Prof.Dr.
RONALD E. CHAVERS
The development of the Afro-Egyptian Method and the History of Western Philosophy

Triadic Method

Triadic Method as I expressed it in my book the Egyptian Method and the History of Western Philosophy:

"The development and usage of Logical Forms, as I see it, are a thing of Universal Activity, as such they are connected with the Pragmatic-Empirical-Reconstructive, Rational-Constructive-Formative and the Transformational-Historical-Processual Transformative. And they are present consciously, and unconsciously, in the communication and usage of all languages, cultures, sciences, professions and human and other activities. Speaking about the Structural Logics of Universal Form Types, it is important to say, in relationship to the various types and typologies and the various different systems of logical rationalities, that Every Single or Class of logical rationality possesses a variety or multitude of different forms, that have different categories of functions, in relationship to the various sciences, the various thinking processes, in relationship to the specific and general arrangement of various sentences, words, concepts, models, grammatical complexities, etc.. Of course in relationship to their various usages: philosophy, semantic, philologic, etymologic, epistemologic, methodic, literary, historical, artistic, religions and other contexts.

Also the various particular types of logical forms, are being used to Typify a particular language and its development. And they are of course different in relationship to the various different languages. This very particular and specific historical and contextual usage of the various definite forms and how they are specifically used and developed in their specific context of contents, Typifies the various particular meanings, in the active rationalities and explications of the various different languages. This process of the specific-empirical and rational use of the concrete forms used in a specific language, we call its Formative Rational-Constructive Significance. And this is so, as I see it, independent of whether we are talking about ideal logical types, or formal logical types, or archaic logical types, or hieroglyphic logical types, or transcendental logical types, or mechanistic logical types, or existential logical types, etc..

There is also a third aspect of this Triadic Process of Form developments, like the first two aspects, they are different according to the particular development of how they are used in their specific context. This third aspect Hegel calls their Zeit-Geist, the Spirit of Times, in which they are used and carried out, in whichever way they are expressed (religious, social, political, economic, psychological, educational, cultural, scientific, mathematical, aesthetic, moral, etc. etc.), it is called their Transfomative Processual-Historic Transformational Significance.

This triadic Differential but also Integrative and Transformational Processual Significance between Forms, the Formative and the Transformative, is Universal in the Truest sense of the word, because it is Empirical, Rationally Understandable, in the communicative and potentially pragmatic, rationally understanding and historical transformational sense of whatever concrete contextual meaning. It is also Multi-Dimensional, Cross-Cultural, Interdisciplinary, Multi-Spatial, Multi-Formal, (in the sense of multi-form) and Multi-Typical (multi-type). Transformative for me is the historical process that a Form, and its Formative usage undergoes, in the course of its Active Communicative development. This includes both, its personal individual and also its collective usage and development. It is a systematic discovery to observe, first of all that there are many Different Types, but also many different Forms or Patterns, Styles, Models, Gestalts or Pictures, Images of Logic, and secondly that all types, independent of their origin, development, particular usage follow systematically this Universal Pattern.

As such these Universal Patterns refer to all the various activities of human nature, and all the Forms of the Life World to the physical, chemical, organic, psychological, social, economic, political, educational, aesthetical, etc..

After establishing the fact that the triadic relationship between Forms, their Formative relations and their Transformative consequences, we proceed on to demonstrate the pragmatic, natural, rational and processual-historical dialectic relationship between logic and language.

This Triadic Formprocess and its relationship to various concepts, words, sentences-arrangements, models, patterns, grammatical, syntactical, semantic and its general complexities, that we develop to communicate what we mean, experience, observe and understand about all those things we encounter in the universe of common sense, modernity, society, culture, emotions, nature and science, with the ancestors, histories, memories and traditions of cultures, both human, animal, plant cultures, biological or sacred, physical, technical or aesthetic in relationship to the concrete natural and physical world, is our orientation in all those worlds that we live in.
Kroeber calls this our "universal", "systemic", "social", "whole culture" and "style type patterns".
This concept and reality Kroeber calls Patterns, is the same thing I mean when I talk about Forms. For Kroeber and for myself Patterns or Forms, although they are not physical, are psychological, symbolic, semiotic, methodic, etymologic, intellectual, rational or cognitive, and at the same time, they have universal significance in relationship to communicative, scientific and other meanings and their various different significances, as I mentioned it in the above meaning.

"This universal pattern thus boils down to a rough plan of convenience for a preliminary ordering of facts awaiting description or interpretation. No one seems to have developed the idea since it was set forth in 1923, or to have made serious use of it toward deeper understanding. We will therefore pass on to other kinds of patterns."3

Everything we do, that is, all peoples, cultures, families, work or organizational institutions, universities, schools, laboratories and other social institutions, has an effect on how we experience, understand and grow, are connected with the various worlds we live in. And the logical forms or patterns are deeply rooted, both in the pragmatic-empirical, reconstructive, and in the rational-constructive formative and in the processual-historical transformative worlds. So that all the Logical Forms or Patterns everywhere and in all disciplines and in all cultures, have had a universal, as Kroeber calls it, diffusional influence on each other, causing a kind, as the archaic, Egyptian, some Renaissance thinkers and pragmatists thought, an integrative, but differentiating effect on the history and interrelationship of the various logical and linguistic types: archaic, hieroglyphic, formal, ideal and all the other various types throughout the whole world.

"The systemic type of pattern accordingly not only partakes of the quality if a system, but is a specific growth. It originates in one culture, is capable to spread and transplantation to others, and tends strongly to persist once it is established."4

See also Dewy, On Education, p 254. See also A.N. Whiteland, Science and Philosohy. New York 1984, p. 132 See also Jurgen Habermans. The Philosophoical Discourse of Modernity, op id, p 210
"The main value of these formal distinctions of kinds if process is logical: they help us organize a large mass of facts into some sort of preliminary order But as cultures and their parts actually live, thrive, decay and alter, and as they influence one another, these several processes, which in the abstract seem so neat and distinctive, are found to manifest themselves in association and interwoven. All of them are often at word at once, so that the same phenomenon may be seen as an example of two or three of them. This constant interrelation of processes is characteristic of culture. Their segregation has something artificial about it, and is justified chiefly by convenience."5

Meaning, Memory and the study and cultivation of the various forms and patterns and their involvement in our whole social, ritual, cultural or multi-cultural and other realities, can and does have a healing effect on our psychological, scientific, philosophic, spiritual, economic, medical, psycho-somatic and social well-being, as well as the well-being of our natural and ecological environments.

Eliade and later LÚvi-Strauss were both of the conviction, that as far as the forms, patterns symbols and pictures, and the various styles of language were concerned, that there was no real qualitative distinctions between the various styles, be they archaic or so-called 'primitive', classical (hieroglyphic, Greek, Indian, Persian, Chinese, Japanese, Hebraic) or modern, so-called popular, common sense, modernistic, folkloric, etc.. I believe with them, that this is so, but I see not only a Structural Comparative Interwovenness and a Historical-Processual Transformational Interwovennes, as well as a Constructive, Introspective Interwovenness, as I have tempted to demonstrate throughout this book from beginning on.

"The thought we call primitive is found on this demand for order. This is equally true of all thought but it is through the properties common to all thought that we can most easily begin to understand forms of thought which seem very strange to us."6

For me the science of Forms, Patterns, Pictures, Symbols and their Structures are closely linked with the interdisciplinary history of such, in connection with their traditional archaic, classical and modern developments, without loosing the ancient significance and context, the 'classical' and modern translations and interpretations. I like to see it more as a triadic thing, rather than the one isolated meaning or another. The Triadic interpretation should (this is its goal and meaning) involve a more up-to-date pragmatic-empirical, reconstructive, rational-constructive formative understanding and processual-historical transformative, transformational meaning of words, concepts, things of various kinds etc. , as we are observing and examining this at a present moment in time. Forms only have real meaning in a specific context with their objective empirical, cognitive, understandable processual-historical correlates.

The science of Forms is a systematic Etymological Reconstruction, Construction and Transformation of the various linguistic forms (words, concepts, models, patterns, pictures, symbols, grammatical structures, etc.) , plus the Tracing of these various Forms and their earliest recorded occurrences in the various languages and where they found their transmissions from one language to another. This can be done through analyzing the various words, concepts, etc. , in their various component parts (differentiation, integration and the transformational, processual developments) and through tracing their cognate diffusional developments from their ancestral forms on and how they develop further in other languages.7

One of the main foundational totemistic symbols, is the Triadic symbol or model. It is characterized in the symbol of the house or the cosmological unity between Sky, Earth and there interconnections. The central pillar or tent pole or the central post of the house, the roof of the House and the floor which represents the foundation of the house. This is also the unity between the male (roof or sky), the female (floor or earth) and the children. The Triad is a basic symbol of the Complete System (the body, a house, the universe, the family, an atom, a clan, tribe, the supreme deity, a culture, society etc.). The four walls of the house represent the four directions, the north, south, east and west.

This cosmological triadic framework is a mathematical symbolism and framework and a logical structuralism, as a basic unity between the 1, the 2, the 3 and the number 4. It symbolizes the geometric symbols of the line, of the circle, a parallel, the triad or triangle and the square. The circle symbolizes the complete year cycle, the sacred lodge, the community and the universe. In the cosmology the house is mot a static or abstract symbol but a dynamic movement corresponding to the various developing stages of the cosmic process. The various aspects of the house (the roof, floor, walls, the central pole or post, the windows and door etc.), as well as the various work instruments, the kitchen utensils, the various rooms and the location in the house, plus the location of the house in the environment, are meaningful for all transactions in the family. And the family rituals use the various places in respect to the ritual times of the day, month and year and in respect to the various family and cultural traditions and social statuses.

Whorf suggests, and this is the very foundation of my whole new thesis, that these basic totemistic structuralisms, figures, signs, logical and mathematical forms can be the source of development in Western and in other forms of mathematical and logical thinking.

