Algebraic and Geometric Logic Author(s): Ter Ellingson-Waugh Reviewed work(s): Source: Philosophy East and West, Vol.

24, No. 1 (Jan., 1974), pp. 23-40 Published by: University of Hawai'i Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1397600 . Accessed: 14/09/2012 06:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy East and West.

http://www.jstor.org

Ter Ellingson-Waugh Algebraic and geometric logic

INTRODUCTION

Ludwig Wittgenstein, in the Philosophical Investigations, advances the suggestion that "uttering a word is like striking a note on the keyboard of the imagination (Vorstellungsklavier)." If we gave this suggestion a slightly different meaning and weight than its author intended, we might extend the image like this: Words struck as notes on the Vorstellungsklavier belong to various "modes of discourse"-everyday, scientific, economic, etc.-analogous to the musical modes. The related words (notes) of a given mode of discourse, for instance, mathematics, are consonant with others in the same mode, and dissonant with respect to other modes, such as the discourse belonging to ethics or aesthetics. The words of a given linguistic mode are "in tune" with each other to a very high degree: the terms used in logic, for example, are assigned quite precise positions and interrelations. It is just this precise "tuning" within the separate modes, however, that creates problems of dissonance when we combine them, for example, when we attempt a logical analysis of ethical propositions.' The result is usually "clashing" or "noisy"; we end up with something that is good logic but bad ethics, or ethically satisfactory but logically faulty. Intermodal dissonance was historically an important practical problem for Western musicians and was finally solved by a system called "equal temperament." Their solution was to tune their instruments slightly out of tune with the exact pitches of any single mode, but approximately in tune with the pitches of every mode.2The system was established firmly by composers like Bach, who wrote works for such a "Well-tempered Keyboard" (Wohltemperierte Klavier). Thus our image of the problems of "dissonance" between separate linguistic "modes" presents its own solution: in the comparison of separate modes, the best result will be an approximate degree of precision that slightly distorts, but in its main outlines adequately represents, the separate modes. The result would be not a "true" usage of either mode, but a workable comparison of them.
Ter Ellingson-Waugh is a graduate student in Buddhist Studies at the University of Wisconsin,Madison. 1 This conception of dissonance between separate linguistic modes would seem to be potentially homologizableto Leon Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. 2 This account slightly distorts the actual historical problem,which was that of dissonance between different keys, not modes. Keys are transpositionsof a basic modal structure to different pitch levels which do not alter the modal structuresthemselves (two such modal structures-major and minor-were transposedto twelve pitch levels each, giving a total of twenty-four keys). Because linguistic systems vary structurallyas well as in contentthat is, they vary not just in vocabularybut also in usage and criteria of significance-the concept of structurally differing "modes"seems more applicable. By thus distorting the musical facts, I bring my account slightly out of tune with accurate musical discourse; at this cost, the analogy to language systems is rendered more consistent. Philosophers, on the other hand, should feel dissonancein the impressionisticcharacter of the whole argument.

24 Ellingson-Waugh

The "logic of ethics" would be neither pure logic nor ethics; but it might be more useful for some purposes than either illogical ethics or unethical logic. The outcome of comparative efforts along these lines would be, adapting Wittgenstein's term, a Wohltemperierte Vorstellungsklavier-a "Well-tempered Representational Keyboard"-that would be adequate for communication between all the various disciplines and that hopefully would allow for the possibility of transposition into the mode(s) of everyday discourse as well. This goal may or may not be achievable. If such a harmonizing of separate discursive modes were possible, the possibility would almost certainly have to rest on a basis of a shared cultural heritage and environment. For intermodal dissonance must become greater as we try to communicate across cultural boundaries.3 The structures of our discursive modes (which may be either the images or the vehicles of our cognitive structures) vary culturally: Christian and Buddhist ethics, Hindu and Napoleonic jurisprudence, vary in their structures as well as in their contents. Doing "ethics," while taking account of both Christian and Buddhist definitions, is like trying to perform "music" simultaneously in the scales of Rag Todi and C major. If anything comes out at all, it must sound very strange to adherents of both systems, or totally alien to one. The second of these results achieves nothing new. The first, if both sides can "tune in" after the initial shock, might provide a useful basis for mutual expression and evaluation. When I speak here of Western and Indo-Tibetan "logic," I expect the discussion to grate on the ears of both Western and Tibetan logicians. Western logic is now usually defined as something like "the principles of valid inference,"4or "the science of necessary inference."5 By such definitions, the system I am comparing is not really "logic" at all, since it involves neither sequential inference nor principles of validity. But I am using in this discussion a quite different conception of Western logic. Rather than defining logic by its intentions and goals, as in the definitions quoted, I attempt to characterize it in terms of how it appears "from the outside"-to describe its practical applications rather than to define its theoretical essence. Accordingly, looking at current logic textbooks and the use of logic in current philosophical writings, it seems possible to describe Western logic-not its theory or history, but most of its current practice-as the symbolic transposition of semantic contents into a mathematicalframework.
of Oriental dress or thought are adoptedby Western "counterculture" groups. Dissonance becomes,as it were, a feature of a certain aesthetic style. 4 William and Martha Kneale, The Development of Logic (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 1. 5 Willard V. O. Quine, Elementary Logic, rev. ed. (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), p. 1.

