182
It must be remembered that these postulates of absolutes and perfections are built into our working scientific knowledge ths waythe steel structure is built into a skyscraper. This is contraryto the belief of logical positivists who hold that these postulate;-are mere temporary scaffolding.Besides the fact that this prodigious body of new, tested fcJSOwledhas not been made available to the layman in all of its beauty an."order, this form of science, indispensable to freedom, has not yecbeen extended fully into the sciences of life, except for somedevelopments in genetics.This means that basic research must be done in biology as a part oia general advance that will be, in principle, of the same kind (jutreaching- ir to -0svcl'1Oj-ogy> sociology and all other disciplines deal--Ing'viKfi mail and his social forms.W ***** *i':ithout abandoning the scientific approach, it has now become possible to see that exact and remarkable connections can be established between science and our inherited cultures. That is to say,by whatever means the founders of the great religions, great artistand seers got at the truth, it now turns out that those truths aremuch more consistent with the truths arrived at through deductive-exact science than is commonly believed.Our inherited cultures and exact sciences both proclaim that theuniverse is fundamentally order] y and tnat it is possible for bumer.beings to understand 'he order. Certainly, since it is orderlyand since freedom is a function of order, it is now possible towork out an ideology that is a perfectly open, testable publicdiscourse. It confirms freedom as both a spiritual and a scientif:.fact.'hen the research and the educational work begin to take shape unde:this program, it will be possible to unite free men the world overin valid concourse of thought.It is especially notable that this program will be received withacclamation throughout the free part of the Orient.In due time, this program would constitute the scientific alternative to the materialism and mechanism of the 19th Century, fromwhich Marx and Engels derived their ideology.
Sorokin_IX_F_7_183
These are not new problems. The possibility of ans'-erinfc is new-In the early nineteen-twenties, deductive-exact science had notwon a conclusive victory. In the nineteen-thirties, those decisivesuccesses had been won, but they were buried in technical languagein technical journals- In the nineteen-forties the case could havebeen made, but the science teachers did not make it, and, as a result, the attempt to solve the above-mentioned problems took theform of "general education."In conseouence of the failure to seise the opportunity, a varietyof groups today attempt to get at principles by arbitrating opinioamong themselves. Not one of these groups has attempted to searchout and state the whole body of deductive-exact science and displsthe meaning of its method and its successes- This in spite of th:.fact that every step in such a process can be conveved to the eduted layman, and thus can be constituted as the core" of a body ofpublicly defendable knowledge, knowledge teachable throughout theschool system, knowledge which is now desperately required by freemen the world over.Ceductive-exact science alone can finally connect the whole scientific enterprise with natural lav:, and, at the same time, allow thofree individual to make his own firm connections with philosophy,the social sciences, and the humanities generally, including a nrucVneglected natural theology.We are spending millions of dollars each year on research whichhas demonstrated its ability to produce, on the one hand, useablepieces of knowledge, and, on the other hand, confusion and thelack of a common ethic to guide our everyday living.It is about time we began to concentrate our energy and attentionon the only part of natural moral law which can be demonstratedand thus can become the firm starting point for public discourseIt is about time a few research dollars are spent developing thefull implications of deductive-exact science.To all intents and purocses, the knowledge described in the foregoing is already available and known to be easily accessible.Further, it is new knowledge. It is new in the sense that it hasnot been put into general circulation in our educational systembecause it lies scattered and buried in specialized branches ofscience.''.'hen organized and conveyed in lay educational language, its impactis bound to produce the renaissance for which the educationalworld is waiting.
