How can we justify a comparative study between one idea that is originally essentially geographical and another that is essentially religious? If, on another hand, we examine the two terms on the basis of their currently accepted meaning, and the two realities on the basis of their present content, such a comparison may not become more comprehensible. But in reality, Europe has expanded beyond its physical boundaries: in this sense it is the matrix and historical point of reference both for America and Australia, and even for Russia. With reference to scientific and technical civilization, its inventions and attainments coincide with the modern strata of activity of all contemporary societies. On the contrary, politically it crouches within its West-European nucleus, trying to construct a new identity, limited and distinct, based on specificities that should distinguish it from everything it has projected outside, and from everything it has subjected and denied. This suggests the multiplicity of levels and perspectives.

For almost two hundred years the problem of localization of the brain processes has been provoking discussion in the fields of medicine, philosophy, and in general critical reflection that at times is expressed in acute polemic terms—phrenology, the disputes over aphasia between 1861 and 1865, the Bergsonian interpretation of P. Marie's works, and so on—and at times dies down and seems to disappear. In the past quarter of a century, this discussion has not lost any of its fascination, but it cannot possibly be tackled without at least a minimum of historical background. We therefore propose, first of all, to review the main elements highlighting the development of the problem, since its present state becomes meaningful only in relation to the recent past. Since we cannot permit ourselves to recapitulate all aspects of its history in the course of this article, we shall give examples in the four fields we feel to be the most pertinent: human and animal neuropsychology, neurophysiology and neurochemistry. Finally, we shall set forth our reflections on the heuristic meaning of these examples, and endeavor to draw conclusions, some of which may answer problems that have never been raised before.

The idea of progress is essentially socio-historical. I mean by that that the idea and its meaningful content are the outcome of socio-historical processes in connection with the socio-cultural development of mankind, with which the idea of progress is inextricably linked. Before proceeding to any investigation of its nature it is necessary to dissociate its meaning from two fundamental concepts of modern natural and social science, evolution and change. Evolution is here taken in its strict biological connotation, not in its metaphysical implications. This point is made clear by Bradley who distinguishes between Darwinism as a theory of natural evolution and Darwinism as a metaphysics of existence. From the standpoint of the social universe, within which the idea of progress acquires its meaningfulness, natural evolution is not indeed indifferent, but amoral, and has to be accounted for as an external condition. The same applies to cosmic evolution or changes occurring within the physical universe. Although not indifferent to man, these are devoid of moral content and have to be taken as objectively given conditions.

The transfer of the capital to a new site on Brazil's central plateau had a particular significance in the eyes of those who conceived the idea. Its primary aim was to create a nucleus from which to promote the development of the vast and almost deserted interior regions, abandoning Rio de Janeiro which was, for various reasons, no longer judged capable of fulfilling its role as the seat of national political life. As the Brasilia project was realized, thanks to the inspiration of President Kubitschek, it was hoped that it would contribute to the solution of urgent problems stemming from the country's development. Its basic function was to stimulate this development, no longer seen only as the development of the coastal regions but also of the interior, the sertão, that is the “great desert” of the Goiás, the Mato-Grosso and of Amazonia.

Feedback appears to be a fundamental characteristic of the phenomena of life. Elsewhere it only appears in man-made machines. These machines are always presented as being a meeting ground for laws immanent both in matter and in man. A new science has been created to study the applications of feedback: cybernetics. As feedback is closely related to questions concerning the transmission of information, cybernetics has rapidly given rise to a theory of information. The latter, with its applications, has taken on an absolutely essential role in our modern world wherever problems of administration occur.

Perhaps modern man's major mistake was that of considering science as the quintessence of reason and of believing, accordingly, that scientific progress is synonymous with human progress.

The debate prompted by Meyer Fortes in his account Oedipus and Job in West-African Religions is valuable for its insight into the peoples of the Black Continent. In fact, if the basic motivations behind the two cited mythical stories can be discerned to any extent among the Tallensi of Ghana, and also, as the author suggests, within many other ethnic groups, it will be easier to establish characteristics common to all mankind, the elements of similarity being of a more primordial and significant nature than the differentiating factors. On the other hand, if the evidence is not convincing, or if the examples selected by the researcher are disputed by the outsider—who might for instance contest their long-term validity or universality—this might imply that the differences are predominant without their invalidating the overall possibility of there being a good number of common features.