"The WHY of understanding may remain for a long time mysterious; but the HOW or logic of understanding - its background of laws or regularities - is discoverable. It is the grammatical background of our mother tongue, which includes not only our way of constructing proportions but the way we dissect nature and break up the flux of experience into objects and entities to construct propositions about. This fact is important for science, because it means that science CAN have a rational or logical basis even though it be a relativistic one and not Mr. Everyman's natural logic."8

If we accept these Rules and their Empirical, also their Rational-Logical and Organizational (mathematical-structural) functions, then we have to consider mathematics and logical rules as something connected with actual behavior, historical action or activities, human endeavours, skills and creative productivity, along with the whole universe of real things.9

By the famous Austrian philosopher, mathematician and logician, Ludwig Wittgenstein, we see a similar intention, where he criticizes the methods of formal logics, formal mathematics and abstract and objectless philosophy. This happens in the later phase of his lifework. Being more and more disillusioned with classical Western philosophy, he turns to archaic and cultural anthropologic traditions, similar to that of Whorf, Cassirer and LÚvi-Strauss, for finding answers to philosophical and psychological questions. In this connection he confronts Western thought with the realities, emotions, the natural, the historical, the attitudes, traditions and the patterns of communication of cultural and natural life. This brings philosophy, science, language in contact with the archaic manners of natural and cultural life, or untempered with the dualisms and formalisms of Western philosophy and science.
In this connection Wittgenstein develops his own picture and game theory, which comes close to what I have developed, in relationship to the hieroglyphic, pictorial and archaic method. Wittgenstein sees the solution to Western philosophy not in the abstractions of formal, axiomatic or deductive methods, but in the realities of natural and cultural life.
"To arrive at a language suitable for the expression of "propositions", accordingly, it is not enough for us to "make for ourselves pictures of facts." This expressions in our language acquire their specific meanings from the dealings with one another and with the world, not from their inner articulation alone, nor from any essentially "pictorial" character in the utterances themselves. So the writing of the Tractatus had not, after all, completed Wittgenstein's philosophical task. His earlier solution of the "transcendental" problem - that is, his earlier account of the scope and limits of language - had been given in terms of a "picturing" relation which (as he saw now all too clearly) had been at best a helpful metaphor. Now he was faced with the complementary task, of showing how any linguistic expression- whether "pictorial" or not - acquires a linguistic significance, by being given a use in human life. This was the starting point for the characteristic investigations of Wittgenstein's later period. His concern was no longer with the "formal structure" of language or with any supposed similarity of structure between "propositions" and "facts". Men might have special reasons within physics, say, for giving a direct, "pictorial" representation of phenomena; but elsewhere there was less reason to regard the propositions of our language as "pictures of facts". So, from now on, Wittgenstein focused his attention instead on language as behavior: concentrating his analysis on the pragmatic rules that govern the uses of different expressions, in the language games within which those rules are operative, and on the broader forms of life."10

Belonging to the Method

The procedure is triadic and has the following characteristics:

"The Triadic Method I develop is a Logical Method with its Actual Objects, its internal Logics, Rationality, Actual Structures, Materials and Developing processes and how we can learn or to systematically formalize, structure, systematize and mathematize them. There is no actual system without a Specific Logic and Development History and every formalized symbolic, semiotic, mathematical or scientific logical system must orient itself, reconstruct, construct, formalize, etc. the actual material realities it is representing. This means also that we have to both try to consider as well as understand empirically something about the actual structure, material forces and realities, as well as the logic and rationality of those objects that we study and observe.

The Logics of Developing Systems therefore includes a general Logical Scheme, but this general logical scheme is totally connected and interrelated with the actual objective logic of an actual objective system and we are talking here about the actual objective logic of some empirical-specific system with all of its characteristic and specific realities. The nature of general logics is intellectual and rational in the sense of cognitive, theoretical, epistemological, because it is dealing and referring to the problems of logical construction, the problems of conceptualisation, psychological-mental developments and test situations, educational situations, problems of socialization, conceptualisation, verbalization, communication, problems of systematisation, semiotics and linguistic problems, symbolic representational and problems of mathematical systematics, etc.. And these problems of course ground on and in the problems of empirical, logical problems and realities of actual objects.

If we accept these Rules and their Empirical, also their Rational-Logical and Organizational (mathematical-structural) functions, then we have to consider mathematics and logical rules as something connected with actual behaviour, historical action or activities, human endeavours, skills and creative productivity, along with the whole universe of real things.

By the famous Austrian philosopher, mathematician and logician, Ludwig Wittgenstein, we see a similar intention, where he criticizes the methods of formal logics, formal mathematics and abstract and objectless philosophy. This happens in the later phase of his lifework. Being more and more disillusioned with classical Western philosophy, he turns to archaic and cultural anthropologic traditions, similar to that of Whorf, Cassirer and LÚvi-Strauss, for finding answers to philosophical and psychological questions. In this connection he confronts Western thought with the realities, emotions, the natural, the historical, the attitudes, traditions and the patterns of communication of cultural and natural life. This brings philosophy, science, language in contact with the archaic manners of natural and cultural life, or untempered with the dualisms and formalisms of Western philosophy and science.

In this connection Wittgenstein develops his own picture and game theory, which comes close to what I have developed, in relationship to the hieroglyphic, pictorial and archaic method. Wittgenstein sees the solution to Western philosophy not in the abstractions of formal, axiomatic or deductive methods, but in the realities of natural and cultural life.

For me the science of Forms, Patterns, Pictures, Symbols and their Structures are closely linked with the interdisciplinary history of such, in connection with their traditional archaic, classical and modern developments, without loosing the ancient significance and context, the 'classical' and modern translations and interpretations. I like to see it more as a triadic thing, rather than the one isolated meaning or another. The Triadic interpretation should (this is its goal and meaning) involve a more up-to-date pragmatic-empirical reconstructive, rational-constructive formative understanding and processual-historical transformative, transformational meaning of words, concepts, things of various kinds etc., that we are observing and examining at a present moment in time. Forms only have real meaning in a specific context with their objective empirical, cognitive, understandable processual-historical correlates.
The science of Forms is a systematic Etymological Reconstruction, Construction and Transformation of the various linguistic forms (words, concepts, models, patterns, pictures, symbols, grammatic structures, etc.), plus the Tracing of these various Forms and their earliest recorded occurrences in the various languages and where they found their transmissions from one language to another. This can be done through analysing the various words, concepts, etc., in their various component parts (differentiation, integration and the transformational, processual developments) and through tracing their cognate diffusional developments from their ancestral forms on and how they develop further in other languages.

Everything can be Logically Structured or Formed through given or developed Forms or Structures, that qualify or quantify or relate its objective meanings. Like a certain kind or type of animal: dog, or cat, or tiger, or lion, or elephant, etc.. A certain kind or type of plant, or star, or atom, or cell, or force, etc.. A certain kind or type of social action, a social character, social personage, a social group or peer, or social experience, or social relationship, a social-cultural reality, a social institution of some kind, a social language of some kind or other and so on and so forth.

Following James and M. Weber and their assistants, Logical Forms, Types, Modes, Patterns and Structures help us systematically order reality of all specific and general kinds and natures. They are the forms of our communications with each other; with other cultures, with nature, with the animal worlds, with society, with knowledge, with words, concepts, with mathematical and all other processes that aid us in the process of understanding.

The Logical Forms take on many different characteristics; like Conceptual Formations, Methodic Formations, Linguistic Formations, Mathematical Formations, Creative Formations, etc., etc.. Neither the archaic nor are the Egyptian Forms limited to so-called Sacred Formations like many scientists think.

As such Clark says, the Forms are connected with all "the basic principles of life, nature and society". They "are true for natural phenomena, rituals", for architectural designs and the building of cities, streets, pyramids, agricultural materials, for canals and technology in general, and for developing "systems of writing" as well as for "the whole paraphernalia of the civilization". Also for the development of myths and social norms, etc., etc.. 1

The Forms can be expressed in clear and distinct visual images, which express the canons of objective pragmatic-formative empirical, rational-constructive, reconstructive and developmental representations of typical but also universal ordinary things, experiences and performances. The purpose of the Form-Image is to depict some kind of Transformation process of any one or some thing or things, but it can also concentrate on the Transformation of the Image-Form itself, for example the Image-Form and its Formative action and its Transformative processual development of the same.

Of course every single Form-Image is also totally connected with its individual (but also collective) creator, and his or her or their particular and universal traditions.

Following this whole line of thought, for the study and development of all the aspects of Logical Forms, I call this new but old method of Logical Structuralism: the Science of Morphism. This means making all the Forms more accessible to all kinds of empirical, rational and developmental processes, and this by means of Pictorial Visualization of all Forms. As I tried to make clear in relationship to Descartes, Leibniz or Kant and many others, the Forms in most cultures, philosophies and sciences, also the Ideal Types of Plato and the Formal Logical Type Forms of Aristotle and the metaphysical First Principles, irrespective of their abstract a priori immanent and non-corporal character, have an Anschauungs-potential or Observational-Imaging Character, in relationship to how we learn to observe them empirically and rationally. This means we can systematically, historically and contextually observe, imagine, perceive, develop and conceive them in their various historical contexts and make them understandable, as I have tried to do so in their morphological significance."2



Triadic Method as I expressed it in my book the Egyptian Method and the History of Western Philosophy:

"The development and usage of Logical Forms, as I see it, are a thing of Universal Activity, as such they are connected with the Pragmatic-Empirical-Reconstructive, Rational-Constructive-Formative and the Transformational-Historical-Processual Transformative. And they are present consciously, and unconsciously, in the communication and usage of all languages, cultures, sciences, professions and human and other activities. Speaking about the Structural Logics of Universal Form Types, it is important to say, in relationship to the various types and typologies and the various different systems of logical rationalities, that Every Single or Class of logical rationality possesses a variety or multitude of different forms, that have different categories of functions, in relationship to the various sciences, the various thinking processes, in relationship to the specific and general arrangement of various sentences, words, concepts, models, grammatical complexities, etc.. Of course in relationship to their various usages: philosophy, semantic, philologic, etymologic, epistemologic, methodic, literary, historical, artistic, religions and other contexts.

Also the various particular types of logical forms, are being used to Typify a particular language and its development. And they are of course different in relationship to the various different languages. This very particular and specific historical and contextual usage of the various definite forms and how they are specifically used and developed in their specific context of contents, Typifies the various particular meanings, in the active rationalities and explications of the various different languages. This process of the specific-empirical and rational use of the concrete forms used in a specific language, we call its Formative Rational-Constructive Significance. And this is so, as I see it, independent of whether we are talking about ideal logical types, or formal logical types, or archaic logical types, or hieroglyphic logical types, or transcendental logical types, or mechanistic logical types, or existential logical types, etc..