8 Of course, interculturaldissonancecan be useful for some purposes,as when some forms

25

This is also the sense in which I define the Tibetan system discussed here as "logic." It is not so characterized by Tibetan philosophers. Their "logic" (Sanskrit pramana, Tibetan tshad ma), like ours, is concerned with inference, validity, and argumentation, and is closely related theoretically to epistemology and historically to the practice of dialectic and debate. The system I describe belongs, by contrast, primarily to the ritual rather than the philosophical mode. Thus the entire system of Buddhist formal logic and all the current and historical exceptions to the currently dominant Western usage are left out of the picture. Hopefully the new comparative point of view achieved by this method will justify the amount of dissonance created by these omissions. My goal is to expand the Western concept of "logic" into a broader and more flexible form; I have left the Tibetan concept of tshad ma totally untampered with. My characterizationof logic, of course, could be dismissed as dealing "only" with the techniques of logic. Likewise, the philosophical analysis of language could be rejected as dealing not with the substance of philosophical thought but merely with the technical devices by which it is expressed. To those inclined to such rejections, this discussion will be of little use; but I hope it will hold some interest for others.
I

Most of Western philosophy has closely adhered to a traditional methodology of linear, discursive presentation. In recent decades we have become aware that underlying this methodology there functions a logical system whose basic operations are those of algebraic quantification and negation, and that our linguistic formulations can thus be readily translated into sequences of mathematical symbols. This discovery seems to reinforce the prejudice that our methods are "scientific," although perhaps not yet fully perfected, while other systems used in other cultures are primitive, imprecise, and in Walt Kelly's terms, "mythillogical." Some items, of even our own experience, seem to clash with our familiar logical structures, such as the constancy of the speed of light, or some findings of particle physics. And, on the other side, some critical observers have helped reveal to us the logic of foreign views and ways. Anthropologists, particularly, have been active in trying to expand our consciousness of possible alternate modes of thought, from Frazer's famous characterizationin The Golden Bough of magic as "false," primitive science, to Levi-Strauss' exploration in The Savage Mind of the "science of the concrete." There is also increased philosophical investigation of non-Western thought systems, particularly those of the Oriental high cultures. Yet the impression persists that because our logic is fundamentally mathematical, it is also fundamentally superior. But we make a serious mistake if we assume that the only mathematical logic

26 Ellingson-Waugh

possible is our traditional algebraic type. Centuries ago, another kind of system was invented and elaborated within the tradition of the Tantric religions of India and Tibet, which can only be described as a geometrical logic. Our algebraic system utilizes sequential techniques of quantification and negation. Neither of these is possible in the Indo-Tibetan geometric system, which instead demonstrates configurational relationships of similarity (symmetry) and congruence. Equivalence can be shown in both systems; but in the algebraic, it is a quantitative equivalence, while in the geometric, it is a qualitative kind. And, while we have recently learned to present our formulations as constructs of abstract symbols in algebraic equations, the Indians and Tibetans have traditionally presented their formulations in pictorial symbols structured within geometric constructs known as mandalas.
II

