>From: Slingr@aol.com >Subject: Another g.s. thing >(Date: about Nov. 7, 1994) This was written as a memo and distributed to friends and co-workers after I returned from the summer seminar. [...] The figure is integral to the intent of the memo, so I hope it makes sense in ASCII - use your imagination to see a parabola out of straight lines. TO: WHOMEVER IS INTERESTED >FROM: STEVE STOCKDALE SUBJECT: GENERAL SEMANTICS I attended the 51st Annual General Semantics Seminar-Workshop at Hofstra University as out-of-plant training from 23-31 July 1994. The purpose of this memo is to introduce you to a few aspects of general semantics, and perhaps cause you to become curious to learn more. Because I am personally committed to applying this orientation in my life, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you further should you have questions. Part of the reason it's taken me a month to complete this is that general semantics encompasses such a far-reaching scope of activities, I've had a hard time attempting to organize and summarize my thoughts. So be advised - not only am I not telling you everything about general semantics (or GS), I'm also not telling you everything I'd like to tell you, and I'm reasonably certain that I'm not even telling you everything I'm trying to tell you. My interest in GS began in 1979 when I read a book by S.I. Hayakawa, Language In Thought And Action. I was impressed by Hayakawa's straightforward, almost too-obvious, observation that language is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, language is largely responsible for our progressive development as a species, in that language has provided the means to pass on knowledge from generation to generation. Theoretically, it has prevented us from having to "reinvent the wheel." On the other hand, language is also at the root of many of our societal "problems", as well as many of our individual problems. On either hand, however, another of Hayakawa's assertions seemed correct - that language is the only means humans have to resolve conflict. For me, this was profound, especially since I saw its application not only in terms of the disagreements or arguments we have with others, but more importantly in terms of the conversations we have with our own selves. My initial thought in 1979 was, "Gee, this is stuff you really need to know. Why wasn't I ever taught this in school?" After years of neglect on the shelf, I've recently begun to seriously study and apply the principles in my life. The seminar-workshop which I attended gave me the opportunity to meet the "experts" in the field and to compare my experiences with others. "General semantics" is the term used to refer to the system of theories (or formulations) set forth by Alfred Korzybski in his major work, Science And Sanity, published in 1933. Korzybski, a Polish engineer and mathematician, had participated in World War I and had been appalled by the war's devastations. He asked himself, how is it that mankind has progressed so rapidly and extensively in the areas of science and engineering, yet seemed so incapable of learning how to relate and prosper as peaceable inhabitants of the planet. From this inquiry, he observed that disciplines such as math and engineering had uniquely-structured languages and symbols which not only facilitated communications, but also provided for more accurate evaluations of the structures within their unique environments. However, in his observations of the language we use in our daily lives (and our resulting behaviors), he noted much less precision and more ambiguity, which often resulted in misevaluations and disagreement. He theorized that if individuals were to apply the principles of a scientific methodology to their language and actions in the conduct of everyday affairs, a greater degree of sanity would result. Hence the name of his book, Science And Sanity. Korzybski used an analogy which, for general semanticists, succinctly states a cornerstone of the system - "The map is not the territory." He observed that the language we use to refer to the events and happenings and things we experience "out there" in the world of reality, is related to those events and happenings and things as a map is related to the territory it represents. For example, a street map of the city of Dallas is obviously much smaller and less detailed than the actual physical and geographical entity known as "Dallas." The lines and words depicted on the street map do, however, provide a reasonably accurate symbolic reference to the structural relations which exist within the physical entity "Dallas." The map can indicate relative distances between points of interest ("Downtown is three miles from the Cotton Bowl.") The map can indicate relationships which exist ("Maple Street is four streets west of Hall.") If to scale, a map can also depict relative size of certain features, such as parks or lakes. Obviously, the more accurate a map is drawn, the greater utility it offers to the user in terms of his/her ability to move about within the territory, and to make evaluations and predictions about his/her future movements within