There is also a third aspect of this Triadic Process of Form developments, like the first two aspects, they are different according to the particular development of how they are used in their specific context. This third aspect Hegel calls their Zeit-Geist, the Spirit of Times, in which they are used and carried out, in whichever way they are expressed (religious, social, political, economic, psychological, educational, cultural, scientific, mathematical, aesthetic, moral, etc. etc.), it is called their Transfomative Processual-Historic Transformational Significance.

This triadic Differential but also Integrative and Transformational Processual Significance between Forms, the Formative and the Transformative, is Universal in the Truest sense of the word, because it is Empirical, Rationally Understandable, in the communicative and potentially pragmatic, rationally understanding and historical transformational sense of whatever concrete contextual meaning. It is also Multi-Dimensional, Cross-Cultural, Interdisciplinary, Multi-Spatial, Multi-Formal, (in the sense of multi-form) and Multi-Typical (multi-type). Transformative for me is the historical process that a Form, and its Formative usage undergoes, in the course of its Active Communicative development. This includes both, its personal individual and also its collective usage and development. It is a systematic discovery to observe, first of all that there are many Different Types, but also many different Forms or Patterns, Styles, Models, Gestalts or Pictures, Images of Logic, and secondly that all types, independent of their origin, development, particular usage follow systematically this Universal Pattern.

As such these Universal Patterns refer to all the various activities of human nature, and all the Forms of the Life World to the physical, chemical, organic, psychological, social, economic, political, educational, aesthetical, etc..

After establishing the fact that the triadic relationship between Forms, their Formative relations and their Transformative consequences, we proceed on to demonstrate the pragmatic, natural, rational and processual-historical dialectic relationship between logic and language.

This Triadic Formprocess and its relationship to various concepts, words, sentences-arrangements, models, patterns, grammatical, syntactical, semantic and its general complexities, that we develop to communicate what we mean, experience, observe and understand about all those things we encounter in the universe of common sense, modernity, society, culture, emotions, nature and science, with the ancestors, histories, memories and traditions of cultures, both human, animal, plant cultures, biological or sacred, physical, technical or aesthetic in relationship to the concrete natural and physical world, is our orientation in all those worlds that we live in.
Kroeber calls this our "universal", "systemic", "social", "whole culture" and "style type patterns".
This concept and reality Kroeber calls Patterns, is the same thing I mean when I talk about Forms. For Kroeber and for myself Patterns or Forms, although they are not physical, are psychological, symbolic, semiotic, methodic, etymologic, intellectual, rational or cognitive, and at the same time, the have universal significance in relationship to communicative, scientific and other meanings and their various different significances, as I mentioned it in the above meaning.

"This universal pattern thus boils down to a rough plan of convenience for a preliminary ordering of facts awaiting description or interpretation. No one seems to have developed the idea since it was set forth in 1923, or to have made serious use of it toward deeper understanding. We will therefore pass on to other kinds of patterns."1

Everything we do, that is, all peoples, cultures, families, work or organizational institutions, universities, schools, laboratories and other social institutions, has an effect on how we experience, understand and grow, are connected with the various worlds we live in. And the logical forms or patterns are deeply rooted, both in the pragmatic-empirical, reconstructive, and in the rational-constructive formative and in the processual-historical transformative worlds. So that all the Logical Forms or Patterns everywhere and in all disciplines and in all cultures, have had a universal, as Kroeber calls it, diffusional influence on each other, causing a kind, as the archaic, Egyptian, some Renaissance thinkers and pragmatists thought, an integrative, but differentiating effect on the history and interrelationship of the various logical and linguistic types: archaic, hieroglyphic, formal, ideal and all the other various types throughout the whole world.

"The systemic type of pattern accordingly not only partakes of the quality if a system, but is a specific growth. It originates in one culture, is capable to spread and transplantation to others, and tends strongly to persist once it is established."2
"The main value of these formal distinctions of kinds if process is logical: they help us organize a large mass of facts into some sort of preliminary order? But as cultures and their parts actually live, thrive, decay and alter, and as they influence one another, these several processes, which in the abstract seem so neat and distinctive, are found to manifest themselves in association and interwoven. All of them are often at word at once, so that the same phenomenon may be seen as an example of two or three of them. This constant interrelation of processes is characteristic of culture. Their segregation has something artificial about it, and is justified chiefly by convenience."3

Meaning, Memory and the study and cultivation of the various forms and patterns and their involvement in our whole social, ritual, cultural or multi-cultural and other realities, can and does have a healing effect on our psychological, scientific, philosophic, spiritual, economic, medical, psycho-somatic and social well-being, as well as the well-being of our natural and ecological environments.

Eliade and later LÚvi-Strauss were both of the conviction, that as far as the forms, patterns symbols and pictures, and the various styles of language were concerned, that there was no real qualitative distinctions between the various styles, be they archaic or so-called 'primitive', classical (hieroglyphic, Greek, Indian, Persian, Chinese, Japanese, Hebraic) or modern, so-called popular, common sense, modernistic, folkloric, etc.. I believe with them, that this is so, but I see not only a Structural Comparative Interwovenness and a Historical-Processual Transformational Interwovennes, as well as a Constructive, Introspective Interwovenness, as I have tempted to demonstrate throughout this book from beginning on.

"The thought we call primitive is found on this demand for order. This is equally true of all thought but it is through the properties common to all thought that we can most easily begin to understand forms of thought which seem very strange to us."4

For me the science of Forms, Patterns, Pictures, Symbols and their Structures are closely linked with the interdisciplinary history of such, in connection with their traditional archaic, classical and modern developments, without loosing the ancient significance and context, the 'classical' and modern translations and interpretations. I like to see it more as a triadic thing, rather than the one isolated meaning or another. The Triadic interpretation should (this is its goal and meaning) involve a more up-to-date pragmatic-empirical, reconstructive, rational-constructive formative understanding and processual-historical transformative, transformational meaning of words, concepts, things of various kinds etc. , and we are observing and examining this at a present moment in time. Forms only have real meaning in a specific context with their objective empirical, cognitive, understandable processual-historical correlates.

The science of Forms is a systematic Etymological Reconstruction, Construction and Transformation of the various linguistic forms (words, concepts, models, patterns, pictures, symbols, grammatical structures, etc.) , plus the Tracing of these various Forms and their earliest recorded occurrences in the various languages and where they found their transmissions from one language to another. This can be done through analyzing the various words, concepts, etc. , in their various component parts (differentiation, integration and the transformational, processual developments) and through tracing their cognate diffusional developments from their ancestral forms on and how they develop further in other languages.

One of the main foundational totemistic symbols, is the Triadic symbol or model. It is characterized in the symbol of the house or the cosmological unity between Sky, Earth and there interconnections. The central pillar or tent pole or the central post of the house, the roof of the House and the floor which represents the foundation of the house. This is also the unity between the male (roof or sky), the female (floor or earth) and the children. The Triad is a basic symbol of the Complete System (the body, a house, the universe, the family, an atom, a clan, tribe, the supreme deity, a culture, society etc.). The four walls of the house represent the four directions, the north, south, east and west.

This cosmological triadic framework is a mathematical symbolism and framework and a logical structuralism, as a basic unity between the 1, the 2, the 3 and the number 4. It symbolizes the geometric symbols of the line, of the circle, a parallel, the triad or triangle and the square. The circle symbolizes the complete year cycle, the sacred lodge, the community and the universe. In the cosmology the house is mot a static or abstract symbol but a dynamic movement corresponding to the various developing stages of the cosmic process. The various aspects of the house (the roof, floor, walls, the central pole or post, the windows and door etc.), as well as the various work instruments, the kitchen utensils, the various rooms and the location in the house, plus the location of the house in the environment, are meaningful for all transactions in the family. And the family rituals use the various places in respect to the ritual times of the day, month and year and in respect to the various family and cultural traditions and social statuses.

Whorf suggests, and this is the very foundation of my whole new thesis, that these basic totemistic structuralisms, figures, signs, logical and mathematical forms can be the source of development in Western and in other forms of mathematical and logical thinking.

"The WHY of understanding may remain for a long time mysterious; but the HOW or logic of understanding - its background of laws or regularities - is discoverable. It is the grammatical background of our mother tongue, which includes not only our way of constructing proportions but the way we dissect nature and break up the flux of experience into objects and entities to construct propositions about. This fact is important for science, because it means that science CAN have a rational or logical basis even though it be a relativistic one and not Mr. Everyman's natural logic."6

If we accept these Rules and their Empirical, also their Rational-Logical and Organizational (mathematical-structural) functions, then we have to consider mathematics and logical rules as something connected with actual behavior, historical action or activities, human endeavours, skills and creative productivity, along with the whole universe of real things.7

By the famous Austrian philosopher, mathematician and logician, Ludwig Wittgenstein, we see a similar intention, where he criticizes the methods of formal logics, formal mathematics and abstract and objectless philosophy. This happens in the later phase of his lifework. Being more and more disillusioned with classical Western philosophy, he turns to archaic and cultural anthropologic traditions, similar to that of Whorf, Cassirer and LÚvi-Strauss, for finding answers to philosophical and psychological questions. In this connection he confronts Western thought with the realities, emotions, the natural, the historical, the attitudes, traditions and the patterns of communication of cultural and natural life. This brings philosophy, science, language in contact with the archaic manners of natural and cultural life, or untempered with the dualisms and formalisms of Western philosophy and science.
In this connection Wittgenstein develops his own picture and game theory, which comes close to what I have developed, in relationship to the hieroglyphic, pictorial and archaic method. Wittgenstein sees the solution to Western philosophy not in the abstractions of formal, axiomatic or deductive methods, but in the realities of natural and cultural life.
"To arrive at a language suitable for the expression of "propositions", accordingly, it is not enough for us to "make for ourselves pictures of facts." This expressions in our language acquire their specific meanings from the dealings with one another and with the world, not from their inner articulation alone, nor from any essentially "pictorial" character in the utterances themselves. So the writing of the Tractatus had not, after all, completed Wittgenstein's philosophical task. His earlier solution of the "transcendental" problem - that is, his earlier account of the scope and limits of language - had been given in terms of a "picturing" relation which (as he saw now all too clearly) had been at best a helpful metaphor. Now he was faced with the complementary task, of showing how any linguistic expression- whether "pictorial" or not - acquires a linguistic significance, by being given a use in human life. This was the starting point for the characteristic investigations of Wittgenstein's later period. His concern was no longer with the "formal structure" of language or with any supposed similarity of structure between "propositions" and "facts". Men might have special reasons within physics, say, for giving a direct, "pictorial" representation of phenomena; but elsewhere there was less reason to regard the propositions of our language as "pictures of facts". So, from now on, Wittgenstein focused his attention instead on language ad behavior: concentrating his analysis on the pragmatic rules that govern the uses of different expressions, in the language games within which those rules are operative, and on the broader forms of life."8

The Hieroglyphic method is busy with all the various Forms, Gestalts, Images, Pictures, Films (in the sense of Image-Picture Process-formations) as Visualization-process or Representational Processes of all kinds of real, human, artistic and other things concerning the world of life, society, religion, etc. . This method is systematically, as we will systematically demonstrate in the first chapter in the Universality of Hieroglyphic Form Types, involved in the systematization of Concept Formations, their development, meaning, etymology, linguistic implications and usages in all kinds of different types of discourse. The method itself is a process of Forming, Transforming, Reconstructing, Constructing, Discovering, Inventing, Computerizing or systematically ordering things, concepts, forms, etc. according to cannons or rules.

