BEINGNESS AND NON-BEING
Hugh M. Lewis
We look out upon the world and we are a part of it and yet
we are also separate from it. The side of us that finds itself in the world is
our sense o being in the world, or our beingness. The side that remains
separate is our sense of non-being in the world. The former seeks identity in
the world, the latter finds the difference of identity in the world.
It is our beingness and our non-being in relation to the
world that creates the dialectical tension in ourselves, a struggle between
sides as to which shall at any one moment have control over our sense of
identity. The state of being in the world is the creation of a fusion of
differences such that though differences exist in the world they are
transcended by common identity--they are rendered unimportant. Non-being in
the world leads to a differentiation of identity from the world, such that
differences become the basis of relationship and prevent their fusion, and
self identity also become sundered between what remains in the world and what
becomes alien from it.
We frequently switch between states of being and non-being
in our world, depending upon circumstances. Insecurity or uncertain situations
cause separation in order to protect our sense of identity from possible harm.
In order to maintain this sense of separation we erect certain kinds of
barriers, or 'ego defense mechanisms' which block or intermediate the flow of
information or communication, between our inner selves and our outer world. It
is behind such bulwarks that we can foster a sense of 'ego identity' that is
supported by such defenses and which is essentially separate from the
experience of the world and yet remains surrounded by and situated within the
Supplanted within the self, constructed of symbolisms and
rationalizations by which we mediate experience of the world, we come to
depend on our sense of ego as separate from the world and we invest energy
into maintaining of props and supports which will help to preserve and promote
it. Though spurious to our sense of being in the world, our ego's become
important to us as if they were a genuine part of our own self identity--as
something necessary and unexpendable in our lives.
And our sense of ego identity becomes like transparent
bubble or a pair of tinted sun glasses which always distort our perception of
the world and always bends the light of our vision. We grow accustomed to this
sense of ego distortion, so accustomed we no longer notice the difference and
come to think and act as if our mediated experiences were genuine and
unadulterated instead of filtered and distorted. Our whole sense of
perspective of reality, as it is mediated through our ego identity becomes
different from the actual dimensions of experience, but we soon can no longer
tell the difference, and we response to our distortions and representations of
the world rather than to the world itself.
Our sense of ego identity becomes invisible to
ourselves--we behave as if it were natural and true. But if it is so
transparent and invisible to anyone else in the world--our ego identity become
our see through clothes without which we would feel naked and probably quite
ugly in the world. We wear them as if they were the outer layers of our skin,
which cannot be shed except under the most personal of circumstances.
Other people who are wearing similar raiment over their
identity fail to find genuine relationship with one another, but in their
common alienation from natural experience they find a sense of communitas in
which their different distortions of reality cancel one another out in
interesting and sometimes complementary ways, and they find mutual
satisfaction in the sharing of common fears, insecurities and defense.
To these people, those who walk with naked egos in the
world are threatening, foolish, embarrassing and shaming of their own imputed
morals. They become objects of derision, fear displacement and secret
fascination. To those who walk nakedly or with very thin skins of ego
adornment, those who wear the clothes of kings, sun glasses and live in little
bubbles seem empty, hollow, false, ingenue, spurious, afraid and fundamentally
distorted or slanted. Though those inside of bubbles seem translucent from
without, their clothes are neither invisible nor distorted--directing perhaps
but never distorted.
The differences between beingness in the world and
non-being in the world are the basis of a fundamental schism of human reality
and between people in the world--it is a schism of mentality, experience,
world views and ways of relating in the world. It is not a difference between
introversion or extroversion, or between hyper-suggestible and
hyper-resistant, between aggressive and regressive, or between projective and
introjective, though all of these may be a component part of a common
polythetic complex of basic differences.
People who do not live in bubbles or who only walk in thin
skins experience their worlds with only slight distortion and are not
insulated from the harsh light of the sun or the cold of the night. They learn
to live with direct, unmediated experience, without the need for props and
supports to sustain their sense of identity in the world. Their identity is
experience and experience is their identity, and there is little need for
inflated ego in an essentially ego-less world.
The state of being in the world is one in which identity
gained through relationship with the world, through unmediated experience of
the world. Identity is essentially un-Academic, to the extent that acquired,
formal knowledge structures experience in the way that ego identity structures
it. The sense of self remains strong,, because it survives the vicissitudes if
the world unprotected and un-insulated from its harsher, more threatening
realities. It can be called the 'school of hard knocks' but it is more of a
natural attitude of openness to the environment that becomes augmented by
acquired skills in dealing with and adapting to changes in the environment.
Knowledge, however abstract or concrete, can either help or hinder this
adaptive functioning, but is in itself neutral in regard to how it is deployed
by and individual.
While it might be said that the sense of being in the world
is one of adapting to and negotiating with the environment, its resources,
limitations and alterations, non-being in the world is primarily involved with
coping with and controlling the environment or of maintaining sense of ego in
relation to the environment.
Beingness in the world and non-being entail two different
strategies of adaptation to the environment, strategies which have different
sets of consequences for both individual character and the social environment
in which the individual is situated.
Non-being in the world works within environments according
to pre-arranged designs or paradigms--attempting to superimpose structure upon
the environment and to alter and render the environment conformable to this
design. The design itself usually comes from the pre-conditioning of some
previous environment in which the self became well adapted. It is the
individuals attempt to maintain a consistency of environmental relations from
this previous adaptive orientation in the ever emerging present. There is a
dependency of the individual upon an internalized fixedness of pattern which
is projected upon the environment in orderly ways. The sense of non-being, and
the insecurity which underlies it, results from the degree of 'misfit' between
the projection of the internalized sense of design and the actual order or
environmental patterning encountered. This misfit results in 'cognitive
dissonance' which forces upon the individual a decision of either to amend the
internalized sense of order or else to attempt to amend or rearrange the
environment. Attempts to do the latter lead to a need to establish 'control'
or power in the environment and results in greater frustration and greater
Another way of understanding this is to see that peoples
prearranged plans and preconditioned paradigms set up in the individual
certain standards of normality of expectation in relation to the
environment--it is when changes which happen lead to a sense of 'relative
deprivation' either actual or anticipated, that an acute sense of
environmentally situated stress occurs which requires resolution through
remedial action. The frustration producing attempt to maintain one's
pre-designs at all costs leads to the formation of ego defense mechanisms and
coping mechanisms which allows one to channel and deal with the stress that
inevitably, continuously results. The ego perseverates in a high state of
tension which comes to infuse all experience with supernormal significance and
larger than life importance.