The basic form of the mandala (Fig. 1) is that of a circle enclosing a square whose diagonals are its diameters. Since the mandala represents simultaneously a cosmogram, a psychogram, and a purified ritual site where religious powers (dbang) can be obtained, the geometric elements of circle and square have various meanings. The circle represents the cycle of samsara, of worldly existence and rebirths, and may contain pictorial representations of secular scenes (Fig. 2). Its connotations are of unstructuredness, endlessness, and intolerably unbroken regularity. At the same time, it is a boundary which sets off and defines by contrast the special character of the structured system within it. Its outer ring is the fire of Enlightenment which burns away misconceptions. Its middle ring is of vajra (rdo rje), showing the diamondlike sharpness, clarity, and indestructible solidity of Enlightenment. Next, there may be (as in Fig. 2) an "inside" structured view of the worldly cycle, according to the Buddha's system of the chain of Dependent Origination (pratityasamutpada). Finally, the inner circle is formed of the petals of the divine lotus upon which Enlightened rebirth takes place. Logically, the circle serves to enclose (bracket) and define a system which is contiguous with itself, but which, because of its structured nature, is of a fundamentally different quality. The square, by contrast, is a highly regular structure. Its diagonals subdivide it into four congruent isosceles, right triangles. Visually it is a palace, its walls hung with jewels and topped with royal parasols; its gates facing the four quarters of the world, crowned with pairs of unicorn deer (bse ru), "listening" with one-pointed concentration to the wheel representing the Buddha's teaching, the true gateway to the palace. Logically it is a structure into which symbols may be inserted to postulate relationships of similarity and equivalence.

27

FIG. 1. Mandala of the Four Guardian Kings. Lokesh Chandra and Raghu Vira. A New Tibeto-Mongol Pantheon, vol. 14. New Delhi, The International Academy of Indian Culture, 1964, p. 33. (Courtesy: Dr. Lokesh Chandra)

28 Ellingson-Waugh

FIG. 2. Mandala of Sri Cakrasamvara.Lokesh Chandra and Raghu Vira. A New Tibeto-Mongol Pantheon, vol. 14. New Delhi, The International Academy of Indian Culture, 1964, p. 63. (Courtesy: Dr. Lokesh Chandra)

29

We have said that the geometric logic expressed in the mandala is, like algebraic logic, mathematical; it is also symbolic. But its symbols, being not abstract but pictorial, are also not single-valued but multivalent. This feature is crucial to understanding the workings of the system. By use of multivalent symbolization, a number of sets of symbolic equivalence can be simultaneously diagrammed and, subsequently, interpreted on various levels as the need arises. Criteria of abstract simplicity are here abandoned, while symbols are selected for their richness and complexity. Biological elements (plants and animals), human figures (Buddhas), and cultural objects (royal robes and ornaments, weapons musical instruments, etc.) are characteristic of the symbols used. Their combination produces symbolic composites which are religiously, psychologically, and culturally highly evocative, such as the weaponscarrying, bull-headed fierce Buddha known as "The Diamond Terrorizer" and "The Slayer of Death" (Vajrabhairava/rdo rje 'jigs byed, Yamantaka/ gshin rje gshed, Fig. 3). These are not arbitrary creations. Images, as objects of contemplation to purify the body, mind, and senses have to be created in wrathful as well as peaceful aspects, and sometimes with multiple heads and hands, so that they suit the physical, mental, and sensuous capacities of different individuals striving for the final goal.6 So the multivalence of the symbols used is both intentional and functional. What about their systematic usage in the mandala? Take the case of Figure 1. According to a structural convention, the four quarters of the central square are assigned to the four directions of the compass and given their associated colors: West Red South Center North Yellow White Green East Blue Superimposed upon this stylized cosmic map we see a planetary configuration of five figures surrounding a larger central figure. The central figure is a peaceful form of Vajrapani(phyag na rdo rje), patron of Tantra and a symbol of the fierce, protective aspect of Buddhism. His satellites here are the four great Guardian Kings of the Four Quarters, who also represent this fierce, protective aspect in a lower, more worldly form. We thus have here the symbolic, diagrammatic subdivision of a general concept into its (worldly
6 Dalai Lama XIV Bstan 'dzin rgya mtsho, An Introduction to Buddhism (New Delhi:
Tibet House, 2509 B.E.).