Sorokin_IX_F_7_184
ftunz, Dr. F. L.January 27, 1956Dr. F. J... KunxThe Foundation for Integrated Education, Inc.2ti6 Sast UOtli StreetNew Tork 17, Hew YorkI thank ;-ou for your letter.I like very much your idea about the research of cosmogonies, and in a way,In nry two fcrthconlnr; articles, "Integral Religion," and "This Ia '^y Fliilosoprrjr,"and also in a radio lecture broadcast by the University of Berlin, I briefly outlined ay personal cosmogony. In the future I contemplate writing a little volumeabout integral cosmogony whioh would give not only my system of cosmogony, butwould touch also en the problem of cosmogonies which lie behind several worldcultures. Together nith other suggestions concerning the research of our jeeietyyour suggestion would be transmitted to the Research Coaaoittee for discussion anddecision.Now, as to the Declaration, despite my sympathy filth it, it has raised threequestions in ny nind^ First, its objective is not formulated quite clearly, especially la tying the problem of "deductive exact science" with the problem offreedctr., moral order, and even natural law.Second, it is not quite clear to me why only the "deductive exact1 sorm ofcognition ia particularly stressed in your lleclaratlon, and the Sensory inductiveand then intuitional forms of cognition are almost passed by without being ::.en-tioned. KM excellently blow that the development of physical, as well asbiological aai social sciences has always been an integral product of enlifditeningIntuition, deductive (loi^eo-iaatoematical) thought, and finally empirical verification accorfing to experimental, operational, or simply observational, includingstatistical, methods. From the standpoint of my Integral theory of cognition andreality, I a." somcrihat pussled by this particular stressing of only the "deductiveexact" method.Third- for the reasons of expediency, perhaps it is justifiable to talkabout democratic freedom versus Communist non-freedom, but from a truly scientificstandpoint this sort of statements can hardly be taken as scientific. The termfreedom has so sany connotations, just as the term of the natural law, that if weare going to use it, we have to define it more clearly and ccmprehenaiWy. Hy myDynarrlca, end then in my Society, Culture, snd Perscnsllty, page U69 and Gubse>quant odes, I tried to give a formula of freedom and to distinguish its variousforms. This preliminary study shows that a scientific study of this phenomenon
Sorokin_IX_F_7_185
Dr. F. I.. Kunz, 2 January 27, 19J6brings to the cijiiclusions radically different from the prevalent use of the termmainly as a ten of political propaganda. If you would glance through the'Lectendof The Great Inquisitor'' and the preceding chapter entitled "Rebellion," i..■ioKtoevaity'a attoUssia aWraiiiasoff, In theso chapters you would see still deeperinsights in the prcbleir, of freedom*i ay mind.annot help having these questions.cith best wishes.Sincerely yours.Pitirim A. Sorokin
Sorokin_IX_F_7_186
January 30, 1956Professor Pitlrim A. SorokinHarvard UniversityResearch Center in Creative Altruism8 Cliff StreetWinchester, MassachusettsMy dear 3orokin:Many thanks Indeed for your explicit letter of January 27.I quite agree that ve should In due time carry further the formulationthat ahowe the relation of deductive exact nrocess to freedom, moralorder and natural law. This will be done in due time, eventually ona very large scale indeed.The reason why we are concentrating our attention at the beginning onthe deductive exact asnect of cognition la simply that the entireprocess, from the postulatlone to the emnirlcal demonstrations, canbe demonstrated. This, therefore, forme a nubile discourse.The gr™at need of the times is for a starting nolnt In nubile discourse,bo that oeoole will get to know that there le such a thing. Furthermore,the need to emphasize the existence of natural law as nart of the moralorder, le of paramount consideration for a democratic society.Our present objective is largely nraetlcal, to make a solid start.Meantime, men like yourself and many others — and I, myself, as aorivate individual — will continue to work in the sensory Inductivesnd Intuitional fields, I trust. Here, however, the creation of avalid nubile discourse. In which meanings will be identical all theway along, ie very much more difficult. In fact, at the level ofordinary life, it Is virtually Impossible to achieve anything exceptprovisional agreement.I make a distinction between the not- inconsiderable number of historicallyknown personagee who so disciplined their lives as to arrive by Intuition,mystical nractlces, etc., at such a large body of truth, arrived atby other people by the same fashion, as to constitute another kind ofvalid discourse, but for that community only. A society which engagesIn a large-scale needless slaughter of animals, takes drugs and stimulantsof all kinds, exploits Ite knowledge of physics and chemistry indangerous ways In agriculture and medicine, which relies on violencerather than truth, la not a society in which very mucr. can be donehead-on with Intuitive and mystical disciplines. There are slrrmlynot enough people leading the right kind of life.If we are to get such a community by democratic and educational mewe are obliged to make a beginning of a valid public discourse whe:we oan.Turning to your third point, I would concede at once that many
Sorokin_IX_F_7_187
profepsor Pltlrlm A. 9orokinJanuary ?0, 1956Page Twodefinitions of freedom am ooscible. The one with which the Declarationstarts, which will be further defined In MAIM CURRENTS later, refers tothe basis of freedom In a human society. In a human society therandomness of the Brownlan movement or of thermo-dynamics cannot bethe basis for freedom. Nor can Isolation be so.In short, our purpose Is immediate and practical, and will later on,I trust, become comprehensive. We would be very happy indeed if inthis restricted context you feel the statement can have your adherence,modified of course in phraseology as may be required.