Non-being is brought in to the present as an unchanging
sense of past, of past sense of order and paradigm in the world which is
uncompromising and 'absolute' in its existential coordinates.
Non-being can in a sense be referred to as a regressive
state of being in the world--one which falls backwards into a nonexistent
sense of the past by failing to move forward with an ongoing sense of the
Non-being leads to a 'set piece' planning strategy which
renders responses to the environment typical and therefore predictable. The
range of possible moves or alternative patterns of adaptation are laid out
well in advance, as a set of rules, guidelines, instructions the form of which
exists representationally in the environment. This kind of strategy attempts
to account for and manage all possible kinds of change in the environment,
frequently by attempting through control mechanisms to reduce the range of
Beingness encounters the environment in a more flexible ad
hoc and spontaneous manner which relies upon intuition and ad lib
extemporaneous responses to meet and cope with environmental challenges and
changes. The success of such and 'encounter' strategy depends upon the
organismic and functional flexibility of the individual. It entails a
foregoing of previous designs, sets of expectations and standards of
normality. It entails an 'unlearning' of past patterns of adaptation such that
their experiential elements remain, but without a necessary fixed pre-pattern
or pre-arrangement which needs to be preserved. The ego identity is able to
manage disorder even to thrive on chaos, at a minimum threshold of stress.
Such an orientation entails an open-mindedness to the
ongoing, ever present environment. Experience is taken at face value, fully
and as a matter of fact. Sense of identity depends upon maintaining a sense of
environmental relation, of being able to change appropriately and in a timely
manner with fluctuations in the environment. Control over the environment is
not sought so much as control over the self in changing environments. The
locus of control is introjected into the self rather than projected out of the
self. Loss of control results not from failure to maintain ones internalized
sense of pattern in the external environment, but in the feelings of things
getting out of control in failing to adapt to the environment.
There may be extreme types but no 'true' types of only
non-being or beingness, but there are many mixed types of people who are more
or less one way and the other.
Non-being can be said to correlate with patterns of
authoritarianism, while beingness corresponds with creativity. These types of
complement one another and can be thought of as negatively correlated such
that where there is a predominance of non-being and authoritarianism there
will be a corresponding lack of beingness and creativity, and vice versa.
The two types can be said to elicit two different varieties
of experience of the world. For non-being the experience of the world is 'fear
mediated' and one's responses are 'fear motivated'. Environmental changes are
experienced as threatening to the established sense of order. There is a
regressive sense of always lagging behind and of needing to keep up. There is
a sense of deficiency which is rooted in the environment, the lack or need to
make the environment better or perfect, more complete and finished. Stability
of the environment, continuity of perceptual pattern from past to present, the
congruence of experiences with previous expectations, are valued and are
preferentially perceived. Deviations, anomalies, discontinuities are devalued
and selectively filtered from experience or simply ignored. There is in the
experience of non-being a pervasive feeling of basic, inexorable uncertainty
and anxiety which is construed in the environment of the world, feelings which
require secondary compensation.
For non-being, the world is experienced in a basically
vicarious way, as something distant, indirect, alien, full of illusion and as
separate from the self. The world is constituted by difference in a
non-relative way such that any and all differences make the difference.
For beingness, the experience of environments is
fundamentally challenging and stimulating. Change and difference are not
repressed or devalued but are prized as 'interesting' and exciting or at least
diverting. Identity is gained by experiential involvement with environments
rather than through a fundamental sense of separation. Sense of self is
experienced as incomplete in relation to the environment, demanding self
fulfillment, actualization and expression. There is a feeling of being
supported or uplifted by the environment. Diversity, anomaly and difference
are values as the source of intrigue and expectation while continuity,
similarity and sameness are seen as uninteresting and unchallenging.
For beingness in the world, the experience of environments
is always immediate, direct, irreversible and different. Many differences
exist but none make the difference.
It is possible that non-being in the world is related to
the psychological phenomena of field dependency--of depending upon fixed
frames of reference by which to orient ones perspective of reality and
experiences of the environment.
Non-being is an inherently simplifying approach to human
reality. It favors over diversity, conformity over deviance, simplicity to
complexity. It is an approach which always seeks to interpret the world in
simplified and simplifying paradigms.
Beingness is always complicating human reality--preferring
diversity, difference and deviation over the opposed values. Complexity--in
both the environments of the world and in the experience of these environments
Non-being is a specializing and focusing approach to human
reality. It seeks a single set of repertories and of patterns on which to
model the world. It is a matter of become finely tuned to certain specific
environments, of becoming exceptionally well adapted in narrow frames of
reference and in environments with relative overall stability.
Beingness is a generalizing approach to many different
environments. It is a jack of all trades but master of none. It is a broad
based behavioral flexibility which readily transfers and moderates skills and
experience from one environmental context to others. Beingness tends to
approach the world in a generalizing and generalistic way.
Non-being is relatively restricted yet highly elaborated to
many variables upon a single common theme. Beingness is relatively
unrestricted yet unelaborated to a few variations upon many different themes.
Part of the paradox of beingness and non-being is that both
ways of experiencing reality lead to two different sets of long term
consequences for adaptation and depending upon environments, one kind of
adaptation is more suitable for some circumstances while the other is more
suitable to other contraposed circumstances.
Non-being in the world fits best when the world has overall
stability and is highly compartmentalized into many different niches.
Specialization in narrow niches congers on non-being adaptive success over the
generalization of beingness. It facilitates long term fixed focus and the
exclusion of peripheral distractions.
Beingness works best in rapidly changing environments which
are destructive of daily routines and 'sense of structure'--it fosters general
but non-specific adaptation to a wide range of environmental niches and works
best under the stress of change.
Beingness and non-being are centrally tied to the
psycho-geography of human experience and relationship with environments.
People seek to maintain an experiential 'identity' of perceptions in the flow
of events from one environmental context to the next. Rapid changes, death and
separation tend to overload and break down the individual's capacity for
dealing with change, leading to maladaptive relations between self identity
and its environmental context. In psycho-geography, there is clearly no
separating the external, environmental identity of the self and the internal
psychological identity of the environmental context. Unconscious becomes
rooted in context, and context becomes rooted in the unconscious.
The principle kinds of environments in which beingness and
non-being find reinforcement are in social environments of interpersonal and
self-other or individual-group or group-group relations, and natural
environments of the world.