30 Ellingson-Waugb

FIG. 3. Chicago.

of Field Museum, Vajrabhairava (Rdo rje 'jigs byed). Collection

31

directional) concretely structured components. Formally, two kinds of relationships are postulated: (1) equality and similarity of the satellite figures positioned in the four quarters of the square, and (2) subordination of the planetary figures to the central, implying a holistic, integrated reality which can be seen "outwardly" as a system of structured components. Geometrically, the use of concentric circles implies the equivalence of symbols pictured at three different levels of organization. These are: (a) the circle outside the square, symbolizing reality as cyclic, undifferentiated, and chaotic; (b) the circle within the square, structured by the geometric subdivisions of the square, picturing reality as a structured composite made up of related component parts; and (c) the central circle with the Buddha image, representing an undifferentiated, holistic, integrated view. These are successively higher ways of regarding the same reality, which might be called experiential, analytic, and Enlightened, respectively. Each is valid for its own level; we might think of them as three different lenses for viewing the same picture from different perspectives. Geometrically and logically, repetition of the circular form and concentricity indicate equivalence of what is symbolized at the various levels, while their position inside or outside of the structured square indicates the analytic level at which they are to be taken. The central circle actually is to be considered a dimensionless point, at the intersection of the circles' radii and the square's diagonals. The "equivalence" of these symbols is a different kind of equivalence from that postulated in algebraic formulations. To be sure, the symbols in the intermediate, quartered circle seem equivalent in a normal way, as the mythological guardians of the western, northern, eastern, and southern quarters are said to be "equal" in power and importance: w =n = e'= s. Furthermore, the set of four is equal to some sort of protective aspect or quality of Buddhism: p = (w + n + e + s). And this protective aspect is also equivalent to the central symbol, the Buddha Vajrapani: p = V. But then: V = (w + n + e + s), which is false, since Vajrapani represents a qualitatively different level of symbolization than the Four Guardians. This qualitative shift is not represented within the algebraic system and has to be taken as a failure of the rule of equivalence, like the failures encountered in quotational contexts. We could, perhaps, accommodate the difference by considering one symbol, (V), to be metalinguistic or metasystemic. However, there is no difficulty in accommodating the qualitative shift in the geometric formulation of the mandala, because qualitative equivalence can be easily expressed by geometrically similar shapes in concentric relation. Furthermore, this particular instance represents a very simple use of the geometry of the mandala. Its real usefulness becomes apparent when we consider a more complex case which exploits the multivalence of symbols to

32 Ellingson-Waugh

present simultaneous relationships of categories on several qualitatively different levels, as in the often-mentioned Mandala of the Five Tathagatas.7 The Tathagatas, or Jina (rgyal ba), are a group of Buddhas found in the top order of the pantheon. They are deployed in a mandala with the layout given above: West-Red Amitabha Center-White Vairocana East-Blue Aksobhya In this case, the center is taken as a fifth direction.8 Depending on the system followed, the central figure might be taken either as one member among equals, or, as both one member and at the same time the apotheosized embodiment of the whole set of five.9 The Tathagatas collectively embody a large number of sets of symbolic associations. Some of these are shown in Table 1. Besides being associated with specific directions of the compass and colors of the spectrum, they also represent the systematic divisions of the physical elements, the constituents of the human personality (skandha/phung po), the passions, the senses, different "families" (rigs) of followers whose personal characteristics and inclinations correspond with the qualities represented by a specific individual Tathagata, and several other sets of associations. Thus, the geometric structure in which they are situated affords a means of simultaneously diagramming, through symbols, corresponding patterns of relationships between sets of categories where comparison would ordinarily be quite difficult even between individual members of different sets. The geometry of the mandala furnishes a basis for the structural comparison of different types of systems; and, it is in this structural comparison of entire systems that its superiority to the algebraic equation becomes evident. Levels of meaning can be projected outward through an indefinite number of concentric circles, as in Figure 2. And each symbolic component of a mandala can be structurally subdefinedby a subordinate mandala; or, viewed in another way mandalas can be arranged into an encompassing mandala, so that it is
7 The fullest discussion is found in G. Tucci, The Theory and Practice of the Mandala

South-Yellow Ratnasambhava

North-Green Amoghasiddhi

(New York: Weiser, 1970). 8 The list of directions can be expanded to include up, down, and those intermediatebetween the four compasspoints. 9 Cumulativeenumeration, counting the sum of a set as one of its members,is a common Tibetan technique.AnthropologistR. E. Miller considers this type of enumerationto constitute a persvasive pattern in Tibetan culture (private communication).