As such the method is a Dramatic Science, because it analyses or reconstructs, forms and records, and also designs, pictures and organizes all kinds of systems, with the purpose or goal of completing or finishing them to become finished products. This is what I call a Morphic Science it the Science of Morphism. It is also a creative, rational, theoretic, constructive and also historic-processual science. William James following Hegel's dialectic and triadic method, formalized the method, and Whitehead followed, calling the method "Process Philosophy". In the Egyptian method and philosophy it was called Kepera.
I relate this method also to Alberti and Leonardo da Vinci's pyramidal-pictorial-perspective-proportional-demonstrative method, which also reflects itself in Bacon's interpretations of the Hieroglyphic method. Also Descartes' and Leibniz' 'Ars Characteristica' and 'Mathis Universalis' were negative, i.e. formal logical and formal mathematical, like those of Plato and Aristotle, of the Egyptian and Renaissance critical reactions to the Hieroglyphic-pictorial-proportional-projective-perspective-symbolic etc. method.

Immanuel Kant followed Descartes and Leibniz and also Plato and Aristotle, to try to salvage the formal-axiomatic deductive dualisms, but failed. But because of his critique against these systems, he did manage a kind of 'Anschauungs' method, as method of Observation, which should aid the scientist, philosopher, artist, etc. in Reconstructing and Constructing observational types and their concrete and possible projected empirical objects.

Hegel's and James' historical processual dialectic and transformational revolutions were a reaction to Kant's 'Anschauungs' or Observation concept and also Kant's concept of the Architectonics of observing all kinds of objects and building and constructing them, into complete theoretical, conceptual, pictorial and productive images or imaginations.

"By architectonic I understand the art of constructing systems. As systematical unity is that which raises common knowledge to the dignity of a science, that is, changes a mere aggregate of knowledge into a system, it is easy to see that architectonic is the doctrine of what is really scientific in our knowledge, and forms therefore a necessary part of the doctrine of method."9

In the whole of this book, I am busy with Universal Forms, Signs (Semiotics), Rationalities, Concept-Formations and general Patterns and how they relate to cultures, philosophies, the sciences and the various art forms and how they again affect the way we learn to observe, imagine or image, perceive things, their forms, substances, their parts in relation to their wholes and how we develop all kinds of results of this process, to empirically, pragmatically, rationally and processually-historically avoid the irrationality and absurdities etc. of formal thinking and keep nature, human understanding and basic communication, the foundation everything we do, think observe and remember. "10

"The components of the old Egyptian civilization did not perish equally. Here and there bits of it persist into the thoroughly different culture aggregate of present-day Egyptian culture: perhaps a water-bucket sweep, an ass under his load. Other elements, like the hieroglyphs and burial pyramids, have long since been abandoned everywhere in the world. Other content traits still exist in one or another of the contemporary living cultures, including our own. If it is difficult to name such, that is only because the expansive phase of Egyptian culture productivity took place so long ago - it ended more than a thousand years before Western civilization began to germinate - that transmitted elements have reached us indirectly, at second and at third hand, in much altered dress. Original Egyptian traits perhaps first became Asiatic, then Minoan, Greek, finally Roman, before they filtered into incipient Occidental culture, with reselection and remodelling all along the slow, devious route. But elements, ideas, or stimuli of probable Egyptian origin are recognizable in our own calendar, writing, religion, (influences contributory to the concepts of monotheism, dying god, afterlife, Madonna with her child), architecture, plant and animal husbandry; and others reappear in modern native African cultures."11

"One of the Science, I developed over the years to understand, represent and communicate this, and at the same time this is how effective I use, apply and develop the hieroglyphic method, making it a modern, but also classical and archaic procedure, for all kinds of contemporary purposes. This concept, name and method, is a compilation of four separate Egyptian syllables and words or concepts, the Ka, the Shen, the Ren and the A. The Ka in this context I am using it here, I interpret it to mean the Body Image, Gestalt or Introspection. At the same time, it is the form that gives or refers to potential and actual performance or expression of someone or something or other.

The Shen is the Circular, Vibrational, Rhythmic, Ecstatic movement of anyone thing or person or group of things or persons. It has also the meaning of the Awakening or the Awakening of the Coiled Energy of human, biological, physical, neurological, immunological, organical, muscular, electromagnetic, sexual or all kinds of physical systems, and how these systems are stimulated and activated to create and recreate and renew energy to accomplish a particular performance. This energy works also for creative, social, cultural, productive and other purposes.

In this connection the Egyptian word for aart or art means to Rise, to Bring in proportions, to Activate. The world or Concept of Ren means the Cycle (life cycle, menstruation cycle, prenatal cycle, etc.) or Circuit, the Stream or Flow Field of Movement. The Shen is the Life Cycle, the Creative Action, that everything has. The A in Egyptian means to Make, to Create, to Bring into Action, to Liberate, to Release, to Make Flow. It has basically the same meaning as Kepera, but Kepera has more reference to, in the one hand the Logical Forms, and on the other hand, how we can use and develop these forms to represent, symbolize, designate, denote, understand and create things, such as art, music, poetry, literature, mythology, work, love, hate, fight, etc.. The process of Quickening Movement or Form, that gives Substance, Quantity, Quality and Relation to things. It helps to bring all our cultural, genetic, personal, potential skills in motion, to activate towards organized and formed actions. This means it helps to give organized style and form to our ecstatic, melodic and contrapunctic actions. This process or method I call Shenarenka.

The Egyptian word or concept Her is a word which signifies Energy and Ser refers to one who has mastered Energy, Life, Death, Spirit, Magic, Ancestors, one or several Professions, the form of communication, the various different Types and Sorts of Logical Forms, the various Symbols, various Traditions, many different Art styles, classical and natural Medicine and the various types of Mathematical Organizational or Ordering Structuralisms. Mer means Attraction, Affinity or Love. Ter is the principle of Division, to Separate or to Differentiate. Tempt is to Collect, to Join Together or to Integrate something. Sma means to Unite something. The word Experience, into one's Sensual, Emotional, Introspective, or Retrospective, Social, Cultural or Spiritual Self or Experience. This is an Egyptian word as concept for Meditation.

Pet refers to an Image, Idea, Archetype, Gestalt, Concept, Prevision or Mental Companion. Pert means coming Forth, to Produce, Perform or Act. Aru means the Forms, or to Form something, the Form of something, to Make or to Materialize.
Ar means to Create, to Make, to Form, to Compose, to Construct. Ab means the Movement of Contraction, a Change in Volume (bigger or smaller, outward or inward, more or less, etc.). Mayet is the Egyptian word or concept for Natural Order of any- or everything possible, observable or imaginary. Saa refers to Life giving Energies. Asha engulfs the Numerous and Multiplicity, the Multidimensional. Cheta refers to the Hidden, Inaccessible, Secret things. Sma means Union; W means space. Not the European concept of space, because it is extremely abstract and without empirical, rational understanding or temporally historical meaning. [Also the Eastern concept of space is extremely mystical and absent for the observer. For example the idea or condition of No-space in Eastern cosmology, philosophy and mysticism.] The Egyptian concept of Space, on the contrary is always present, at all Times and Places. We are at all times Present in Space or Spacy Culture. I think that there is no such thing as No-Space in Egyptian Mythology, Art, Science, Philosophy, Mathematics, etc..

Khesef means in the above connection Repulsion. Whereas Neper means Ripe, Mature, Living and Vigorous. Nepri means Active and Powerful and Her refers to Seeing, Observing, Perceiving, or Hearing. The Djet is the classical word or concept for Backbone, Stability and Steadfastness.

Chetaaru is a composition of my own referring to a science or concept of Introspection Into and Opening Up the Secrets or Hidden Nature, or Forms, Contents, Forces, Patterns of the various things: it is a method of Discovering the various Action Types, Patterns, Dimensions, Signs, Structures and Making them Public.

It will become very clear in the course of this book why I choose this path. In every case it has to do with Chetaaru and making the Suppressed, the Irrational and Unclear truths of methodics, logics and the other sciences, nature, spirituality, society and its socialization processes in all cultures and the creative arts and the quest for Freedom, Democratic Rights and the freedom of Expression more possible and understandable for Future Generations. And this means for me as Afro-American, to demonstrate in a systematic way my contribution to a more complete interpretation of the African-Egyptian method and philosophy and its contribution to the world's problems. "

** Egypt's influence on the history of symbols

"In short, whether we start from Japan, from Greece, from India or even from Libya, from Etruria, or from Gaul, we always arrive, after many halting-places, at two great centers of artistic diffusion, partially irreducible as regards one another, Egypt and Chaldea- with this difference, that, towards the eight century before our era, Mesopotamia took lessons from Egypt, whilst Egypt learnt little of any country. Now, as we have noted more than once in the present volume, not only did symbols follow the same paths as purely ornamental schemes, but they were also transmitted in the same manner, at the same periods, and in nearly the same proportion. Concerning symbols as well as artistic products we everywhere find, by powerful current which has its more or less distant origin in the symbolism of the banks of the Euphrates, or the Nile. In a word, the two classes of importation are joined together to such a degree, that in writing the history of art we write to a great extent the history of symbols, or at least, of their migrations."