Social environments which are characterized as 'in group'
oriented and 'intensive' are reinforcing of non-being. Rank Order Hierarchy
and Status Role identity are nomothetic social contexts which foster and are
fostered by non-being--the self as compared to significant reference others,
or as constituted by the psychologically internalized relations of the social
environment. Such environments foster a sense of security and social stability
based upon a traditional conservatism and conformism to a given, narrow range
of values or a focused group orientation.
Long term existence in relatively slow changing natural
environments also fosters a sense of non-being of identity. Cultures which are
fixed, sui generis and relatively secluded and immobile also lead to a
cultural orientation based upon the elaboration of non-being--superstition,
prohibition, animism, ritualization of sacred and secular life.
Social environments which are 'out group' oriented and
'extensive' as 'outside of any center of power' are reinforcing of beingness
as a strategy of adaptation to randomly fluctuating social environments.
Sojourners crossing cultural boundaries and regularly having to 'make the
strange familiar' must cultivate a sense of being in the world in order to
avoid the otherwise inexorable and debilitating culture shock. Strangers and
marginal types are also more generalistically unfocused and are characterized
by their beingness in the world.
The poet, the artist, the sleuth--whoever sharpens our
perception, tends to be anti-social; rarely well adjusted, he cannot go along
with currents and trends. A strange bond often exists among anti-social types
in their power to see environments as they really are. This need to interface,
to confront environments with a certain anti-social power, is manifest in the
famous story, "The Emperor's New Clothes". 'Well adjusted courtiers,
having vested interests saw the Emperor as beautifully appointed. The
anti-social brat, unaccustomed to the old environment clearly saw that the
Emperor 'ain't got nothing on'. The new environment was clearly visible to
him. (Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message, 1967)
It follows that beingness comes from the confrontation of
diverse ranges of natural environments or regions of great environmental
diversity, and that displaced cultures or diffused cultural orientations that
have witnessed or suffered a great deal of mobility and transition should be
more promotive of beingness.
Certain aspects of beingness of the new generation are in
conflict with the sense of non-being of the older generation--nonconformity to
certain traditional values, creation of new cultural environments and
orientations, general lack of social responsibility that goes unlearned except
by negative reinforcement and punishment. It also follows that certain aspects
of the non-being of the new generation are in conflict with the beingness of
the older generation--roller coasters versus strolls in the parks, daydreams
versus disillusionment, self centered pride versus hard won humility.
As we grow older, we tend to trade off our sense of being
and non-being in the world for another sense of non-being and being in the
world, and this becomes the basis of the perennial conflict between the
There is a fundamental difference between the professional
specialist who is well adapted to a fixed environmental context, highly
elaborated set of behavioral repertories and the 'amateur generalist' who is
never afraid of trying out new lines and is usually pretty good but rarely
superlative. Amateurs often offer a sense of freshness which stuffy, tried and
true professionals usually lack. Amateurs sometimes invent or discover things
too obvious but quite apparent to professionals.
Professionals come to know and exhaust the many different
profiles of a single occupational or adaptive horizon--their inventory of
experiences focus upon the complete range of variations of a common line or
theme of activity or involvement. The amateur shotguns experience over many
profiles of several different horizons and the experiences gained in each add
to a general repertory which may be applied to still others.
There is another paradox between beingness and non-being in
adaptation to environments. The structure of ego identity of non-being seems
strong and impervious to change, yet it is founded upon spurious foundations
which can suffer sudden, complete breakdowns or go through its own
'conversion' experiences when its mediating function finally becomes undone by
environmental changes. The high level of environmental stresses confers upon
non-being a kind of hyper-suggestibility and susceptibility to environmental
or social influences which seems counter intuitive to its show of changeless
imperviousness. The stolid character of ego identity can appear quite
hypocritically strong and enduring like a rock and yet be actually quite
manipulable by subtle influences which are threatening and fear inducing.
Unmasked, the essential selflessness of such egos become the hapless and
helpless bodies of mass oriented, mindless crowd behavior. They become the
soulless entranced spectators of tragic accidents. As much as these people
attempt to control their environments, they are also controlled by their
environments. Their relationship with the environment is characterized by
psychological interdependency such that the relative status of the ego, its
sense of expectation or deprivation, is critically influenced by changes in
It is this paradox which confers upon these people a kind
of 'change of wardrobe' chameleoness which allows them to change ego
identities when environmental constraints makes it convenient for them to do
so. They exchange their fixedness of being and purpose for a 'fitness' of new
Beingness on the other hand, seems to have on the surface
an apparent flexibility, a capacity for its skin to change colors with the
changing seasons of its environment,, but underneath its chameleoness it
remains the same chameleon. It fosters an integrity of being which continues
through adaptation and fitting into new environments--this integrity of self
identity crosses many boundaries of environmental variation and change without
breakdown or undergoing a metamorphosis of being. This is a basic paradox of
being, for it is ever changing and yet always the same basic identity.
The importance of understanding the distinction between
Beingness and non-being extends beyond the characteriological and experiential
differences and have are of greater consequences in accounting for fundamental
social differences and general phenomena of humankind's adaptation to their
world. It has come to influence our sciences and our modern world views.
Culture history can be said to be in part of study of human
beingness and relative non-being as it becomes manifest in the world. As such
culture history opens us up to qualitative and substantial varieties of human
experience and general phenomena which are mostly unavailable to more
scientific approaches to the study of human reality. It allows us to frame
answers for certain kinds of questions and problems of human reality which are
otherwise unanswerable or difficult to contextualize.
One critical difference is between the study of the human
being as 'an object of knowledge' and the learning about human experiential
realities as a 'subject of understanding'. The former, statistical approach
defines human being as non-being, in terms of countable objects or components,
in terms of numbers and things. This approach reifies human beingness and
transforms human identity into 'thingness' that is 'objectified' by becoming
'de-subjectified'. The second approach deals with human beingness in subject
terms of phenomenological experience and resists the reification and numerical
transmutation of the irreducibly qualitative and holistic in its original
state. The second approach transforms human beingness into 'metaphor' for
which to understand a human's interrelations with the environment. Being
transformed into a name or a 'word' has other consequences for human identity,
whether it is nominal or verbal, or literary or oral, but the looseness of
interpretation and connotation preserves a sense of the generality and
contextuality which inheres naturally in human experience.