Table 1 Symbolismof the Five Tathagatas Vairocana Rnam par snang mdzad "Illuminator" Center White Space Ignorance Form Sight Tathagata Wheel Lion Ratnasambhava Rin chen 'byung nas "Jewel-born" South Yellow Earth Pride Feeling Hearing Jewel Jewel Horse Amitabha 'Od dpag med "Boundless Light" West Red Fire Passion Perception Smell Lotus Lotus Peacock

Tathagata Direction Color Element Passion Skandha Sense Family* Symbol Animal

Amoghasi Don yod 'g pa "Unfaili success

North Green Water Jealousy Action Taste Extensive Crossed va Winged d

Adapted from G. Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, Vol. I. Rome, 1949, pp. 238-240. * Families grouped according to system of Anuttara-yoga-tantra

34 Ellingson-Waugh

possible to generate mandalas of mandalas (Fig. 4). The structure is infinitely replicable at all levels of description, and every aspect of the system under consideration can be simultaneously diagrammed in symbolic form within the structural model.
III

Western thought does not seem to have evolved a geometric logical system of a complexity and sophistication comparable to that which we have described in the mandala. Some theoretical recognition of this mode of thinking does exist, and, particularly in the social sciences, there is a growing practice of structural, diagrammaticmodes of analysis. We will briefly consider both of these theoretical and practical parallels. A close approach to the distinction made here between geometric and algebraic logic is the standard psychoanalytic distinction between "primary" and "secondary" mental processes. Secondary process is ordinary "logical" discursive, linear thought, which is unambiguous, verbal, cognizant of reality, contradiction, truth or falsity, and so forth. Primary process is the mode of pictorial symbolic representation characteristic of unconscious thought, which is especially visible in dreams: They reproduce logical connection by approximation in time and space. ... A causal relation between two thoughts is either left unrepresented or is replaced by a sequence. . . . The alternative "either-or" is never expressed in dreams, both of the alternatives being inserted in the text of the dream as though they were equally valid. . . . Ideas which are contraries are by prefference expressed in dreams by one and the same element. . . . similarity, consonance, the possession of common attributes is very highly favored by the mechanism of dream formation. The dream work makes use of such cases . . by bringing together everything that shows an agreement of this kind into a new unity.'0 This "new unity" is achieved through the mechanism of overdeterminationof dream symbols; that is, symbols are selected by multiple causal processes, which combine with each other at various symbolic levels, so that each symbol is associated with several different thoughts and each thought is expressed in several different symbols. Thus, "The fact that the meanings of dreams are arranged in superimposed layers is one of the most delicate, though also one All of these feaof the most interesting, problems of dream-interpretation.""1 tures of primary process thought-spatial presentation of relationship, construction of multivalent symbols by combining pictorial elements, presentation of systems structurally rather than sequentially, and superimposition of mean10 S. Freud, On Dreams (1901) (New York: Norton, 1952), 64-66. 11 S. Freud, The Interpretationof Dreams (1900). (Standard Ed.) (New York: Basic Books, 1956), p. 219.

35

FIG. 4. Mandalaof mandalas.Lokesh Chandra and Raghu Vira. A New vol. 14. New The International Pantheon, Delhi, Tibeto-Mongol Academyof Indian Culture,1964, p. 24. (Courtesy: Dr. Lokesh Chandra)