This coming quotation is out of my new book;
'Triconology or Triadic Methodology, in defense of a scientific Mettodology'. This book is basicley finished and is almost finished for publisihing as a sistematic follow up and further development of my former book "The Development of the Afro-Egyptian method and the History of Western philosophy".
This book goes in greater detail to explain the meaning, systematic and historical development of the triadic methodology in relationship to its application and signification for all the science, including psychology, antropology, logics, mathematics, the arts, etc.
Chapter V The historical and essential background of the Triadic Method

Corning back to our fundamental thesis, concerning the systematic development of Egyptian linguistics, as the fundamental and foundational logical-linguistic-semiotic and scientific foundation of all triadic methodology, the great German Egyptologist Heinrich Schńfer agreed, that the Egyptian method was holistic, pragmatic, and also logical rational, also formal in the sense of form giving, making, producing or constructing and transforming relationship between drawing, composing or constructing, painting and forrning words, concepts, modeIs, linguistic and grammatical structures and transactions in relationship to writing, speaking, verbalizing, communicating, formalizing and systematizing or organizing, what we observe, perceive, imagine or image and what we understand. In short there is a systematic dialectic between artistic creation and logical, mathematical and linguistic comrnunication.

The canons of the arts are very closely related to the canons of language, logics, semiotics, methodics and mathematical organization in general. Certain or better said all modes of speech express all these qualities, to such an extent, that they are totally integrated. The modes of thought, the modes of expression, the modes of speech, the modes of organization etc., etc. are integrated into Dur memories, symbolic farms, dreams, images, speech patterns, science farms and pictures, into Dur patterns of philosophy, psychology, education, etc..
And therefore from very early times these elements have been present in all these farms and have developed with the development of alt. these forms.1

See Heinrich Schafer, Priciples of Egyptian Art. Oxford, 1986, p.151.

What are the hieroglyphs?

Until Champollion's translation, independently of the many attempts to translate, interpret and understand the Egyptian language, no one until then could understand the real meaning of the hieroglyphs, their words, symbols, syllables and their representative meaning, contrary to classical Egyptologic conventional meaning, that the hieroglyphs have much more than only "sacral meaning". They have scientific, philosophic, methodologic, philologic or etymologic, semiotic, organizational (mathematic), logical (i.e. form giving), cultural, social and many different meanings. Contrary to Plato's ldeal Forms or Aristotle's metaphysical and formallogical meaning, they can be used to represent, form, construct, picture and understand real objective and potential things. Much of what they meant with these meanings, still has to be discovered and rediscovered, if we are to solve many of our modem linguistic, philosophic, cultural or multicultural, methodologic and other modernistic problems.

For example Bernal says concerning the nature of philosophy, which is the foundation of language, linguistics, etymology, mathematical theory, logics, scientific theory and rationality as the common and understanding element of communicating all things in general, that:

"Sophia "wisdom" has no plausible Indo-European origin. On the other hand; it can plausibly be derived from the Egyptian sb3 "teach, teaching." Egyptian b is sometimes rendered ph in Greek as in the goddess Nbt ht as Nephthys. Thus there is no phonetic objection to an etymology thaI fits well with the Ancient tradition that sophia came from Egypt. ,,303

Although as I said before the Coptic language is still spoken by the modern Christian Egyptians, most of the original meaning of the language bas been lost.
Champollion said about the language, without being able to explain it, that the Egyptian language was both "natural" and "rational" and I would add to this, that it was also processual and historical and many aspects of the language are still bidden. It is the task of my research, to fathom many of the hidden dimensions of the Egyptian language, method and philosophy. As such we are interested in the contextual and gualitative conception and significance of the language and its immanent influence on the development of concept-formation in relationship to the sciences, philosophies, human expressions, understanding of consciousness development and problemsolving .in general, also the topological, momhological or conversional or transformative or transformational aspects of human performative experience and human development.304 After Champollion's dictionary, many hooks and dictionaries followed. In Germany Bunsen wrote a 5 volume comprehensive publication: Historical Investigation into Egypt's Place in Universal History.

Concerning the Egyptian origin of the bulk of the Egyptian language, their fundamental or basic words, verbs, nouns, names, symbols, concepts, logics, semiotic-signs, etc. it has been said by many Egyptologists, that they were borrowed from foreign or Semitic origin. These are not the real historical-empirical facts, because the greater part of the words etc. are much older than most Semitic-Asian developments and as Budge said,

" were inventedby one ofthe oldestAfrican (or Hamitic, if that word be preferred)
peoples in the Valley of the Nile of whose written language we have any remains. These are words used to express fundamental relationships and feelings, and beliefs which are particular to Semitic peoples. The primitive home of the people who invented these words lay far to the south of Egypt. ,,2

This makes of course, as we demonstrated in the first part of this text, the bulk and the fundament al genetic stock of most of the people, African and they also spoke an African language and many of the different African dialects, as do the modern peoples of Eastern Sudan, also the Berbers, the Ethiopians, and like some of the other peoples of North Western and Eastern Africa.3

"When linguistic resemblances are the result of historical relationships, such
resemblances facilitate only the reconstruction of earlier forms, they also help the researcher to make archaeological inferences from the linguistic evidence concerning the past historical existence of a society. ,,4

After systematically establishing this fact, 1 would like to mention a few things about the language itself. For example, the dictionary as it has been compiled by Budge, former director of the Egyptian Museum, London. This dictionary is like the original meaning of the Egyptian Language, Logic and Philosophy, The Egyptians called the "Book of Forms". "I was one of the rninistrants of the Master of Things, he who kept
the "Book of Forms", . . . Who are these 'Primeval Ones' They are Command and
Intelligence. ,,5
Budge included in his dictionary at least 23,000 of these "Forms". These Forms include a great multitude of different, but integrative things such as words, signs, symbols, concepts, various methods of understanding, representation, image-formation, process development, mythology, histories, memories, pragmatics, rationalities, scientific informations, logical structuralisms, mathematical organizations, alphabetic arrangements, phonetics, etymologies, semantics, syntax, general grarnrnars, manners of discourse, patterns of systems of reality, morphisms, typologies, pictograms, ideograms, etc..

The history and development of the language was closely related to the natural image, which represented something being used as a sign to denote something written, spoken or expressed. So that the trained reader, listener, hearer or ob server could recognize, perceive and in many cases understand what was being written, spoken or expressed. In this connection, the Egyptian method was an extended method of learning, cornmunicating, understanding and knowing how to deal with all kinds of things: mythologies, musical themes and compositions, dramatic or expressive, life-death situations, scientific situations, introspective and technical knowledge of metals, nutritions, biological and chemical things, buil ding and designing as weIl as health and medical things, agriculture, city and professional planning, etc..

Painting and writing, mythology and philosophy, logics and linguistic forms were totaly interrelated with natural, social, cultural and psychological studies. In later periods graphic or artistic signs became more fixed, so that every trained user could understand and use the same sign to denote, depict and understand the same thing. For Africa or for the Egyptians this was not a personal, individualistic or purely formal thing, but a social-cultural communal discursive thing.

The beginning of art and also other subjects like philosophy, psychology, etc. were, as we demonstrated before, immanently connected with the development of language, and also the history of consciousness and history itself. One could say in this connection, that the history of consciousness, is innately connected or interwoven with the consciousness of history itself. And this includes that which is, was and what will be I do not think history is possible, without a consciousness of what it is, was or will be History and consciousness are the same, in the sense, that anything which is left out of history, is also left out of consciousness. Such as the birth of a child or the death of a parent or relative. Or the loss of a leg, arm or eye. The event of a war or the battle between two brothers. Or the fight between a father and a mother or between two families or states or between two or more cultures, etc..
History should not only include these kinds of physical and obvious events, but also the development and histories of certain mythologies or words, names, definitions, signs, theories, concepts, models, pictures, etc.. The history of certain art forms or styles etc. or the development of certain cultures, or a family genealogy or group of people that have a certain or similar genetic similarity or affinity. This method should also include the spiritual or religious history, the rituals, norms, traditions, the ancestral patters and events. History in not only recorded information and vivid memories of forgotten things or experiences, but living imprints incarved in Dur primal and immune systems. And all of these things together inform us of what we are and who we are and who we can he; physically, mentally, socially, spiritually, aesthetically and otherwise.

Marimba Ani says this about this principle fact, she calls the same Asili. Asili she says is

"a conceptual tool for cultural analysis refers to the explanatory principle of a culture. If is the germinal principle of the heing of a culture, its essence. The idea of a seed; the ubiquitous analogical symhol in African philosophical and cosmological explanations, is ideal for our purposes. The idea is that the asili is like a template that carries within it the pattern or archetypical model for cultural development,. we might say that I it is the DNA of culture. The logic is an explanation of how its works, as well as, the principle of its development. Dur assumption then is that the asili generates systematic development,. it is a statement of the logos. The asili of a culture is formulative, and it is ideological in that it gives direction to development. It accounts for consistency and pattern in culture, also its tenacity. The asili determines cultural development,. then the form that the culture takes acts to maintain the integrity of the asili. It acts as a screen, incorporating or rejecting innovations, depending on their compatibility with its own essential nature. It is a compelling force that will direct the culture as long as it remains intact: i. e. carried in the "cultural genes. ",,6

She also says in this connection that the African Gods are not beyond this cultural historical genetic reality.

"The African ancestors are not gods, but spiritual extensions of human beings on earth, representing another stage of human development. ,,7

This is what the Egyptians learned from the archaic Africans, with whom they always had close contact.8
It bas been suggested by one of the best known specialists for African languages, David Dalby, "that certain traditional African graphic symbols, as still used in modem times, were derived from Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. More probable, however, is that the hieroglyphs themselves drew an important part of their inspiration, 5,000 years ago, from even older traditions of graphic symbolism in Africa.,,9

Whitney Davis suggests 4 distinct methods, that the Egyptians systematically developed from their so-called 'primitive' or 'archaic' forbearers. And this wealth on methodic fruition came out of their rich diffused ancestry, in relationship to their wealth on "iconographic distinctions", general and specific "associations" and understanding of transformational situations.

"First, stylistic analysis of iconographies suggests that procedures developed early on for the distinctive presentation of separate themes survived in the tradition, remaining especially characteristic of the units for which they were first evolved. Stylistic differences can be used to infer symbolic distinctions. Second, historical analysis may identify the primitive and perhaps simple character of several themes. Urgeschichte has its uses in arriving at the Urgestalt on an iconographic category that we believe may have existed Third, syntactic analysis, as it might be called, attends to the internally marked; coded, or differentiated aspects of the total output of messages. We might be able to determine the "Syntax" of a representational "language". Fourth, and most problematic, semantic analysis suggests that representation articulated a definition, classification, and valuation of experience. lnternal clues and external evidence may help us to reconstitute these original categories. ,,10

Language, in the form of artistic symbolism, pictorial meaning and imagination has much meaning and representational value in all the events of humans, but it also gives us orientation in a, according to Western science and philosophy, disordered or chaotic world of nature and natural events. For the Egyptians life and death, fire and water, Sky and earth, movement and steadfastness, being and becoming, are not without observabIe and understandable historical meaning. We live in a world of diverse order, diverse realities and diverse happenings but nevertheless everywhere there is harmony and order.