Erich Fromm makes a distinction between authoritarian
conscience, which he describes as the 'superego' of the internalized law of
the father, and later, of society and the 'humanistic conscience' which is not
internalized authority but an inner 'voice that calls us back to
ourselves'--'the human core common to all men, that is, certain basic
characteristics which cannot be violated or negated without serious
consequences'. This humanistic conscience is rooted in the traditions of
religious philosophy. He goes on to assert that the central moral problematic
of modern humankind is the reification of human identity. 'Man is not a thing,
and if you try to transform him into a thing, you damage him.' Power reifies
human beingness into non-being, turning a human being into a corpse.
…A corpse is a thing. Man is not. Ultimate power--the
power to destroy--is exactly the ultimate power of transforming life into a
thing. Man cannot be taken apart and put together again; a thing can be. A
thing is predictable; Man is not. A thing cannot create, Man can. A thing has
no self. Man has. Man has the capacity to say the most peculiar and difficult
word in our language, the world 'I'…
…to understand our neighbor and ourselves--is to
understand a human being who is not a thing. And the process of this
understanding cannot be accomplished by the same method in which knowledge in
the natural sciences can be accomplished. The knowledge of man is possible
only in the process of relating ourselves to him…Ultimate knowledge cannot
be expressed in thought or words…And you can never exhaust the description
of a personality, of a human being, in his full individuality; but you can
know him in an act of empathy, in an act of full experience, in an act of love…
What, then, are the ethical demands of our day? First of
all to overcome this 'thingness'…to overcome our indifference, or alienation
from others, from nature and from ourselves. Second, to arrive again at a new
sense of 'I-ness', of self, of an experience 'I am' rather than succumb to the
automaton feeling in which we have the illusion that 'I think that I think'
when actually I do not think at all but am rather like someone who puts on a
record and thinks he plays the music of the record.
'Medicine and the Ethical Problems of Modern Man' Erich
Fromm, The Dogma of Christ--and Other Essays on Religion, Psychology and
This difference of beingness and non-being is related to
the fundamental schism between the 'two cultures' of Academia, the Sciences
and the Humanities and the critique of the 'anal obsessive' Weltaangshaung of
science as being unable to deal impersonally with the personal and its
comparison with more humanizing traditions rooted in religious philosophy, has
been noted by such people as Abraham Maslow who makes a distinction between
the nomothetic, deficiency motivated knowledge of science based upon the
control of uncertainty in the environment and idiographic, love inspired
knowledge which seeks involvement with the environment.
Subject-object relations in the world are directly related
to differences in self- other relations in our social worlds. Consideration of
'self-other' relations in the world involves Martin Buber's critical
distinction between 'I-thou relation' and 'I-it relation'. In the life of
dialogue we can choose to either meet face to face what challenges us in our
environments and refer to it as 'you' or else we can stand apart from 'it' and
view it as an object. Each of these different attitudes involves a different
sense of self, or I, one being characterized by beingness and 'I-it' being
characterized by non-being. The self of beingness is involved in an exclusive
and unique relationship, unlike any other. The self of non-being is one that
'experiences, assesses, compares, sums up, analyzes and learns'. No
preconceptions, anticipations, desires or purposes interfere between I and
you--such a relationship is only possible when such pre-dispositions have been
vanquished. 'I-thou' always involves reciprocity. From relation it sometimes
leads to 'encounter'--'the high peak of relational life, the lightening flash
which suddenly illuminates the way'.
As for what is precisely meant by encounter: whereas
relation is the unilateral recognition of a vis-à-vis as you on the part of
an I, encounter is what happens when two I's step into relation
simultaneously. Encounter is the coming together into existential communion of
two I's and two you's. encounter is a privilege that I receive. I enter into
your-relation of my own accord and thereby fulfill the 'act of my being, my
being's act' but encounter is not done by me. 'You encounter me by grace; it
is not found by seeking…You encounters me. But I enter into immediate
relation with it…'
You-relation …is the very 'cradle of real life'. And what
is 'real life?' All real life is encounter. Is life unreal then? …History
shows that it is out of I-you and I-you encounter that the truly creative,
redemptive and revelatory acts draw their being. It is both from the mighty
encounters and from the little encounters between I and you that new
creations, new redemptions and new revelations spring…(Martin Buber by
This understanding of the difference between beingness and
non-being in self-other relations recognizes the primary importance of
'encounter' as a state of 'reflexiveness' or 'reflexivity' in relationship
that comes from the doubling of mirrors dissolving boundaries in reality,
opening out onto endless possibility and becoming 'identity with a
difference'. Furthermore, the connection between the reflexivity of encounter
in self-other relationships and creativity is recognized. The possibility of
encounter of the self with the world is the wellspring of human creation.
The inherent reflexiveness of self-other relations entails
that we find ourselves in others, as reflections or representations of the
self, and that we find others in ourselves, as their reflection and
representation. This leads to consideration of the inherently interpersonal
horizon of the self identity and other identity--a self-other
meta-relation--such that neither self component not other component is
complete when separate or alone from the meta-relation.
The interpersonal horizon of the self and the other is
composed of 'bundles of things'--traits, experiences, memories, skills,
feelings, etc. Both self and other identity is defined polythetically rather
than monothetically. I or thou are not just a single organismic entity, a name
with a complete personality attached. Both of us are a composite of many
different things. Furthermore, the things within us are integrated by sets of
interrelations between these things. We are composites of a range of variation
of different images, but are found in reflection and representation in
reflexive 'inter-identity' between self and other
When self and other enter into interrelationship, there is
an 'unpacking' of things and their interrelations and things are shared,
compared and contrasted between self and other. Common things and their
relations are the common ground for mutual identity--differences between
things become the basis for the irrelation of non-being--the separation of
difference--defining the self other meta-relation in terms of
differences--reifying the other into an object of differences to be 'studied'.
Everyone has something in common with everyone else, but the more in common
with identity, the stronger is the meta-relation between people--the greater
and more intense the 'encounter' between self and other. But defining
meta-relations exclusively in terms of shared sameness or difference leads to
reification in both directions.
This sense of exclusive reification is the basis of
spurious self-other identification and meta-relation. Meta-relation takes a
life of its own--it is the 'life of dialogue'. This life has a direction
ultimately beyond the control of either self or other and will become
interpreted different by both self and other on the basis of their different
'personality matrices' of bundles of traits and their interrelations. Sharing
a meta-relation leads to a generalization and 'fusion' of differences--to
encounter--over time such that the personality matrices of self and other are
brought into closer alignment over time. Encounter in meta-relation opens up
new possibilities for growth and inter-identification between self and other.