Sorokin_IX_F_7_188
FOUNDATIOU FOR INTEGRATED EDUCATION", INC.KUNZFebruary 9, 1956Dr. !'. U KunsThe foundation for Integrated Education, Inc.2li6 hast It6th dtreetHew Tork 17, ,;ew YorkIjy dear Kunsir;ew version cf your Declaration is eerta: nly clearer than the previous version. Despite this improvement I am still hesitant to sponsor it, for tworeasons: first, the very title Declaration does not seem tc be the proper onefor any scientific proposition. Scientific propositions stand or fall entirelydue tc their validity or Invalidity, i'or this reason they hardly need such aterr. as Declaration.In tho second place, a number cf points in your Declaration appear to mastill unclear, and if 1 rightly understand scrac of the statements in their present formulation, look to me doubtful. Jnuer these circumstances, the best wayof their publication is likely tc be Just a publication of this Declaration aayour personal statement or the stateriifnt of several persons who find it entirelyadequate as their scientific Credo.In arch or April I expect to send tc ycu 'y new volume on t'ada and Foiblesoi' Lodern Jocloloa' and Related 'jciencea.In my forthooiirlng papers about "An Integral iialigion" and about "My Systemof Philosophy" I put a set of basic principles of iny religion and theory ofreality and cognition, but 1 put taem as purely my personal Credo. It maypossibly be shared by a number of other thinkers, but the tsttt responsibilityfor my principles is made entirely my own.with my best wishes,Sincerely yours.Pitirlm A. Sorokin
Sorokin_IX_F_7_189
turn 27, 1956Tho Foundation for Integrated Education, Inc.2U6 East It6th StreetHew York 17, New Torkjy dear KunsiTne enclosed paper of mine shows why any corrections of your Declarationon my part would be superfluous. There is no contradiction between theviews of the Declaration and ay views, but at the same time the whole approach to the problem of cognition is very different in the two papers.Realising that some of my points (perhaps even all) cannot be shared bymany other scholars, I set my views as Strictly my personal philosophy.(This article is written for a symposium on the philosophies of some 2$living eminent philosophers—tie symposium to be published in the future.)As auoh it does not involve anybody's responsibility except my own.It is not quite clear to me as to for what specific purpose your DeclarationIs written* If it is written for the purposes of application for some grantsfrom Foundations or private persona, for such purposes it appears to me toolong and not clearly focused on the central point. If it represents a declaration of a set of scientific principles somewhat similar to Francis iacon'sOrganon, then it is somewhat eclectic in its attempt to connect for differentproblems! methods of cognition, freedom, demooraey, and natural law.probably within the next two weeks. Ihave alroatty asked my publisher tosend to you a cotaiplimentary copy.I have not been troubling you with the business of the Research Society InCreative Altruism. I had several meetings with the members of the FinanceCommittee, but so far they have .been rather fruitless. I am not aure thatthe Finance Committee will be more successful in the near future and, therefore, I am somewhat disheartened with the whole enterprise. However, thenext two months will show whether the present Finance Committee will be successful, or we shall replace it by a different one, or to abandon the development of the Society. I am sure you have had plenty of similar experiences Inyour efforts to build the financial basis of the foundation for IntegratedEducation. I believe in this respect we are companions in similar headaches.flith best wishes,Sincerely yours,PASim - Enclosure