The various orders and classifications of the various different things, atoms, stars, wind, clouds, animais, moons, planets, etc., are different but we can not, not even in the case of identical twins, atoms, enzyms, metals, etc., reduce all things or sirnilar things to one single order. If this would be the case, then also history itself would only be a reproduction of certain formal or ideal symbols or principles. But for the Egyptians, this is not the case, everywhere and in all things there is difference and also unity. Therefore, for them, history was not ideal or formal or for that matter not chaotic and always an expression of concrete things and their actual events and motivations. They did not accept anything like, the Greeks and the Asians, that events were accidental, or deterrnined through outside powers, such as a tragedy or something like a fate or destiny and therefore caused by something outside historical or natural reality. If we look beyond the glorifications of the Pharaoh' s, Generals and Priests, in the historical records, we will find that their topographical or geographical and astronomical records were quite accurate.


Shmuel Ahituv of Israel, in his dissertation Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents, gives many examples of this, for example

"A genuine list of Amenhopet lIl, rejlecting the wide geographical knowledge of the scribes of Amenhopet lIl, based upon the vast political and economic relations of their master. These relations are evident in the Amarna correspondence and the Egyptian finds from the reign of Amenhopet III found in Anatolia, Crete, Rhodes, Mycenae and Aetolia, and, on the other hand, Mycenaean ceramics found at el-A mama. This list reveals the unique, rich knowledge of the Aegean world by the Egyptian scribes. Edel's conclusion conceming the genuiness and uniqueness of this list is wholly
justified ,,11

If we compare the problem of documentation and historical consciousness with that of Greek philosophy, we will discover, as F.M. Cornford says, in 'From Religion to Philosophy', that Greek inquiry was basically not based on historical documentation or actual events, but on the concept of Destiny, of primarily 'Formal Law'. In this sense the real cultural, natural, social, political, econornic and other roots are suppressed, under the speculative interpretations of purely Ideal and Metaphysical theories and not products of historical facts.12

The Egyptian concept of the logic of language or the language of logical forrns, will later in this chapter be clearly defined. It will be developed, in order to provide a systematic 'framework', to frame, order, systematize and to forrnalize historical documents and events, their agents, actors, their actions and motivations and to present them in such a fashion that they become visible, living, vibrant, understandable and analysable. This process is again followed by an integrative, holistic, comprehensive interpretation of specific given documentary and historical facts, which is conceived as an image, picture, film process of the same. The holistic picture should give us a realistic, visible, perceivable, forrnative, processual expression of a particular process. This makes history, if we look beyond the cultural prejudices, of the written and his or her given culture, the creator of a "Universal View or Picture" of the presented facts. This way of looking at perceiving, logically structuring and mathematically ordering history becomes the only objective way of perceiving, viewing and understanding historical processes.

"In Egypt, the study of history rests largeiy on such written documents as the Palermo Stone, the Royal Tablets of Abydos, the Royal Papyrus of Turin and Manentho's Chronicle. To those authentic documents, we must add the whole body of evidence reported by ancient writers, from Herodotus to Diodorus, not to mention the Texts of the Pyramids, The Book of the Dead and thousands of inscriptions on the monuments. ,,13

Language and the actuallife events, actual genetic and cultural genealogies and heritages of actual
peoples, their families and friends, their conflicts and sicknesses, their wars, their
images, their art, dances and technologies etc. were the results of their diffusing cultures. This made their languages and their histories alive and dynamic. And the Egyptians experienced a


great necessity to keep their history, languages and culture alive. In this sense they rather developed, and not invented, the "Creative Word", and the creative word was not just some mystic illusion or an ideal fantasy, to falsify the people into believing. It was rather a comprehensive 'rationality' to keep their culture, language, history, philosophy, etc. and everything they were involved in, their ecological, geographical, their sciences, health care alive and quite integrated with their social festivals, rituals and cornmon experiences.14 This was the source of their Mythology, as objective historical ritualization of the various pharaonic personalities, and their tales and stories. And at the same time, these mythologies were the livened world of their various everyday lire, rituals, affairs, work processes and creative dramatic processes, etc... The stories or symbols and pictures, that they developed, were not fixed or static stories and therefore they were from district to district different and historically went through continual changes, depending on by whom, and in what situations the stories were being told. The various priests, scribes and story-tellers have documented many of the sayings, tales, myths and stories, making them today available to readers who are interested to
read them.15

"The fact, perhaps, will be pointed out that the Phoenicians were not able to read the hieroglyphs. This assertion must not be made in too positive a manner, for, after all, it was in the Egyptian writing that the very characters of the Phoenician alphabet originated. Moreover, in this, as in similar cases, there were not wanting interpreters, sailors, traders, soldiers, and travelers of every class, to explain to the inhabitants of the Mediterranean littoral the meaning of the graphic legends which were diffused with the scarabs, gems, and amulets of Egypt throughout the whole Eastern and Semitic world. Local imagination did the rest, and in this manner popular symbolism was enriched by a new type. ,,16

If we only concentrate, as many Egyptologists do, on the formal translation and the grarnmatic and formal dictionary meaning of the words alone, then we fail to understand the deeper and comprehensive meaning and the deeper cultural complexity and universal meaning of the Egyptian language, as well as its methods, semiotics, logics, mathematics, syntax, semantics and its etymology. In order to understand its deeper meaning we also have to understand its primal archaic roots and how it developed into a mature and holistic language.

What I want to demonstrate in tros section, and Clark said this also, and I will portray this later in relationship to psychology, the Egyptians had a more advanced empirical, rational and processual systematic than that of the European Western or Asian or any other method until now. Of course my interpretation bas been strongly influenced by the whole history of method, science and philosophy, and at the same time, I will be dealing with development processes that could help us better understand and rationality solve same of our moral, philosophical, social, multicultural, political, scientific and aesthetic-artistic contemporary problems.

In the first line every method has a lot to do with language, words and concepts, meaning and signs, linguistics and etymological interpretations. Language and Method are like the Self or the I and its other, its twin or double, what in Greek philosophy is called identity. But the identity concept, both linguisticaly, psychologicaly, philosophicaly as well as historicaly, has become a problematic method and paradox, because it empiricaly, rationaly and linguisticaly has become difficult or even impossible to define or explain. So we are not talking about identities, which have been dualisticaly unidentifiable.


So to begin with, for example, parts of a whole system should not contradict each ot her, if they want to be a whole, and since method has everything to do with whole systems, it cannot contradict language or that which it is a part of. So if language is historically and dynamically anchored, so is also method a historical phenomenon, and is therefore totally interwoven with everything concerning human history. As I said before, it has a total relationship to everything in the environment and its historical development. So language and its method develop side by side, as long as they are rooted in the proto-archaic, its biological, technical, scientific and
other developments. This means analysis is systematically differentiating elements and aspects or parts of a system and synthesis is the systematic natural, empirical and rational integration of the same.

In this sense everything in this history is part and element of its developments, so if we better want to understand a, or general present situations, we have to also understand their various diverse aspects. To do this, means differentiating the various parts and elements. Only through this process of systematic differentiation can we understand how the various elements are relating to each other, and how they relate to units that associate and explain the whole.

And the various processes of the various units oflanguage do not express themselves as closed fixed units, like identities, but as dynamic changing developing historical processes. This is as I see it, the triadic process expressed in archaic languages, and it was further rationalized and scientifically systematized in the Egyptian language and philosophy.

This triad is a methodological combination between analysis, synthesis and dialectics or process-development. For many centuries we have said that this process is to complex, comprehensive and impossible for the human mind to understand. Following carefully this historical process, this methodical problem, there is no other way to understand this problem without understanding how this method is, was and how it has manifested itself throughout history (universally). And this includes science, religion, mythology, logics, mathematics, serniotics, pragmatics, rationality, social and everyday affairs.
So in this sense I understand Universal Hieroglyphics as Objective Morphology, as a systematic manifestation and interpretation of the Typological, Topological and Systematic development of concepts, words, modeIs, signs, tokens, symbols, pictures, images, methodics i.e. Concept Formations.

So as I see it, the method is Holistic or Comprehensive and not Successive or Linear. The linear or successive causistic method in linguistics, mathematics and logical analysis, which lirnits analysis to a purely formal method without reference to the empirical, rational and processual historical interpretation and explanation of real things. And because of this lirnitation we reduce analysis to an illegitimate interpretation, also the synthetic or integrative- associative and dialectic process developing or simple empirical-rational, historical interpretation and explanation of all things.

This reduction also puts limitations on how we think, or can develop thinking processes, and also how we can test these processes. It reduces our possibilities to systematically invent, discover and test the same. AJso how things work and how we can systematically explain them Until now the method of Analysis and Synthesis was not properly defined nor systematically explored (also not in Eastern philosophy) in such a way as to solve the various paradoxes in mathematical, logical, philosophical, scientific etc. thinking.

If we want to find a real solution to this problem, then it has to be systematically and historically tested in relationship to its empirical verification and rational understandability in relationship to specific or general problems.

For example Antonio Loprieno, the Egyptologist linguist comes closer to a systematic definition, which explains the Egyptian concept, but his method or interpretation is limited because he bases his definition on Bemard Cornrie's formallinguistic concept of"Language Universals and Linguistic Typology,,16
And Cornrie defines analysis and synthesis in a very unrelated way only to formal linguistic gramrnatical relations. He explains them as an isolating (analysis), fusional (synthetic) and morphological typology, as a holistic typology of purely word order without reference to concept-formations, etymological and methodological or philosophical etc. significances.