People learn how to react to, reject, accommodate, tolerate or assimilate the
differences they find between one another and vice versa.
In asymmetrical meta-relations the reciprocity and
interchange is more one directional--self or other attempt to control the
direction of the life of the meta-relation. Reflexivity is impossible under
such circumstances and such a relationship is the basis of an externalized
form of power in the world.
Symmetrical relationships based upon evenness of
'inter-change' or reciprocity is based upon shared similarities and mutual
identification between self and other. Relationships which are asymmetrical
are based primarily upon differences between people--there is no 'fusion of
difference' but only 'separation of horizons.' Similarities tend to be denied
or rejected, withdrawn and these result in spurious 'irrelation'.
In spurious irrelation, self and other are separate and one
is transformed into a thing, an instrument, or object of power of the other.
In the reflexiveness of self-other meta-relation, there is
a process of internalization or identification of the 'ego' of the values of
the meta-relation--the other is incorporated within the sense of self. Often
the internalization of this meta-relation, which begins in past or remote
primary social relationships between parent and child or between siblings
results in the intrinsic incorporation of difference and 'contradiction' such
that self identity of the resulting ego is compartmentalized on the basis of
inimical differences. This leads to front and back regions of the personality
of the ego, to 'top dog' and 'under dog' intra-physic conflicts between the
ego and the self.
When our inter-relational mechanisms which serve to
preserve the integrity of or sense of being breakdown under the stress of
conflict, there occurs a disintegration of personality--the bundles of things
no longer cohere into a general pattern of the self--they do not fit together
In or self-other meta-relations, we come to 'work out' or
project these differences of ego identity upon the relationship, which entails
a 'reification' of the other of the meta-relation as a thing. Such a
projection is the recognition or imputation of the 'over emphasis' of
difference in inter-human relationships--differences which are actually
repressed within the self. In such cases, we are largely unable to have a
genuine encounter experiences with people--they are narcissistic objects of
our own projections, they are objects of reflection, but not reflexiveness.
Our meta-relations and our 'inter-identity' in our social world becomes one
predominantly of 'non-being'--spurious, separate and alienating.
It is through learning how to engage in genuine self-other
meta-relations, to unlearn difference within ourselves and between ourselves
and the world, and to 'encounter' our world that we can resolve our
intra-physic conflicts rooted to an unreal past and which keep our sense of
self always imprisoned in a world of dependent, asymmetrical object relations.
We actually gain self control over our own identities by releasing our
projective need to control or be controlled by our worlds.
It must be understood that interpersonal differences and
similarities are not so much real or actual as much as they are ascribed,
imputed on the basis of metaphorical connection, symbolic identification or
analogical evaluation. We are looking symbolically, hence reflexively, for
ourselves in others, and for others in ourselves. And it is from this search
and this 'inter-identification' that our sense of ego and sense of self
ultimately depend. It is the analogical nature of these differences and
similarities in meta-relation which is the basis of psychic meaning and being
in the world.
The other becomes the reference of significance for the
self--what is called the significant reference other. If focusing upon
similarities, the other becomes an object of empathetic
emulation--subordinating self to authority of the other. To focus upon or
emphasize differences exclusively in meta-relation is to concomitantly ignore
similarities and to disallow similarities. It is to assert one sense of ego
identity, or its authority, over the other. The other becomes negative
'counter-reference' significant other. In either case, the exclusive emphasis
of either similarities or differences leads to a nomothetic pigeon holing of
the identity of the other into the personality matrix of the self. Non-being
of the meta-relation is the result, as in neither case is encounter with the
full humanness or identity of the other as self recognized reflexively.
Focusing exclusively upon either differences or
similarities is a social distancing mechanism necessary for the protection of
ego identity. It is necessary for maintaining a reference relationship in
which the other is a reflective object of the self and not a real person, or
separate sense of self. The other person is merely a symbol, but not one which
stands for itself. Masks, personas, assertion of authority, control and power,
enforced anonymity or alienation are all social distancing mechanisms employed
in defense of the ego. On the other hand, focusing upon similarities and
differences in terms of sympathetic and empathetic resonances within the self
leads to idiographic 'understanding' of the subjective other such that
differences in time are worked out, fused, or tolerated. Difference remains,
but becomes unimportant in terms of real difference and similarity.
It is to be seen by extension that if a majority or the
predominant part of social interrelationships in the world are based on
non-being and are therefore spurious irrelation, then the social reality which
is produced by the networks of these spurious relations will also be spurious.
Such a social atmosphere will be characterized by its impersonalness and
alienation, by the cultivation of front regions which mask the hidden networks
of back regions and will foster asymmetrical irrelations between people. Such
societies will in turn foster and promote 'spurious' social relationships and
socialize personalities which internalize 'difference'.
There are no 'purely' spurious or genuine cultures or
relations or people--there are many mixed types of more or less spurious or
Sapir's dualism consists of a single continuum defined on
the basis of how well a given culture provides a suitably adaptive environment
for the individual. Genuine culture begins with the concerns of the individual
needs while functioning as an integral and meaningful whole--'a richly varied
and yet somehow unified and consistent attitude toward life in which no part
of the general functioning brings with it a sense of frustration or
misdirected or unsympathetic effort. (1924, page 410) Spurious culture is
extraneous to the individual, cultivating an attitude of non-participation and
alienation. While the genuine culture serves to nurture the creative potential
of human beings, the spurious culture is inherently frustrating, fragmentary
and wasting of human endeavor and sentiment.' (Grindal, 1979, page 13) (Lewis,
unpublished manuscript, 1989)
It follows from this that cultural orientation which
promote beingness in identity lead to a creative fluorescence of
'civilization' in which the individual potentialities of the human being
become promoted and 'nurtured' through genuine meta-relation and is allowed to
express itself in the world in terms of the realization of greater creative
possibility. It also follows that in civilizations in which spurious
irrelation prevails, such personal realization through meta-relation becomes
systematically frustrated and stemmed from further development through
interpersonal irrelation. There is a net loss of creative productivity of
people, and a net increase of authoritarianism and its social effects in
Alfred Kroeber associated the growth and high points of
development with culture historical developments of characteristic 'style type
patterns' as well as with the frequency of culture historical personalities or
of 'genius' of a reflective of the particular style of civilization. The
determining factor of the appearance of bursts or clusters of genius in the
course of a civilization culture historical development is due largely to the
social context which either fosters or allows this rise of genius, or which
systematically frustrate or prevent its occurrence. Culture historical
contexts which become spurious tend to prevent the growth and development of
stylistic genius of civilization, while genuine meta-relations within such
contexts encourage and protect such development.
