When I first encountered Professor Kantor, I was an undergraduate taking his course in history of psychology required of psychology majors at Indiana University. He offered little documentation on the point of view he gave to history (his own two volume work was still in the future) and presented his own system in such a limited form that it left little impression. It was after I left Indiana and began graduate studies that I began comparing his teaching with what I was encountering from other professors and in reading sources. The more I compared other views and the more I checked his points on history the more impressed I became. As I continued through graduate school it became increasingly clear to me that traditional psychology was more of a vast metaphysical exercise than a science despite its growing sophistication in experimental methodology and quantification. In contrast to metaphysical assumptions, the superiority of an integrated field for psychology as a science and, for that matter, for all of science was a viewpoint I found essential and from which I could never retreat. It has been the guiding principle in my teaching, research, and writing, and my entire outlook on science and nature. The ingenuity and insight that brought Professor Kantor to this profound approach in the face of a dualistic and mechanistically thinking culture leaves me in perpetual awe. He is an unrecognized intellectual giant whose contributions make dwarfs of many others who have received acclaim, often for concepts that are erroneous as seen from the perspective of an integrated field.

On a more personal level, J. R. was a friendly and kindly man who was always eager to hear from or visit with his friends and former students. His letters were warm and affectionate and his concern great if he did not receive communication for a lengthy period. He was always encouraging about projects in scientific writing and ready to give assistance on any points of doubt. Although collaborating with him on a writing project was no easy matter, I enjoyed the close interaction with him and the acuteness of his thinking when I assisted him in revising the Survey (1933, 1975). His long life was one that brought me great intellectual riches and the personal pleasure and honor of knowing and working with him---this Aristotle of the twentieth century (more accurately, a combined Aristotle and Einstein, given the nature of his interbehavioral field).

It is sad that so few others have known him or his work and had the opportunity to escape their entrenched mode of thinking into which Western culture has directed them. His liberating thinking could bring enormous benefits to all scientific and intellectual endeavors. That potential Is still there in his writings. It is up to those of us who are acquainted with it to bring it to those who are not.