Based on this kind of formallinguistic Loprieno says:
"Ancient Egyptian is a language of the flectional or fusional type, with a diachronic tendency to replace VSO-synthetic structures by SVO-analytic constructions and to move toward the polysynthetic type which characterizes Coptic, its more recent phase. Egyptian morphemes are unsegmentable units combining grammatical junctions. Morphological forms exhibit a number of correspondence with the patterns of wordformation and of flection in other Afroasiatic languages. But although Egyptian is the oldest language of the phylum documented in written form (at least seven centuries before Akkadian), its morphological repertoire differs to a great extent from that of Semitic and of other Afroasiatic languages. This morphological variety can be accounted for in many ways: (a) by suggesting that, in spite of its archaic date, Egyptian had undergone already before its emergence as a written language a considerable number of changes which modified the genetic inventory inherited from Afroasiatic; (b) by considering Afroasiatic a relatively loose language continuum,
whose individual branches came to share linguistic features through intensive contact, but were not necessarily derived from a common ancestor; (c) by rejecting the prevailing "semitocentric" approach to Afroasiatic linguistics, proposing that the regular patterns displays by Semitic, and above all by Arabic, represent a typologically late result of a series of grammaticalizations which created its rich phonology and morphology, rather than the original situation inherited from the Ursprache. ,,17

In this connection I only want to establish the fact, that language forms or logical forms, other than those static purely formallinguistic forms of Aristotle, are in the Egyptian logical forms totally integrated with the life world and science and are as such empirical, rational and historical in the sense of process developmental. They cover all the aspects of nature, the mind, soul, psyche, but also things like spirituality, creativity, knowiedge, mathematics, logics, society, economics, management, tactics, technology, agriculture, health etc...

My interpretation is triadic and holistic and it totally differs from the typical Western interpretations, which are either very technical from a formal standpoint or metaphysical from a scientific rationalistic viewpoint. As far as I can see, and this is one of the systematic discussion points in this bock, these limitations are deduced versions of the archaic and Egyptian
methods.18


The Egyptian language is itself a comprehensive system of forms, equivalent to what the Egyptians call the Book of Forms. In Budge's dictionary, there are many examples of the manifold, multidimensional, multitemporal and multispatial significances demonstrating the importance of the Egyptian language.

Budge could only capture a very small portion of the language forms, which expand to cover also natural, scientific, philosophic, genetic, social, methodic, semiotic, logic, epistemologic, etymologic and many other subjects.

In the Forms, as I see it, are the logical structures of language and as such represent all things imaginable and observabIe. Everything that is real, is for them imaginable and understandable within the bounds of what is historically, empirically and rationally known. Understanding in this sense changes with our experience and knowledge of things. As I see it, they are the facts and Dur understanding of them, which determine knowIedge, and not something magical or metaphysicaI, although we clothe all things we experience with those language principles and tools we have acquired throughout our various cultural developments.

In this sense language is and has logical structures or forms; i.e. they are pragmatic, formative and transformative or process developmental. These ideas that lie at the foundation of Egyptian language, philosophy etc., have been more and more present in modem philosophy, after the breakdown of Western philosophy and logics, in the Philosophies ofNietzsche, Heidegger, Peirce, James and Dewey's Pragmatism, Wittgenstein and also Habermas' Pragmatic theory and many new trends in contemporary computer philosophy, called
Hieroglyphica."19

The concept and method of Formatics has in this new philosophy, and this is my systematic interpretation of the same, the meaning of rational but comrnon understanding (forms), that develop with the development of systematic comrnunication, inquiry, research, creativity etc. It is called by Max Weber the science ofConcept-Formation.

For me, like my interpretation of the Egyptian hieroglyphic method, concept-formation can only be understood and developed in relationship to its empirica!, historical and rational understanding of the things we experience and develop in all our concrete worlds.

There can be no language without logical representation, manifestation, performance or expression, rational construction and general social structure and vice versa. Logic is Language and Language manifests itself in logical forms. This is the basis, foundation, theory and
practice of the Egyptian language. The difference to many other modern languages is, that this, the Egyptian, fundamental structure and basis is not itself dualistic, in the sense of contradicting itself or falsifying what it wants to say or express.
Language is not abstract, because it is totally related to what it thinks, to what it reflects in the material, social, spiritual, cultural, biologic-genetic, ancestral and other worlds. Thinking in this sense is symbolization, ritualization, rationalization of the object world of whatever origin.20


What I systematically want to demonstrate here and throughout this bock, is that the Egyptian Forms are the "Ideal Types" that form the systematic Foundation of all Languages: which includes the Language ofMathematics, Logics, Methodics, Linguistics, Psychology, Anthropology, etc.. And as I have thoroughly demonstrated in this bock, they go far beyond only the picture and grammatical implications and relate basic fundamental structures, forms, principles, methods, norms, canons, concepts organizations, etc., that lay at the foundation of all logical and human or scientific communication.

This fact is becoming more and more apparent throughout contemporary science, philosophy, literature, art, comrnunication systems, computer mathematics, etc.. For example this statement ofBarry J.Kemp in Ancient Egypt says the Egyptian method is the "/deal Type" as "universal characteristic of the mind", and as such the foundation and root of modern and ancient culture in general.

"The ideal type, the image of what constituted a proper form, was elevated to the pinnacle of intellectual and aesthetic desirability. Because it was centered in the art of the court, the prime source of patronage, it was a self-perpetuating ideal, automaticalty selecting and promoting those artists with a natural aptitude consciousness and skilIed in the translation of these types info the precise graphic style that was so preferred. It was a combination of mental aptitude and skill that in the modern world holds a premium in commercial art. ,,21

What the "universa!" significance here means, concerning the methodological importance of the hieroglyphic logical forms, is that:

"Tradition is also reinforces by the instinct to communicate.
An art in which anyone can render whatever he think is realor essential in an object, while
to a large extent neglecting visual impressions, must, ij it is to be comprehensible, build up a sort of language of forms, and for this purpose select certain modes of representation from the range of possible ones and cultivate them; capriciousness is kept in check by the interrelated character of the whole. If they are approved for any reason the normal forms will become widely diffused and then easily produce the illusion that the choice of them is based on facit or perhaps even explicit agreement.22

Derrida said, quoting Warburton and Condillac:

"The advantage of hieroglyphs - one sign For many things - is reduced to the economy of
libraries. That is what the "more ingenious" Egyptians understood. They "were the first who made use of a shorter method which is known by the name of hieroglyphics." "The inconveniency arising from the enormous bulk of volumes, induced them to make use of only
a single figure to signify several things. " The forms of displacement and condensation
differentiating the Egyptian system are comprehended within this economic concept and conform to the "nature ofthe thing" (to the nature of things) which it thus suffices to
"consult. " Three degrees or three moments: the part for the whole (two hands, a shield, and a
bow lor a battie in curiologic hieroglyphs),. the instrument - realor metaphorical- lor the
thing (an eye for God's knowledge, a sword for the tyrant),. finally an analogous thing, in its totality, for the thing itse/f (a serpent and the medley of its spots lor the starry heavens) in
tropical hieroglyphics. ,,23

What I am working on in the course of this book, is a Systematic of the Hieroglyphic Forms and their further development on the history of Western philosophy, etc.. In this connection I see the 'Logical' Forms as a way ofObserving, Introspecting, Discovering, Understanding, Knowing and systematically Expressing, Formalizing, Picturing, Framing and Modeling Things and their Patterns and Ways of Doing, etc..

These coming statements of Wittgenstein confirm totally the above relationship between language, understanding, cornrnunication, culture, society, image-picturing, representation, introspective observation, introspective understanding of transformational processes of all kinds, etc.. They demonstrate Wittgenstein's attempt to transform Western sciences' dualistic limitations of the Egyptian method.

"Let us sum up: lf we scrutinize the usage which we make of such words as "thinking", "meaning", "wishing", etc., going through this process rids us ofthe temptation to look for a
peculiar act of thinking, independent of the act of expressing our thoughts, and stowed away in same peculiar medium. We are no longer prevented by the established forms of expression /rom recognizing thaI the experience of thinking may be just the experience of saying, or may consist of this experience plus others which accompany it. (1t is useful also to examine the following case: Suppose a multiplication is part of asentence; ask yourself what it is like to say the multiplication 7x5=35, thinking it, and; on the other hand; saying it without thinking.) The scrutiny of the grammar of a word weakens the position of certain fixed standards of our expres sion which had prevented us /rom seeing facts with unbiased eyes. Our investigation tried to remove this bias, which forces us to think that the facts must conform to certain pictures embedded in our language. "24

He says further on page 130, that:

" "Ihis picture (or this phrase) suggests itself to us irresistibly". Well, isn't this an experience?
We are treating here of case in which, as one might roughly put it, the grammar of a word seems to suggest the 'necessity' used in cases in which there is no such intermediary step.
Thus we are inclined to say: "A man must understand an order before he obeys it", "He must know where his pain is before he can point to it", "He must know the tune before he can sing it, and suchlike"25

And later on page 176

,. "Observe the particular lighting of this room ", does not imply any statement about the appearance of this room. 1t seemed to say: "This room has a particular lighting, which 1 need not name,' observe it!" This lighting referred to, it seems, is given by a sample, and you are to make use of the sample' as you would be doing in copying the precise shade of a colour sample on a palette. Whereas the order is similar to this: Get hold of this sample! "
1magine yourself saying "There is a particular lighting which 1'm to observe ". Y ou could image yourself in this case staring about you in vain, that is, without seeing the lighting. You could have been given a sample, e.g., a piece of colour material, and been asked:
"Observe the colour of this patch ". - And we can draw a distinction between observing,


attending to, the shape of the sample and attending to its colour. But attending to the colour can 't be described as looking at a thing which is connected with the sample in a peculiar way. When we obey the order, "Observe the colour ... ", what we do is to open our eyes to colour. "Observe the colour.. ", doesn't mean "See the colour you see ". In order, "Look at so and
so ", is of the kind; "Turn your head in this direction ",' what you will see when you do so does not enter this order. By attending, looking, you produce the impression,. you can" look at the
impression. ,,26

This movement of Wittgenstein mirrors a revival that bas been awakening in Western Philosophy since the early Renaissance and has parallels in contemporary African and people of African descent philosophies since the beginning of the sixties and even earlier.