36 Ellingson-Waugh

ing layers-we have found in the geometric logic of the mandala. We might add that the feature of combining contradictory elements into a single symbol is also used there, as in the fire which both destroys and enlightens, or the sexually and aggressively active Buddha who has transcended the worldly passions. A further emphasis appears in Freud's later work; "The function of judgment is concerned ultimately with two sorts of decision. It may assert or deny that a thing has a particular property; or it may affirm or dispute that a particular image or presentation exists in reality."l2 That is, secondary process functions (judges) by predication and existential quantification, and by negation and falsification. In the primary process functioning of the unconscious id, however, "there is nothing that could be compared with negation; . . . there is nothing that corresponds to the idea of time; there is no recognition of the passage of time and . . . the id of course knows no judgments of value: no good and evil, no morality."13 Again, by comparison, the mandala does not admit negation. There is no way of presenting a negation within a diagrammatic system; the nearest possibility is simply to exclude an element from the diagram. Also, time is represented cyclically rather than historically; that is, its passages literally "not recognized," since what comes after also went before and is now present.14 And much of the symbolism presented is overtly morally ambiguous, with its idealized violence and lust. And, remarkably, the symbolic mode of thought in the primary process is presented as something primitive, "archaic," and "infantile."15Remarkably, because this assessment accords so well with our ethnocentric bias against symbolic modes of thought in "primitive" cultures. The relative prominence of primary process in infantile and psychotic thought, art, and religion is very frequently called to our attention. Is pictorial, diagrammatic representation then simply a primitive or pathological substitute for normal, logical thought processes ? Perhaps; but, if so, then only in the spontaneous, unelaborated forms produced by individual infants, artists, and dreamers. The difference between these forms and the mandala is that the latter incorporates a logical, mathematical structure by which the pictorial symbols are integrated into a geometric system and understood according to an elaborate, sophisticated set of conventions. Between a product of this system and a private fantasy, there is a difference just as great as between
S. Freud, New IntroductoryLectures on Psychoanalysis (1933). In The CompleteIntroductoryLectures (Standard Ed.) (New York: Norton, 1966), p. 538. 14 On cyclical and historical time, see Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane (New York: Harper Torchbooks,1961), pp. 104 ff. 15 S. Freud, IntroductoryLectures on Psychoanalysis, Standard Ed., in Complete Introductory Lectures (New York: Norton, 1966), chapter 13.
13

12 S. Freud, "Negation,"StandardEdition Vol. XIX, p. 236.

37

a set of algebraic logical equations and a baby's first sentences. Because the mandala organizes its symbols by a culturally elaborated structure, it is the basis of a logical system; and its geometric system shares with our algebraic the common status of a mathematical symbolic system. As for the applicability of geometric systems outside of mythological and ritual contexts, we are at present witnessing a considerable growth of efforts to arrive at diagrammaticunderstandings of social "structures" by social scientists. These efforts have so far utilized forms similar to the following paradigmatic diagram of the "basic structuralist hypothesis," as adapted by Leach from Lane.16

capacity Deep Deep

Surface Speech, discourse Myths Patterns of

Surface

marriage and family relations

<

Cultural metaphors (shifts of register)

>

We have here the mandala's methodology of diagrammatic representation of a basic structure, which can be replicated simultaneously at different levels and with different groups of referents, and combined into an overall structure at a metasystemic level. The efficiency of this approach becomes apparent when one tries to devise a similarly economical verbal formulation of structural relationships between language, myth, kinship, and the structure of structure itself.
16 EdmundLeach, "The Influenceof Cultural Context on Non-Verbal Communicationin Man," in R. Hirde, ed., Non-Verbal Communication(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1972), p. 332.