Sorokin_IX_F_7_190
Professor Pltlrim A. SorokDCenter for Creative AltruistHarvard UniversityCambridge, Massacr-usettsIt Just dawns on me, rather belatedly, that we may seem -to be at cross nurnoees only because I have failed tomake a eneeiflc point vMoh Is governing our thinkingabout the Declaration.I do regret that I die1 not bring this forward sharply inan earlier letter and I hope that you will understand thatit is chiefly because we are so over-burdened that somethinglike that can be lost to view.All t*a+ ve want in t"ls Declaration ie a united convictionthat work has got to be <?one upon the triumphs In thedeductive exact method, and that this element in the culturalenternrise Is an lrnliinenpehle Ingredient, having Internalcharacteristics which should force ue to examine the culturalnature of man.If we restrict the things said in the Declaration to thatnractlcal proposition, and make quite clear that we are nottalking about a total philosophy or an utterly comprehr-nslvemetaphysics, nor closing a lot of doors. It should be possibleto mention every point made in the draft thus far, and end upby having an effect on enlightened peonle euch as the draftactually had unon my friend Dean Lswson.I enclose a photostat copy of hie recent letter to me, promptedby a reading of the Declaration in its present very rough form.What we are asking you and a few others to do ie to heln usretain all the points made, besr down powerfully upon thecentral opportunity that ie in front of us, end hit the readerhard by thp significance of all f-is, +n education as euchand in the current world scene.Do nleps?e helnJVice President
Sorokin_IX_F_7_191
:' ■MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITYDr. F. L. Kutia, Vice iJresicentFoundation for Integrated Bdtteation, Inc.2li6 East libth StreetNew York 17, N.3T.Lear Dr. Kurus:I have read your ccammunioa -ion of 20 tfarch and am excited beyondmeaaure. The approach through deductive systems ia literally the avenuethat we have chosen to explain science in our Natural Science course. Msare explicating Mendelisw as a deductive system and working on the celltheory, catastrophism, uniformitarianisn, natural selection, mathematics,and mechanica in view of demonstrating the connion pattern of primitiveterns, postulates, etc. that runs through them all.None of this is yet In print but in time we will have it. Also Ihave a theory in the form of a ceductive system that "explains" humanbehavior in terms of directive thoughts.It ia apparent that we (.re going in the same direction and on thesame road. Undoubtedly it would be fruitful to exchange viewpoints andperhaps to combine operations. This latter I leave to you because I amunfamiliar with your organization and the details of your operations. Atthe very leaat continue sending ne whatever information you considerappropriate.Sincerely,(9 Q. P&AaT7t*^_C. A. Lawson
Sorokin_IX_F_7_192
March 29, 1956My dear Sorokin:Your delightful letter of March 2?th andyour manuscript crossed mine of March 28th.I think we are now all clear. The wholepurpose of the Declaration is to unite a group ofus in advancing reasons why this business of deductive-exact science has got to be looked into scientifically,and the results published.I would be grateful if you would read andreturn the enclosed. It shows how we are gettingalong on this important matter.As to headaches, perhaps if we put ourheads together, and had only one headache-—a reallybig one—and got over it, everybody concerned wouldbe a lot better offl-"" F. L. Runs 'Dr. P. A. SorokinCenter for Creative AltruisiHarvard UniversityCambridge, 38, Mass.Chet Lawson's letter was prompted by readingthe Declaration, which had this effect, evenin its present rough form.

Pages