Outlaw Jr. retlects the following in 'On Race and Philosophy'

"These efforts have motivated critical reviews and reconstructions of histories of Western philosophy and the relations of these philosophizings of peoples on the African continent, to endeavors to recover and rehabilitate African-descended thinkers trom earlier periods as precursor and pioneer black philosophers, and (to significant moves to deconstruct and revise narratives of the histories and agendas of philosophical enter prises in the West. The recent vintage of these efforts notwithstanding, they have been of major significance for the self- understandings and identities of many African and African-descendant thinkers, and increasingly those of non-African or African-descendant thinkers. When considered against the context of the history of Western philosophy as narrated and practiced by some of its dominant figures, in general, and against the explicit derogations of African peoples, by a number of these figures, the advent of discussions regarding African and African-American philosophy has been necessarily "deconstructive ". Thus, for example, each instance of an attempt to identify and/or articulate a philosophizing effort as distinctively African or African-American is, at the outset at least, an important challenge that situates the very idea, as weIl as the discursive practices, of 'philosophy" into the historicities of their construction and maintenance, and into the historically conditioned philosophical anthropology that has informed them via the valorized and racialized notion of "Rational Man. ""27

One of the charnpion forerunners to this last movement and parallel to Wittgenstein' s movement towards the archaics and the Egyptian hieroglyphic rnethod, was Cheikh Anta Diop. He inspired rnany ofconternporary greats of this period (Jarnes Baldwin, Richard Wright, Aime Cesaire, Franz Fanon, etc.).

Aime Cesaire said about him:

"I am not going to extend myself, at this point, to the historians nor to the historians of colonization, not to Egyptologists, in the first place it is too clear, in the second case the mechanics of this mystification has already been definitely demonstrated by Cheikh Anta in his hook, Nations Negres et Culture, the most audacious book that Black man has ever written up to this point and one which will aid in the awakening of Africa. ,,28


He was one of the first to discover the interrelationship between the various African Languages and their influence on linguistic, philosophic, historical and scientific movements. He demonstrated that this new serge or renaissance towards Egyptian linguistics, logics, mathematics and methodics was in no way accidental, but the product of a very long history, that began in prehistoric times.

Parallel to this movement which started in Africa, another African-Egyptian, African related philosophy, history, psychology, anthropology and scientific realism revival started in the United States, many years earlier, around the research and personality of William James at the university of Harvard.

"James 's sensitivity to the excluded and his resistance to the disciplinary imperative of identity made his thought particularly congenial to African-American intellectuals. Under the regime of Jim Crow they struggled daily with the yoke of identity in its congealed form of racist stereotype, which brutally circumscribed freedom and democratic participation. In white America, "nature 's law" seemed to decree, noted Du Bois, thaI "the word 'Negro' connotes 'inferiority' and 'stupidity' lightened only by unreasoning gayety and humor" (Du Bois 1992, 726). Because James 's impact on black figures is a dimension of his injluence that has been insufficiently recognized.
Paul Hopkins's magazine novel- 'OfOne Blood'(1903) - offers striking evidence that James 's sponsorship of the unclassified residuum spoke directly to black intellectuals. The fictional protagonist of her science-fiction fantasy is Reuel Briggs, a brilliant black Harvard medical student specializing in mesmerism and multiple personalities. He is first observed reading a treatis~ entitled 'The Unclassified Residuum '. Hopkins not oniy borrows the phrase from James but quotes from the essay in which it originally appears - "The Hidden Self" (1890) - which was reprinted as part of "What Psychical Research Has Accomplished" in
'The Will to Believe' (1897). Briggs himself embodies an "unclassifiedresiduum ": he is a mulatto (he passes for white) scientist who will cast off his American identity and travel through time and space to reunite with his African ancestry. His obvious model is Du Bois. In an 1897 'Atlantic' essay, Du Bois had theorized a "double consciousness" unique to black Americans. (In 'The Soul of Black Folk' Du Bois would revise and republish this essay in the same year that Hopkins published 'Of One Blood'.) Du Bois drew in part on James 's notion of a "hidden self", "subconscious" and "buried". This also inspired Hopkins 's Africanist fantasy. James speaks of this "'subliminal 'self" as capable of making "at any time irruption into our ordinary lives. At its lowest, it is only the depository of our forgotten memories; at its highest, we do not know what it is at all: (WE, 237). It is accessible by hypnosis and manifests itself telepathically. Hopkins turns James 's notion of hidden self (actually a notion that James himself shared with psychologists like Alfred Binet, author of 'On Double Consciousness J info a metaphor of the recovery of "forgotten memories" - the black American 's buried African selj. She also literalizes the metaphor; at one point Briggs speaks of "the
undiscovered country within ourselves - the hidden self lying quiescent in every human soul"
(448). Africa is at one the "undiscovered country" and "hidden self" that Reuel Briggs is transported back to, as he rediscovers the Ethiopian city of Meroe and his own ancestry as an African king.:.
From the nineteen-twenties to the forties, Kallen, along with Boas and his colleague Melville Herskovits and his students Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead; as well as Dewey, Park, and George Herbert Mead, formed the nucleus of the cultural pluralist movement in the United States. Although they were not a formal group, together their writings and activism constituted the most intellectually vigorious and prestigious defense against nativist intolerance and scientific racism."29


FOOTNOTES - Working Method

1  R.T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt. London, 1978, p. 263f.

2  These quotations were taken from my new book about the Hieroglyphic Method titled, The Development of the Afro-Egyptian Method and the History of Western Philosophy (MS 1998), also the following triadic process, which gives an example how the triadic method as systematic process works.

3  A.L Kroeber, Antropology, Culture Patterns and Processes, San Diego, New York, London, 1963, p. 120.

4  A.C.Kroeber, op, id., p.122., see also A.N. Whitehead, Science and Philosophy,New York, 1984, p.132, also Jurgen Habernas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, op.id., p.210.

5  A.L.Kroeber, op. id., p.152.

6  Claude Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind, London, 1981, p.10.

7  See Isaiah Berlin, Vico and Herder. London, 1976, p.169

8  Benjamin Lee Worf, Language, Thought & Reality, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1979, p.239.

9  See Bronislaw Malinowski, A Scientific Theory of Culture. Oxford, 1969, p.47.

10  Allan Janir & Stephen Toulmin, Wittgensteins Vienna, New York, 1973, p.223.

FOOTNOTES - Belonging to the Method

3  R.T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt. London, 1978, p. 263f.

4  These quotations were taken from my new book about the Hieroglyphic Method titled, The Development of the Afro-Egyptian Method and the History of Western Philosophy, Science and the Arts: in Comparison (MS 1998), also the following triadic process, which gives an example how the triadic method as systematic process works.

FOOTNOTES - Triadic Method as I expressed it in my book the Egyptian Method and the History of Western Philosophy

1  A.L. Kroeber, Antropology, Culture Patterns and Processes, San Diego, New York, London,1963, p.120.

2  A.L. Kroeber, op. id., p.122.

3  A.L. Kroeber, op. id., p. 152.

4  Claude Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind, London,1981, p.10.

5  See Isaiah Berlin, Vico and Herder. London, 1976, p.169.

6  Benjamin Lee Worf, Language, Thought & Reality, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1979, p.239.

7  See Bronislaw Malinowski, A Scientific Theory of Culture. Oxford, 1969, p.47.

8  Allan Janik & Stephen Toulmin, Wittensteins Vienna, New York, 1973, p. 223.

9   Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, New Yorl, 1966, p.530.

10  R. Chavers, The Egyptian Method and the History of Western Philosophy.

11  A.L. Kroeber, Antropology Culture Patterns & Processes, op. id., pp. 191f.

FOOTNOTES - Chapter V The historical and essential background of the Triadic Method

1  Immanuel Kant, Critigue of Pure Reason, New York, 1969, p.530.

2  E.A. Wallis Budge, AN Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Vol I, op.id., p. IXVIII.

3  See D. Diague, History and Linguistics. In: General History of Africa, Vol I. Ed. By J. Ki-Zerbo. Paris, (Unesco), 1981, p.250f.

4  Clyde Ahmad Winters, The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande. The Mankind Quarterly (1), 1986, p.77.

5  Egyptian Coffin Text 335. In: R.T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt. London, 1978, p.260f.

6   Marimba Ani (Dona Richards), Yurugu: An African-centered Critique ofEuropean Cultural Thought and Behavior. Trenton, N.l., African World Press, 1994, p.12.

7  Marimba Ani, Yurugu, op. id., p.93.

8  See also William S. Arnett, The Predynastic Origin OfEgyptian Hieroglyphics. Extended dissertation, West Virginia University Press of America, Washington O.C., 1982

9  David Dalby, Africa and the Written Word. Cressenville, 1986, p.2. See also p.6 ofthis same book

10  Whitney Davis, The Canonical Tradition in Ancient Egyptian Art. Cambridge, 1989, p.63f

11  Shmuel Ahituv, Canaanite Toponyms. In: Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jeruzalem and Leiden, 1984, p.15.

12  See F.M. Cornford, From Religion to Philosophy. Princeton, New Jersey, 1991, p.lf.

13  Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization, Myth or Reality. Westport, 1974, p.l0l.

14  See R. T.Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt, op.id., p.267.

15  See Henri Frankford, Ancient Egyptian Religion. New York, 1961, p.24.

16  The Count Goblet D' Alviella, The Migration ofSymbols. New York, 1972, p.191

16a  See Bemard Comrie, Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford and Cambridge, 1995, p.40ff.

17  Antonio Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic lntroduction. Cambridge, 1995, p.51.

18  See F.M.Comford, From Religion to Philosophy, op.id., p.58. See also the many examples of Egyptian influence in Martin Bemal's Black Athena, Vol.lI. London, 1991.

19  See The Centre for Computer-aided Egyptological Research (CCER) at the Utrecht University, Holland.

20  See also Jurgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse ofModernity. Cambridge Massachusetts, 1995, p.314ff. See also William James, The Principles ofPhychology, V 01.11. New Vork, 1950, Chapter 12, p.483-549 and parts ofChapter 14

21  Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt. London, New Vork, 1991, p.83.

22  Heinrich Schńfer, Principles ofEgyptian Art. Oxford, 1986, p.l0S.

23  Jacques Derrida, OfGrammatology. Baltimore and London, 1998, p.284.

24  Ludwig Wittgenstein, The Blue and the Brown Books. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, USA, 1997 ed., p.43.

25  Ludwig Wittgenstein, op.id., p.130.

26  Ludwig Wittgenstein, op.id. p.176.

27  Lucius T. Outlaw Jr., On Race and Philosophy. New Vork and London, 1996, p.89.

28  Aime Cesaire. In: Cheikh Anta Diop, The Cultural Unity ofBlack Africa. Afterword by James Spady. Chicago, 1990, p.219.

29  Ross Posnock, The Jnfluence ofWilliam James on American Culture, in: The Cambridge Companion 10 William James, Cambridge, 1997, p.333ff.



BACK | TOP | HOME