We have now an important linkage between individual
experience of reality, between beingness and non-being, and the growth,
development and demise in culture historical process of human civilization.
Which comes first, the individual or the context of the individual's
development, is largely a hen and egg question. They come together in a
dialectic of human identity. What is important is to recognize how the
statistical frequency and relative structural predominance of certain kinds of
'encounters' or face to face meta-relations, work consistently through
extended networks and 'social movements' to turn the wheels of culture history
and to describe the processual patterning of the rise and fall of human
We have in this a culture historical account of our own
civilization--the promotion of the rugged individualist style of civilization
through many genius who invented a whole new world and now the rise of a
pervasive and predominant sense of non-being in social relationships which
tends to frustrate and prevent the rise of the very kind of genius upon which
its greatness was founded.
The dialectic of mind and world view are collective
representations of the individual human being's experience of beingness and
non-being in the world. Such experience is primarily subjective and
phenomenological in the sense that it is derived from the recognition of one's
self in the world, of the sentient possibilities of other's beingness, and of
the dilemmas of death and separation and inexorable facts of life. It is
subjective in the sense that it is a non-absolute and relative, yet
non-arbitrary condition of human existence--recognition and understanding of
the sense of identity and difference of beingness and non-being is relative,
contextual dimensionality which as no external or a-priori standards of frames
or references. It casts human existence, individually and collectively, in a
shadow of indeterminacy such that there are few fixed, unchanging points of
reference by which to anchor experience, understand change or about which to
configure meaning in the world.
Beingness and non-being are a contrapuntal dialectic which
informs human existence with meaningfulness and ameaning--they are the
essential counterpoint of or mythologies and our enacted social dramas. Being
and non-being stand in unending opposition to one another and it is the
dialectical tension of this contradiction which creates the antinomal and
paradoxical ground of meaning in the world and which allows for transcendence
of the dialectics through symbolic synthesis.
But beingness and non-being have a very different
connotations for meaning in the world--following one way or the other has very
interesting and problematic implications for how individuals and
collectivities come to organize experience, mediate environments and structure
their world view, and both lead down different pathways to changing which has
very different consequences for humankind and the world.
Individuals may lead a life of beingness while the
collective of which that person is a part may lead a different way of
non-being, and vice versa. Though interconnected the dialectics of being for
the individual is different than the dialectics of being for the
collective--the way of life of the collective may lead to the individual's
life ways, but the individuals way of life may also lead the life ways of the
The dialectics of Mind, of being and non-being, and of
Mindness and world view are founded upon the basic principles of identity and
difference--principles of relation between the term and the thing, subject and
object, self and other the signified and the signifier and the metaphor and
the thing for which it stands. The dialectic of identity and difference
informs all other dialectics as being between
'collectivizing/relativizing'--contrapuntal directions and tendencies of
understanding. Identity and difference are inseparable, as identity must be
defined by anti-thetical contraposition to relative difference, and vice
versa. The principles of identity/difference are articulated quite simply and
logically by the Theory of Sets. The principle of identity is expressed in
terms of being; difference expresses non-being. Identity comes through the
recognition of similarities and differences, and their fusion upon a common
horizon of meta-relation. Differences comes through the separation of
similarities from differences and the exclusive emphasis of each to the
neglect of the other.
DIALECTIC OF SELF AND OTHER
Individuality is the 'idea' of Mind and is the synthesis of
a dialectic between 'self centered identity' and 'other de-centered
difference'--or the self defined idiographically in conjunction with the sense
of personality development--biographically and longitudinally organized as a
sense of inner directed continuity through time and across space and the
'otherness' of the self defined nomothetically as a bindle of relationships to
other things and ultimately with other people, or other 'selves' in the world.
Self in the world is defined diachronically as motion
through time. Other of the world is defined synchronically as distance across
space. The dialectic between self and other is a dialectic between time and
space as well. Translation of self into other and of other into self is
concomitantly the inter-translation between space and time. The dialectic
between self and other is the spatio-temporal manifestation of Mind.
Sense of self is the expression of the holothetic principle
of Mind--'idea' expressed in terms of other 'ideas' which remain extrinsically
defined in terms of other ideas of the world. The paradox of the dialectic is
to synthetically transcend the dialectic while remain extrinsically defined in
terms of other ideas of the world. The paradox of the dialectic is to
synthetically transcend the dialectic while remaining within its circle. The
function of a meta-language is to allow this transcendence.
In this regard it is vitally important to note that the
social sciences are largely, almost exclusively, the science of 'other
identity' and so cannot transcend the dialectic of individuality. To
'de-center' the importance of the 'sense of self' in a systematic way is to
attempt to subjugate the self to the dictates of the social order, and to
define Mind in exclusive terms of social organization. It places the
momentousness of Mind to the service of the momentum of culture history and
reduces the importance of the self as the manifestation of Mind. In essence it
constitutes a systematic denial of Mind as an ordering principle of human
reality. Put another way, it constitutes a denial of beingness in the world by
the affirmation of non-being of the world in terms of 'becoming' in a Perfect
State of Mind.
It is not an accident that social sciences legitimate
themselves in constructs and languages which are mostly spatial and synchronic
in reference--the aim is a Logos of Perfect Space/Time in which disorder,
randomness and uncertainty become minimized.
This emphasis upon other-identity has important
implications for the role of the social sciences within a culture historical
framework. The recovery of Mind depends upon the recovery of the sense of self
from the anti-thetical principle of otherness.
BEINGNESS AS A NATURAL STATE OF MIND
Beingness gains its identity in a dialectic with
'non-being'. Beingness identifies the reflexive identity of self and mind as
an idea and a 'meta-relation' with the world.
Logos as 'natural systems theory' states that 'mind' as the
natural logos of the human being has occurred as an order of reality which is
guided by its own reasons--reasons which are basically 'meta-physical'. Yet
meta-physicality of mind, of the 'beingness' of humankind, must have had its
evolutionary origins in humankind's natural adaptation to selective forces in
past environments. And as an adaptive mechanism, mind came into being long
before humankind invented civilization in the historical sense--it came into
being in the heads of individual's as they struggled for survival in hostile
environments. It came into being among people whose only sense of social
solidarity must have been 'natural' and 'mechanical'--who acted or had to
learn to act, as individual 'culture bearers' rather than as 'organic
specialists' whose adaptive success and survival came to depend more upon the
success and survival of their 'social system' than upon their own individual
state of being.