the territory. Likewise, the more accurate and appropriate our language (or verbal maps) is in describing and interpreting our experiences out there "in the world" (or non-verbal territory), the better we will be able to evaluate and adjust to what we experience. This process of evaluating and adjusting, maintained Korzybski, is integral to sanity. Korzybski used the term "abstracting" to denote the processes we unconsciously and consciously go through as we experience-evaluate-adjust to "What-Is-Going-On" in our world. To a great extent, the degree of one's awareness of this process of abstracting determines the degree of sane evaluations and adjustments one is capable of. Therefore I'll attempt to discuss this briefly with the aid of the following diagram which I've adapted >from Korzybski's original diagram, the "Structural Differential." My intent is to use this diagram as a model to analyze an unfortunately all-too-common situation which you might encounter on your drive to work each day. /----------------------------------------------------------------------/ /----------------------------------------------------------------------/ t-s(0) t-s(now) t-s(next) | WIGO /,, | /,,,,,,,,, /,,,,,,, /,,, | / ,,,,,,,,,, /,,,,,,,,, /,,,,, | / ,,,,,,,,,,,, / "Dangerous"<<< / ,,,,, |/ ----- =====,, /,,,,,,,,,,,,, ^ \ ,,,,,, |\ |"U"| ====,,, \,,,,,,,,,,,, ^ \ ,,,, | \----- =====,, \ "Avoid" <<<< \ ,, | \ ,,,,,,,,,, \,,,,,,,, ^ \ | \ ,,,,,,,, \,,,,,, ^ | ^ ===== EXPERIENCE (Awareness of an object or happening) ^ ==== \ ^ ===== \ ^ === DESCRIPTION (Factual, "What happened") ^ === \ ^ === \ ^ === INFERENCE (1) (Interpretation) ^ === \ ^ \ ^ == INFERENCE (2) (Generalization, ^ \ Judgment, ^ \ Conclusion) >>>>>>>>>>> ...etc The two-dimensional line/box at the top simply represents a time-space continuum, noting a t-s(0) as "time-space zero" (theoretically birth), and t-s(now) noting "time-space now." The parabola beginning at t-s(now) symbolizes everything going on in the environment surrounding our subject, the individual (Ms."U") at a moment in time and space. Let's say it's 7:44am, on Friday, September 2, 1994, and Ms. "U" is approaching a busy intersection on her drive to work. All the marks within the parabola represent the infinite number of things or happenings which "U" could possibly be aware of as "What Is Going On" (WIGO). The parabola is an appropriate symbol because it implies continuation through space without bounds. On the macro level, the WIGO extends beyond the visual horizon, beyond Texas, out into the universe. On the micro level, the WIGO includes, for example, the invisible processess of photosynthesis in the cell of a leaf on a tree by the side of the road of which you are only vaguely aware. The preceeding parabola to the left signifies that "U" has experienced an innumerable series of time-space WIGOs leading up to t-s(now). They are important to the diagram because these prior experiences, as I'll point out in a minute, have determined, to a degree, the WIGO which "U" may experience at t-s(now). [Also, note that "U" is a part of WIGO, therefore part of what "U" may observe and be aware of is "U-self".] Out of all the things and happenings going on in the WIGO at t-s(now), a certain subset of activities occurs which "U's" physiological and neurological sensing processes become aware of. "U" obviously has limitations to her sensing abilities, and can't be aware of everything in the WIGO. What she does become aware of (denoted by the "==" symbols) is abstracted from the total WIGO. These awarenesses constitute an experience for "U", before she has words to describe the experience. This experience occurs on a non-verbal level and has no meaning or significance for "U" at this point - it just happens. Subsequent to the experience, perhaps only by nanoseconds, "U" abstracts certain key aspects of this non-verbal experience and "maps" the experience verbally, using the language symbols available to her as a result of her prior experiences. At this level, "U" describes, as factually as possible, what occurred for her as the non-verbal experience: "police car, ambulance, lights, sirens, off to the right blocking traffic, two banged-up cars, a stretcher with a white sheet covering something, a woman holding her hands to her face in tears." Subsequent to this level of description, "U" infers, or interprets, "There's been a wreck and somebody's probably seriously hurt." An inference can be defined as a statement made about the unknown, based on what is known. Even though the probability may be very high that this inference is correct, "U" did not actually observe a "wreck" - she actually observed only what she described as what occurred. "U" is not finished abstracting. Because "U" has previously experienced similar "wrecks" at this intersection, "U" drives away from the intersection having made another level of inference, which you could call a generalization, a judgment, a conclusion, or a belief. It goes, "This is a dangerous intersection.I should avoid it in the future." As a result of this experience, "U" now has formed an assumption, or belief, or you could say she has altered her verbal maps, about "danger" and "this intersection." And, she has created a new map which causes a behavioral change, "avoid." This example is not intended to cause a discussion of whether the intersection is really dangerous or whether Ms. "U" is justified in avoiding it in the future. It does illustrate several points to consider: 1. Most of what we "U's" accept as "what happens" really isn't what we actually experience, but what we tell ourselves we experience based on the inferences we make in our process of evaluational abstracting. We "see" only banged-up cars on the side of the road with a police car and fire truck, but we tell ourselves "wreck." 