38

Ellingson-Waugh

By such diagrams, one can present systemic, metasystemic, and subsystemic formulations relating to several different systems simultaneously. Of course, this presentation is relatively crude when compared with that of the mandala. There is some rudimentary usage of geometric similarity, parallel, and convergence. But the precision of structural configuration and the complexity of symbolic expression found in the mandala are simply not possible in these elementary diagrams. We will have to advance further in our understanding of both structural relationships and of diagrammatic symbolization before more highly sophisticated forms of presentation become useful to us. The impetus to develop this kind of understanding does exist. Leach says of the structuralist approach: At the heart of the argument is the thesis that (a) the phenomenon of medium transfer by which we are able to express the spoken word and music in written signs, and (b) the integrative capacity whereby simultaneous signals received through the senses of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, etc. are felt to constitute a single rather than a multiple experience. Both imply that, at some level of the mind, we are endowed with an innate structuring capacity which is most easily conceived of in algebraic terms-the "algebra" being the structure which is common to all the diverse cultural manifestations in which the operations of the mind may be observed.17 By "algebraic"Leach appears to mean the use of symbolic variables-for which different referents (values) can be substituted-within the basic mathematical structure. However, as we have see, it is also possible to interchange symbols within a geometric logical framework. In the case of the mandala, this involved pictorial, multivalent symbols rather than abstract, single-valued ones.18 Moreover, we have seen that the mandala excels at precisely those two operations which Leach emphasizes: (a) "medium transfer" (also describable as metasystemic interchange of elements)19 at a highly complex level, by use of multivalent symbols; and (b) structural integration of these symbols into geometrically patterned symbol-systems which replicate the structural patterns of the referent systems, and which, because of symbolic multivalence, simultaneously present divergent referent systems as a structural unity. It would therefore seem that our "innate structuring capacity"-or at least, the common structure that underlies structures-can best be conceived not in algebraic, but in geometric terms. Leach himself admits, " . . . any inferences which are made about the 'algebraic structures of the mind' are mere guesses about the mechanism of a black box which is inaccessible to inspection. ... Even so, structuralists fully appreciate that the sorts of guesses which they 17Ibid. 18However, also occur. mandalas of abstract symbols 19See Ellingson,"Classifying MusicalNotation Systems,"paper read at Society for 1972. Ethnomusicology, Toronto,

39

There are probhave so far been able to put forward are quite rudimentary."20 lems in applying conventional truth-testing criteria to structural analyses. What exactly "are" structures, or in what sense do they "exist"? How are structural analyses verifiable or falsifiable? Some structuralists realize that the level of meaning of their formulations is rather different from that of ordinary descriptive discourse, as when Levi-Strauss begins his study of myths with . . . it would not be wrong to consider this book itself as a myth: it is, as it were, the myth of mythology."21And both Levi-Strauss and Leach have been compelled to look outside the range of normal algebraic logical structures, particularly into the area of musical forms, to furnish structural analogues for their formulations.22It would therefore not be entirely fantastic to assume that the elaboration of geometric-logical structures would be a useful area of investigation for social scientific theorists. The growing use of diagrammatic-symbolic presentation seems to indicate a tendency in this direction already. No such tendency seems to exist in philosophy itself. There are, of course, the Venn diagrams, which utilize only the geometric devices of inclusion and congruence, and which function mainly as an adjunct of more elaborate algebraic formulations, as a pedagogical device. Geometry will probably enter philosophical logic as algebra did, by the back door of applied and theoretical science. But far from being primitive or imprecise, geometric logic is complementary to algebraic-when its system is sufficiently elaborated-and can be used in conjunction with it. Despite their differences, the two systems are to a degree mutually translatable, at least at the level of individual elements or individual relationships. A mandala can be described in verbal discourse, although it would be far less efficient to do so than to diagram it. And because of this capacity for translation, I have refrained from characterizing geometric logic as nonlinguistic. Some linguistic formulations, like poetry, seem to follow a logical plan of organization, which is more geometric than algebraic. Even Levi-Strauss' book, mentioned above, follows a plan which at times is seen as music and at other times as myth. It remains to work out in detail the grammar of geometric structures. We would have to specify the linguistic meanings of the geometric conventions used in structures like the mandala: similarity, congruence, concentricity, bisection, quartering, subdivision, inclusion, radiation or projection, tangency, parallelism, perpendicularity, and the rest. We would also have to reach a better understanding of the uses of multivalent and pictorial symbolism. Only then
20 21

Leach, op. cit., p. 333. C. Levi-Strauss, The Raw and the Cooked (New York: Harper Bros., 1969), p. 12. 22Levi-Strauss, op. cit., 14 ff.; Leach, op. cit., 318 ff.

40

Ellingson-Waugh

could we explore the uses of geometric logic with that of algebraic and legitimately compare its usefulness. At present, we can at least recognize the existence of geometry as the legitimate basis for a mathematical logic and recognize that its application has been elaborated in the context of some Asian philosophies to a degree of sophistication the extent of which we are still unable to grasp. This realization could be the ground for an impartially comparative view of other philosophies, and the base on which we build new understandings of the structures of our thoughts.