Neither were these primeval human beings very interested in
the notions of progress or of 'becoming' or of perfection--being in its
dialectic with possible non-being was an earnest, everyday problem of
survival. The mind of human being developed to its full ecological and
evolutionary significance long before the development of the civilized
contexts for understanding 'ecology' and 'evolution'.
Humankind has long existed in a 'primitive' state of
beingness for a much longer span of time than we now know how to imagine.
Perhaps mind as a culture historical phenomena had been in a long slumber
before finally 'awakening' to its own self consciousness. We will never know.
Beingness as natural state of mind exists in the fear of
death, in the daily confrontation with disorder and disintegration. As such
there was no significant sense of 'becoming' except perhaps in the most
mystical and magical of meanings.
REASONS FOR BEING
Many different reasons for being have been given--some
better than others. Many are just lies, other sophisticated rationalizations
'in service of the ego'--others reasons are more pragmatic or more
philosophical and others have been mandated by socio-economic survival or
political struggle and confrontation. Systems always seem to have their own
reasons, and if not, eventually will. Reason for being is not any or all the
reasons we may give for our being--being in and of the world has its own
reasons separable from the ones we may bring to it. Reason for being does not
wait for our understanding of it, nor do our substitute reasons ever replace
it. Reason (and unreason) for being is not necessarily 'rational' or
'logical'--reasons for being happens around our own ideas and in the absence
of our intentions and plans.
But reason for being is not a divine spirit or a guiding
force. It is not fate, nor destiny, nor the will of God or Allah, or even the
action of logos or the science of truth. It is not an essence reducible by
scientific or philosophic explanation--no psychoanalyst can mine its treasures
or discover its depths in the individual psyche.
Difficult to put into words, it is more like willpower, but
not unconscious or conscious motivation. It is collective in being shared, but
it is not an internalized superego, a phenomena of mass movements or social
hysteria. It is the function of mind, and the human expression of logos. It is
not the deep, generative structure of structuralism. It is similar to the Dao
that cannot be put into worlds or the way that isn't the way. It is not the
same for all people, it varies with individual differences. It is an integrity
of being that makes its own sense. It is a synergism and an encompassing
totality arising from the fact of being itself rather than preceding or
following it. It predetermines nothing except itself, and is predetermined by
nothing but itself.
We cannot know it completely, objectively or however
remotely, because we cannot separate ourselves from it, nor isolate others
from it. It is the forest and we are the trees of the forest. It expresses
itself through us but not because of us. We are its vehicles, its vessels,
carrying its essence and substance into our future.
Though reason for being is not our reasons, it ultimately
informs them with reason. Though we cannot control it, or comprehend it in any
sense, we can come to know of it and understand some of it and describe what
of it we know and understand. And whether it may be scientific or not is
irrelevant. It is because we are and we are because it is, and just that is
enough. Knowing and understanding it is enough in itself--its relevance is
self evident. We will know it when we find it, because it will know us and
have fond us.
Reason for being is the principle of mind. The study of
culture history is the attempt to generalistically excoriate the principle of
mind and our reason for being from the phenomena of everyday experience in the
NONBEING AND THE RATIONALITY OF BECOMING
The rationality of becoming is the scientific substitute
for being. But no matter how progressive our rationality for becoming may be,
however fulfilled or fulfilling in our lives, it never reveals our reason for
being. It covers over the dialectic between being and non-being by
incorporating the principle of change and the control of change, into its
unfolding dialectic and thus makes non-being the basis of human identity. The
rationality of becoming fails to transcend the dialectics of being and
non-being but reverses its counterpoint.
The evolution of mind arose as the result of the logos of
change. The rationality of becoming can be constrained as the principle of
non-being of change which is directed or controlled--a sense of superimposing
a pattern of structure of a non-existent future upon the sense of the present.
Reason for being transcends the dialectic of being and non-being by an
acceptance of the inevitability of change.
The rationality of becoming leads to a denial of the reason
for being--an attempted escape from its inevitability, a desperate effort to
purposefully forget it or to 'unlive it'. It attempts to substitute for reason
for being in its own rationality of becoming something other than what one is.
Its vicariousness searches for its own reason for being in the non-being of
the possibilities of change itself.
Rationality of becoming lives in the world but is not of
the world in the way that reason for being is. It serves a purpose of change.
The principle of change becomes the principle of progressive evolution--change
with a purpose.
CHANGE AND NONBEING
Part of our reason for being is the maintenance of a sense
of continuity of consciousness through time, an identity of perception, a
sense of constant, stable self. Though we watch ourselves gradually change, we
like to think that there remains something fundamental which does not alter
with circumstances or change with the seasons. It is vital to our being even
though we cannot explain exactly what it is.
If there is a universal principle or a logos, then it must
be the principle of universal change--everything changes, constantly,
gradually, rapidly, alternating, growing, expanding, moving, eroding, even our
mind. Changes pervades our every and very experiences of the cosmos. Whether
change in the universe is evolutionary or not remains to be discovered--it
only seems so ordered in our locale. Universal change guarantees us that
nothing remains the same forever, that all things are indeed temporary and
The observation of change, the ability to notice and to
know change, both creates sense of being as somewhat resistant or defying
change, and simultaneously challenges this sense by the possibility and the
inevitability of non-being. Being and non-being rise in the world together as
part of the dialectical mediation of change.
