It must be emphasized that the development of higher ideals is due to the natural capacity of humanity; the impulse is simply time-binding impulse. As we have seen, by analysing the functions of the different classes of life, every class of life has an impulse to exercise its peculiar capacity or function. Nitrogen resists compound combinations and if found in such combinations it breaks away as quickly as ever it can. Birds have wings—they fly. Animals have feet—they run. Man has the capacity of time-binding—he binds time. It does not matter whether we understand the very “essence” of the phenomenon or not, any more than we understand the “essence” of electricity or any other “essence.” Life shows that man has time-binding capacity as a natural gift and is naturally impelled to use it. One of the best examples is procreation. Conception is a completely incomprehensible phenomenon in its “essence,” nevertheless, having the capacity to procreate we use it without bothering about its “essence.” Indeed neither life nor science bothers about “essences”—they leave “essences” to metaphysics, which is neither life nor science. It is sufficient for [pg 146] our purpose that idealization is in fact a natural process of time-binding human energy. And however imperfect ethics has been owing to the prevalence of animal standards, such merits as our ethics has had witness to the natural presence of “idealization” in time-binding human life.
“It is thus evident that ideals are not things to gush over or to sigh and sentimentalize about; they are not what would be left if that which is hard in reality were taken away; ideals are themselves the very flint of reality, beautiful no doubt and precious, without which there would be neither dignity nor hope nor light; but their aspect is not sentimental and soft; it is hard, cold, intellectual, logical, austere. Idealization consists in the conception or the intuition of ideals and in the pursuit of them. And ideals, I have said, are of two kinds. Let us make the distinction clearer. Every sort of human activity—shoeing horses, abdominal surgery, or painting profiles—admits of a peculiar type of excellence. No sort of activity can escape from its own type but within its type it admits of indefinite improvement. For each type there is an ideal—a dream of perfection—an unattainable limit of an endless sequence of potential ameliorations within the type and on its level. The dreams of such unattainable perfections are as countless as the types of excellence to which they respectively belong and they together constitute the familiar world of our human ideals. To share in it—to feel the lure of perfection in one or more types of excellence, however lowly—is to be human; not to feel it is to be sub-human. But this common kind of idealization, though it is very important and very precious, does not produce the great events in the life of mankind. These are produced by the kind of idealization that corresponds to what we have called in the mathematical prototype, limit-begotten generalization—a kind [pg 147] of idealization that is peculiar to creative genius and that, not content to pursue ideals within established types of excellences, creates new types thereof in science, in art, in philosophy, in letters, in ethics, in education, in social order, in all the fields and forms of the spiritual life of man.” (Quoted from the manuscript of the forthcoming book, Mathematical Philosophy, by Cassius J. Keyser.)
“Survival of the fittest” has a different form for different classes of life. Applying animal standards to time-binding beings is like applying inches to measuring weight. As a matter or fact, we cannot raise one class to a higher class, unless we add an entirely new function to the former; we can only improve their lower status; but if we apply the reverse method, we can degrade human standards to animal standards.
Animal standards belong to a class of life whose capacity is not an exponential function of Time. There is nothing theological or sentimental in this fact; it is a purely mathematical truth.
It is fatal to apply the “survival of the fittest” theory in the same sense to two radically different classes of life. The “survival of the fittest” for animals—for space-binders—is survival in space, which means fighting and other brutal forms of struggle; on the other hand, “survival of the fittest” for human beings as such—that is, for time-binders—is survival in time, which means intellectual or spiritual competition, struggle for excellence, for making the [pg 148] best survive. The-fittest-in-time—those who make the best survive—are those who do the most in producing values for all mankind including posterity. This is the scientific base for natural ethics, and ethics from which there can be no side-stepping, or escape.
Therefore time-binders can not use “animal” logic without degrading themselves from their proper status as human beings—their status as established by nature. “Animal” logic leads to “animal” ethics and “animal” economics; it leads inevitably to a brutalized industrial system in which cunning contrives to rob the living of the fruit of the dead.
Human logic points to human ethics and human economics; it will lead to a humanized industrial system in which competition will be competition in science, in art, in justice: a competition and struggle for the attainment of excellence in human life. The time-binding capacity, which manifests itself in drawing from the past, through the present for the future gives human beings the means of attaining a precious kind of immortality; it enables them to fulfill the law of their own class of life and to survive everlastingly in the fruits of their toil, a perpetual blessing to endless generations of the children of men. This is the truth we instinctively recognize when we call a great man “immortal.” We mean that he has [pg 149] done deeds that survive in time for the perpetual weal of mankind.
Human logic—mathematical logic, the logic natural for man—will thus show us that “good” and “just” and “right” are to have their significance defined and understood entirely in terms of human nature. Human nature—not animal nature—is to be the basis and guide of Human Engineering. Thus based and guided, Human Engineering will eliminate “wild-cat schemers,” gamblers and “politicians.” It will put an end to industrial violence, strikes, insurrections, war and revolutions.
The present system of social life is largely built upon misconceptions or misrepresentations. For all work we need the human brain, the human time-binding power, yet we continue to call it “hand-labor” and treat it as such. Even in mechanical science, in the use of the term “horse-power,” we are incorrect in this expression. How does this “horse” look in reality? Let us analyse this “horse.” All science, all mechanical appliances have been produced by “man” and man alone. Everything we possess is the production of either dead men's or living men's work. The enslavement of the solar man-power is purely a human invention in theory and practice. Everything we have is evidently therefore a time-binding product. What perfect nonsense to call a purely human achievement the equivalent of so much [pg 150] “horse-power”! Of course it does not matter mathematically what name we give to a unit of power; we may call it a Zeus or a Zebra; but there is a very vicious implication in using the name of an animal to denote a purely human product. Everything in our civilization was produced by man; it seems only reasonable that this unit of power which is the direct product of Man's work, should be correctly named after him. The educational effect would be wholesome and tremendous. The human value in work would be thus emphasized again and again, and respect for human work would be taught, from the beginning in the schools. This “horse-power” unit causes us to forget the human part in it and it degrades human work to the level of a commodity. This is an example of the degrading influence of wrong conceptions and wrong language. I said “educational” because even our subconscious mind is affected by this. (See [App. II].)
Human Engineering will not interfere with any scientific research; on the contrary, it will promote it in many ways. Grown-ups, it is to be hoped, will stop the nonsense of intermixing dimensions, for which we chastise children. It is the same kind of blundering as when we intermix phenomena—measuring “God” by human standards, or human beings by animal standards. The relationship, if any, between these phenomena or the overlapping of different [pg 151] classes, is interesting and important; but in studying such relationships of classes, it is fatal to mix the classes; for example, if we are studying the relations between surfaces and solids, it is fatal to mistake solids for surfaces; just so, too, if we stupidly confuse humans with animals.