So for me the world of the Spirit consists of endless frames of reference or attitudes of mind, each based on its own unspoken and usually unconscious assumptions, and all interrelated by means of the kind of nervous tension to which it is necessary to subject the body, to produce any given attitude in the mind. These unspoken assumptions mould the envelope of consciousness which controls all thought in that frame of mind, just as science is based on its assumptions, and mathematics on its axioms. Abstract reasoning, without reference to its assumptions, only gets you to the absurdity of Achilles and the Tortoise. Only what I call the “perfectly relaxed consciousness” is free from nervous tension, and in this frame of mind “thought” as we normally understand it is not possible; and which is probably free of assumptions as well. Learning to maintain a professional frame of mind for long hours without undue fatigue imposes great strains on the nervous system; and unless you also learn to relax from time to time, it is likely to lead to serious permanent damage to the body. Of these attitudes of mind, mathematics represents only a few chapters in the world of thought.
And the contents of any attitude of mind are true, and its reasoning valid, if its axioms conform truly with experience; and the contents of any attitude of mind are flawed, and its reasoning flawed, if its axioms do not entirely conform with experience. And of course the overwhelming probability is that the axioms of any given attitude of mind are false or inaccurate to some degree; they will usually be partly true and partly false. This is particularly so for the advocate in Court, as there is no time to have a philosophical self-examination before replying to an argument; you have to do it off the cuff, and hope for the best. So he will be almost completely ignorant of what assumptions he is making. With science it is different, because scientists have been thinking about their assumptions for centuries. Max Plank in his little book, The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics, said that in science there are two basic assumptions: that cause and effect is the rule over the whole of creation, and that there is in Nature a plan, or plan of growth, which never contradicts itself. These were just assumptions; they were incapable of proof. The first is based on the logical fallacy of “post hoc, propter hoc”, as David Hume pointed out; and indeed it gets into trouble with radio-activity and the quantum theory. The second gets into serious trouble when you get involved in freewill, which if it exists, can change the potential for growth, and therefore change the plan. In addition investigating small amounts of matter is difficult when the very fact of observation changes what is happening, until one reaches Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. And there is a respectable body of scientific opinion that Lord Rutherford created the nucleus of the atom, which he thought he was discovering! So these assumptions may appear a trifle naïve. Nevertheless they have to be made, or science is impossible. So if the basis of science appears somewhat dubious, the justification of science seems to be that it usually works. Yet War usually works, when conducted by those who know what they are about; and War is not causal, because morale is supreme. But science is based on its assumptions, even though they may be flawed. Other frames of mind similarly involve other assumptions; and so thought is possible in those frames of mind, even if flawed.
One of the most interesting phenomenon you have to deal with in Court is the relationships that exist between people. It is quite hopeless trying to conduct a case, or any part of it, in a detached analytical way. It cuts no ice with anybody and gets you nowhere. This is so even in an abstract legal argument; you must still present it in a form that is attractive to the Judge, unless the Law is overwhelmingly in your client’s favour. You have to relate to the judge, the jury, and above all the witness. Indeed you try to relate to them all at the same time; with the possible exception that when you are seeking to destroy a witnesses’ credibility, you may well concentrate on him alone. And what is more, you are engaged on two levels in cross-examining a witness; one level is concentrating on the witnesses’ answers, which are probably not quite what you hoped for, and on continuing the cross-examination; the other level is concentrating on how to steer his answers towards the proof of your case or the destruction of the opposing case.