Perhaps it is our name, or our social and natural history
which produces us a sense of continuity through time, inspite of changes. We
recognize our reason for being in our offspring, and see the challenges to its
survival in the death of friends and family. We may call it love, or nature,
but we do not seek to analyze it or explain it. We act and make decisions on
its behalf because we are a part of it and it is a part of us. But always we
measure it by comparison with non-being in the world--that changes that go
around us and through us which suggests our own impermanence and our own
NONBEING AND VICARIOUSNESS
Recognition of the possibility of non-beingness and the
denial of beingness leads also to the capacity for vicariousness--the
substitution of possible states of non-beingness for beingness. Vicariousness
is a qualified form of non-beingness as it covers over the sense of separation
of death by the false sense of belonging derived from the imagined experience
of another person's beingness. Vicariousness comes from our social identity,
our knowledge of the beingness of the other as an experience of our possible
The importance of the pathology of vicariousness in the
constitution of the modern mind should not be underestimated--as modern
beingness has become defined by the vicariousness of other identity to the
point of loss of beingness in self identity. Part of this social vicariousness
of non-beingness becomes expressed as a 'cult of individuality'--of the over
emphasis upon the distinctiveness and importance of the self vis-à-vis other
identity. The media promotes this pathology of vicariousness as a mechanism of
the 'system' in the de-personalization of the beingness for the sake of its
The principle of becoming is a special form of
vicariousness. Becoming is also a form of non-beingness which becomes a
substitute for beingness. Becoming substitutes the vicariousness of the other
with the non-beingness of the self as the embodiment or progressive
realization of a rational ideal--the substitution of the idea of natural mind
by the ideal of perfect mind.
It follows that a modern world built upon the principle of
progress incorporating the principle of becoming and the modern mind of this
principle of becoming, is a pathological world founded upon the vicariousness
of non-being and the denial of beingness.
DEATH AND NONBEINGNESS
Non-beingness is expressed symbolically as death and
separation. Because death is the inevitable and ultimate consequence of life,
the entire process of living can be looked upon as a gradual process of
dying--every minor parting or permanent transition in life has a sense of
separation and becomes a resonance of death. Death is a natural end state of
life, and separation is a natural process of living.
Death and separation are the expressions of the principle
of inexorable change in life--everything changes in time, and these changes
over the long run are irreversible and permanent.
Death is the final, most irreversible change of living. It
represents a great unknown. It is the only absolute horizon of our
understanding and knowledge beyond which our consciousness cannot carry us.
Because it represents symbolically the unknown, death is
the universal source of fear and the cause of anxiety over change and
separation. Such fear and anxiety pervade our life, and are normal conditions
Pathology comes from the inability to deal with these fears
and feelings of anxiety as natural states of living--leading to their denial
or to the 'fear of fear' and to the anxiousness about anxiety. Denial of death
as a pathological way of dealing with it leads to its covert sublimation in
other ways--an unconscious symbolic preoccupation and fascination with dying
and separation. Fear of fear and anxiousness about anxiety are part of this
unconscious denial--obsessive expressions of this fear and anxiety which
become inordinately powerful and suggestive in the daily rituals of living.
The possibility of the denial of death comes from the
recognition and possibility of denial of beingness--as a consequence of mind
it comes from the self recognition of the dialectic between beingness and
non-beingness. It is concomitant to the reflexive identity of self and mind.
Like Versus and Falsus, the ability to apprehend the identity of truth, (or
the truth of identity) always also opens up the possibility of untruth and
non-identity. We cannot have knowledge and understanding of truth and
beingness without the understanding of the possibility of untruth and
BEING AND BECOMING
A human being is more than a bundle of traits--more than
behavior plus mentality, more than a set of psychological processes
(perception, learning, memory, thought, intelligence, skill, communication,
motivation, emotion, personality) more than a name, a wardrobe, a creature
with a home life and a work life, more than a 'culture bearing animal' or
'symbolic creature'. A human being is more than a body with a soul and a mind
and a shadow--a human being is more than a 'thing'. Human being is a living
state, a super organic condition, a synergism of reality, a unity of reality
and undivided totality of experience. He cannot so much address it as be
addressed by it. We cannot know it so much as be known by it--it always
encompasses our comprehension--always 'something more' than our 'nothing
buts'. Human being exists in the world and happens of the world.
To say that 'human being' is an oxymoron of knowledge and
understanding--it compels an unnatural kind of self reflexivity, an
apperceptive awareness of our own being in and of the world--trying to
'objectify' the intrinsically 'subjective'. We say 'well of course human
being, what else?' Indeed what else can there be? To subtract either the human
or the being from the equation of experience--to inform knowledge or
understanding 'as if' either were unnecessarily absent, is a falsification of
actual experience. Of course we can imagine with a high degree of scientific
certainty that should all humankind perish in turn, the universe would
continue to exist without us, but our essential experience of it would have
vanished into nothingness and along with us, the knowledge that there is a
universe. There is no point quibbling.
Perhaps it is better to say 'beingness' instead of just
'being' to convey the 'sense' of 'state' or 'condition', to better emphasize
its unequivocal experientiality or self evident essence. It is perhaps the
only true synthetic a-priori which necessarily comes before everything else.
Being has always been enough.
And yet in our world dominated by scientific rationality it
is no longer simply 'to be' as a unquestionable given, as an uncontestable
'fact' of experience itself. (and it probably never really, absolutely has
been) Being human in the modern sense has come to mean much more than simply
human being. The principle of progress and its premises of perfectionism make
it imperative that we will 'become' something more than we 'are' or have
'unbecome' something that we 'were' before. The need to 'become' has its own
'superhuman methods' and its own 'superhuman madness'. And 'becoming human' is
never quite enough.
PERFECT MIND AS A STATE OF PATHO-LOGOS
Perfect mind arose from the principle of becoming which
became a substitute for the dialect between being and non-being--it arose from
a denial of non-being and hence implies a denial of being. Its aim is a
perfect logos, a state of perfect space and perfect time, from which non-being
as an imperfect state is exorcised.
To the extent that perfect mind is based upon a principle
of becoming which denies the dialectic of being and non-being, it must be
construed as an 'unnatural' hence 'pathological' state of mind. It must be
construed as an intrinsically maladaptive kind of mind.
It is not difficult to look around and see social
pathological states of collective mentality which exist as self fulfilling
prophecies of their own culture historical traditions--modern militarism, MAD
and the Pentagon's power are peculiarly pertinent examples. Implicit to these
pathological states of collective mentality is a shared delusions. Such social
pathologies have as their purpose not the 'beingness of the mind' in terms of
the self, but in the destruction of the self in the service of the other--or
of a symbolically depersonalized 'system'.
Rational idealism and scientific rationalism promotes a
logo-centrism which leads to reification of abstractions and to a misplaced
concretization--this kind of logo-centrism can be seen to promote a frame of
mind which aims towards a perfect state of mind which is reinforced by and
reinforces a perfect social system.
Blanket Copyright, Hugh M. Lewis, © 2005. Use of
this text governed by fair use policy--permission to make copies of this text
is granted for purposes of research and non-profit instruction only.
Last Updated: 08/25/06