2. As a result of the inferences, assumptions, beliefs, or verbal maps we create, we change our behavior and actions accordingly. Most of the time we operate without knowledge of the abstracting processes we go through. Our actions seem to us to be totally consistent and appropriate based on what we believe or assume. But if our beliefs or assumptions turn out to be in error or false to facts, then isn't it likely that our subsequent behavior will inevitably be inappropriate? 3. The judgment or assessment "dangerous" has no physical presence in the WIGO. "Dangerous" doesn't appear to be something to be sensed or experienced on the non-verbal level. It would seem to me to exist only on the verbal level as an interpretation within the verbal abstracting process of the individual. Therefore you could say that "dangerous" is created or generated by the individual's verbal processing of a situation. "Dangerous" is not an inherent quality or attribute of the situation. If the individual creates "dangerous", then the individual can alter "dangerous." The word "dangerous" is the individual's verbal "map" of the "territory", and the map is not the territory. 4. We cannot not make inferences and interpretations and assumptions. The process of abstracting is part of what makes us uniquely human. The fact that we consciously and unconsciously make these assumptions, and then act accordingly, is neither good nor bad - it's just a fact. The key is to be aware that we are susceptible to misevaluations based on our assumptions. With this awareness, we may be more alert to question and test our assumptions and beliefs. And if our questioning and testing yields different results from our initial judgments, we are free to alter our judgments and subsequently our behavior. In other words, you could say we achieve a greater degree of sanity by applying the scientific methodolgy of observing, theorizing, testing, evaluating and revising. 5. If we can alter our verbal map of "dangerous" we also have the ability to alter other verbal maps which, to some degree, cause us to behave in manners which would appear to be false to facts. Verbal maps which we might have reason to want to alter could include "loneliness", "depression", "rejection", "overweight", "not worthy", "frustrated", "disappointed", etc. As an general semantics exercise, ask yourself these questions: a) Based on the minimal facts which "U" described, ("police car, ambulance, lights, sirens, off to the right blocking traffic, two banged-up cars, a stretcher with a white sheet covering something, a woman holding her hands to her face in tears.") you probably formed a mental picture of the scene. What did you add to complete the picture which wasn't included as fact? b) Other than a "wreck", what circumstances could have resulted in the situation described? c) Thinking of this metaphorically as it pertains to your own life, what "dangerous intersections" are you avoiding because you thought you saw a "wreck"? My hope is that as a result of reading this, you not make a quick judgment as to whether this GS stuff is "right" or "wrong", or whether it does or doesn't make sense, or whether I'm "sane" or "insane". My request is that you accept what you've read as a theory, subject to confirmation or validation based on your own personal testing and evaluation. Check it out. Reserve judgment for a week, and spend the week being aware of your abstracting processes, and of the assumptions and judgments and conclusions you make. I'll be interested to hear your results. I appreciate this opportunity to share a little of what I've applied from general semantics. This little story about the wreck illustrates some of the GS formulations, but there is much, much more to GS than simply "better communications." In my estimation, it offers a vehicle to reorient one's way of being, as a result of the experiencing-evaluating-adjusting process. To me, it's important stuff.If you're interested in pursuing your own reading and study of general semantics, I can recommend the following: Science And Sanity by Alfred Korzybski (not easy reading) Language In Thought And Action by S.I. Hayakawa People In Quandries by Wendell Johnson Levels Of Knowing And Existence by Harry Weinberg Drive Yourself Sane! by Bruce and Susan Kodish The Art Of Awareness by Samuel J. Bois I would also, without hesitation, urge anyone to consider attending next year's General Semantics Seminar-Workshop. Best Regards, Steve Stockdale