Tertium Organum

of Organon, 
i.e. the 'Instrument' (of thought). This scheme consists in the following: 
A 
is A.
A is not not-A. 
Everything is either A or not-A.
The logic contained in this scheme - Aristotle's logic - is quite sufficient 
for 
observation.
But 
for experiment
it is insufficient, for experiment, takes place 
in time, 
whereas Aristotle's formulae do not take time into account. This was observed at the 
very dawn of the establishment of our experimental knowledge; it was noted by Roger 
Bacon and, some centuries later, was formulated by his famous namesake, Francis 
Bacon, in the treatise 
Novum Organum —
'New Instrument' (of thought). Briefly 
Bacon's formulation may be reduced to the following: 
That which was A, will be A. 
That which was not-A, will be not-A.
Everything was and will be either A or not-A.
All our scientific experience is built on these formulae, whether they are taken or 
not taken into account by our mind. And these same formulae actually serve as a basis 
for making shoes, for if a cobbler could not be sure that the leather bought yesterday 
would be leather 

---

tomorrow, he would probably not venture to make shoes but would look for 
some other more secure profession. 
Logical formulae, both those of Aristotle and Bacon, are simply deduced 
from observation of facts and embrace nothing but the contents of these facts 
- and can embrace nothing more. They are not laws of 
thinking
but merely
laws of the external world as it is perceived by us, or laws of our relationship
to the external world. 
If we were able to represent to ourselves the 'logic' of an animal, we would 
understand its relationship to the external world. Our chief mistake as regards 
the inner world of an animal lies in our ascribing to it our own logic. We 
think that 
there is only one logic,
that our logic is something absolute, 
something existing outside us and apart from us. Yet, in actual fact, it is 
merely the laws of the relation of our inner life to the outside world or the 
laws which our mind finds in the outside world. A different mind will find 
different laws. 
The first difference between our logic and that of an animal is that the latter is 
not 
general. 
It is a particular logic in every case, for every separate 
representation. For animals there exists no classification according to 
common properties, i.e. classes, varieties and species. Every single object 
exists by itself, all its properties are specific properties.
This
house and 
that
house are for an animal totally different objects,
because the one is 
his
house and the other an 
alien
house. Generally speaking, 
we recognize objects by their similarity; an animal must recognize them by
their differences. It remembers every object by the signs which have had for it 
the greatest emotional significance. In this form, i.e. with emotional qualities, 
representations are preserved in the memory of an animal. It is easy to see 
that it is much more difficult to preserve such representations in memory; 
consequently the memory of an animal is much more burdened than ours, 
although in the amount of knowledge and the number of things preserved in 
the memory an animal is far below us. 
Having once seen an object, we refer it to a certain class, variety and 
species, attach it to one or another concept and connect it in our mind with 
one or another 'word', i.e. with an algebraic sign, then with another, defining
it, and so on. 
An animal has no concepts, it has no mental algebra with the help of which 
we think. It must know