Welcome to the General Semantics Mailing List! ============================================== A little about general semantics ... g.s. was formulated by Alfred Korzybski in the 1930's and was described thoroughly in his magnum opus "Science and Sanity", but nearly everyone I know of who knows about g.s. would probably suggest reading some of the other g.s. books first. Western civilization is primarily based on modes of thinking definitively formulated by Aristotle, but in the last few centuries "we" have found, mainly through science, that those modes are no longer adequate for the progress of human knowledge. Korzybski seems to have attempted to do what Aristotle did 2340+ years ago, but has gone further by forming the basis for a system of thinking which incorporates what we now know about "knowing": neuroscience, psychology, communication theory, etc. To informed lay persons, much of g.s. appears fairly straightforward and "obvious", but the real trick is to train oneself to be aware of and to apply these insights in everyday life ... in one's thinking, communicating, and acting, so we can benefit more fully from them. Eventually this boils down to re-examining your own beliefs and assumptions that you're actually operating on in your life, and possibly adjusting them to be more in line with what we know about the "process nature" of reality, about the operation of our nervous systems, about the hard-wired structural assumptions in the languages we use, etc. About the list ... I've set up the list in a simple forwarding scheme and I don't have a lot of time for admin duties, so here are the current ground rules and relevant list info: o To send mail to the other participants, email it to: "gs-l@worldtrans.org" o To (un)subscribe, send email to majordomo@worldtrans.org with the appropriate line (below) in the body (not subject) of the message: subscribe gs-L-Digest [optional: your email address] subscribe gs-L [optional: your email address] unsubscribe gs-L-Digest [optional: your email address] unsubscribe gs-L [optional: your email address] or as a last resort to "jmgs@genius.ucsd.edu" o Regarding the "tone" or "atmosphere" of the list ... I like the way Korzybski apparently ran his seminars ... in a very "chummy", relaxed and open style (according to what I read in the 1937 hardcopy of that seminar), so I would encourage camaraderie and good fellowship. Note: I have not been enforcing a code of conduct, allowing people to choose the style of relating they prefer. Few have chosen the tone mentioned above. o Since I own the list, if a (future) list member for some reason becomes obnoxious (to be determined by my own inimitable semantic reactions ;-), I may very well remove them from the list. So be cool, relax, and just have fun with it! o If you know of others who have an interest in General Semantics, by all means have them contact me and I'll add them. o At some point I/we might begin to advertise in appropriate-seeming usenet groups (alt.self-improve, *.philosophy.* and *.lang*,.) and mailing lists (Extropians, novis,.)), so if you have any suggestions (or willingness to do it) let me/us know ... or just go ahead and do it ;-) o I'd like to propose to those interested that we make a "series" of posts on the basics. My idea is this: if you know something about one of the basics and feel inspired, please go ahead and compose a post! I plan on archiving these and perhaps entering them into the FAQ. Here is a list of some suggested basic topics: extensional devices (dating, indexing, etc.), time-binding, identification, non-Aristotelian systems, semantic reactions, abstracting (orders of, consciousness of), confusing the orders of abstraction, structure, function, relations, order, non-elementalistic terms (organism-as-a-whole, space-time, psycho-logic, etc.), multiordinal terms, the Structural Differential, infantilism, levels of abstraction (non-verbal;verbal: process/event, objective; label/descriptive, inferential, etc.), undefined terms, the semantic environment, the matural order of abstracting, etc. o I've been archiving nearly all of the posts, and some have been worth setting aside (eventually to be put in an official archive). Here's a brief list of the ones I think are of the greatest general interest: 1. GS FAQ, version 1.0 (included below) 2. Three "basics" posts: on dating, indexing, & the etc.; semantic reactions; and over/under defined terms (all included in FAQ). 3. Three "position papers" by Earl Hautala as an introduction to g.s. 4. Brief explanation of g.s. from the Encyclopedia Brittanica (EB) 5. Brief EB articles on Korzybski, S.I. Hayakawa, and C.S. Peirce 6. Fairly extensive bibliographic listing of g.s. and related works o and, of course, "etc." ;-) ======================================================================== General Semantics FAQ version 1.0 ------======ooooOoooo======------ compiled by John McPherson, last update: 26 Aug 94 Listing of questions: 1. "Can you give me a brief description of general semantics?" 2. "Why do you abbreviate 'General Semantics' as 'g.s.'?" 3. "What might be a good course of study in g.s.?" 4. "Can you recommend some additional readings in hardcore g.s.?" 5. "How about softcore g.s., books that either use g.s. or refer to it obliquely, or related books that might interest someone interested in g.s.?" 6. "Are there any organizations dedicated to g.s.?" 7. "Some of the g.s. literature seems strangely marked up with numbers and dates, and I think the word 'etc.' is used an awful lot. Can you explain this?" 8. "I've never really understood what Korzybski meant by 'multiordinal' and 'over -----defined term'. What are they supposed to mean?" under 9. "What does the abbreviation 's.r' mean?" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. "Can you give me a brief description of general semantics?" Sure, here's six: Eric S. Raymond wrote: General Semantics studies the ways in which the neurological, cultural, and personal representations we use constrain perception and inference. It develops quasi-therapeutic disciplines designed to increase our "consciousness of abstracting", our awareness of what we throw away each time we use, accept, or communicate a representation. In doing so, it dramatically increases our effectiveness at reasoning correctly and communicating clearly; it also makes us far more aware of and resistant to semantic manipulation. Emory Menefee wrote: The study of general semantics sharpens our awareness that sensory information is only an approximation, or abstraction, of what we usually call the real world. To communicate, we use language and symbols to represent results of the abstracting process, with the necessary consequence that others may react to and apply their collection of abstractions quite differently than we do. By constant consciousness of how we use and interpret such approximations of reality, we may (accepting anecdotal evidence) expect to gain better control of our voluntary actions, a surprisingly satisfying and even valuable achievement. Ron Hale-Evans wrote: "[...] General Semantics [is] the field of study pioneered by Count Alfred Korzybski, and, among others, U.S. Senator S.I. Hayakawa. General Semantics studies how our language distorts and influences our thought. [On the g.s. discussion list] topics have ranged from E-Prime (English without the verb "to be") to even more radical extensions and alterations of language, to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, to Korzybski's theories of time-binding, and how GS relates to Zen Buddhism." (A suggestion was made to de-capitalize "GS", and to drop the hereditary title "Count" (a legal claim which disappeared when Korzybski received U.S. citizenship).) Richard Plourde wrote: General semantics (GS) is the study of how our internal conceptual models of the world are necessarily inaccurate and incomplete. Rather than despairing of the inherent incompleteness of our awareness, GS operates to develop 'tools' that reduce our level of confusion, and improve our abilities to effectively function in our environment. GS borrows much from the highly successful 'scientific method' in developing those tools." (A suggestion was made to substitute "disciplines" for "`tools'".) Safier revised Richard's description with E-Prime: GS investigates the ways in which our conceptual models of the world may differ from more accurate and complete ones based on tools that reduce our level of confusion and improve our abilities to function effectively. These 'tools' use the highly successful scientific method. (A suggestion was made to strike the last sentence.) Earl Hautala wrote: General semantics refers to an interdisciplinary study of personal neural representations as related to perception, inference and communication. General semantics refers to methods and processes of continuously reorienting oneself with respect to both physical and verbal environments, simultaneously. [...and he also offered this paragraph:] General semanticists accept, as a foundation, the current scientific paradigm. They employ symbolism to make inferences, evaluations and predictions, consistent with that foundation. General semanticists train themselves to respond to symbolism as symbolic and therefore not necessarily correspondent with any facet of the material world. (An objection was made that this description mistakenly incorporates "naive- positivist metaphysical assumptions prior to GS", and that "GS does not need them and is burdened with them only for historical reasons".) 2. "Why do you abbreviate 'General Semantics' as 'g.s.'?" Earl Hautala wrote: The capitalization of "General Semantics" suggests a propietary and singular enterprise. That suggestion fails to describe the present and (for my part) the proposed future of general semantics. Although the copyright for Science and Sanity still has legal standing, the lowercase "general semantics" as the name for studies about the implications of non-Aristotlian epistemology, does not. >From what I read, general semantics refers to a discipline like physics, chemistry and mathematics, none of them capitalized. Like these disciplines, general semantics can contain any number of areas of specialized study, just as plate tectonics relates to physics. In keeping with this analysis, I suggest that general semantics (and its abbreviation g.s.) appear in lowercase to convey the idea that general semantics refers to a non-propietary, interdisciplinary subject area. 3. "What might be a good course of study in g.s.?" A. Read a good introductory-level book: a. Language in Thought and Action, by S.I. Hayakawa (ISBN: 0-15-648240-1) b. People in Quandaries, by Wendell Johnson (ISBN: 0-918970-27-X) c. Language Habits in Human Affairs, by Irving J. Lee d. The Art of Awareness, by Joseph Samuel Bois e. The Tyranny of Words, by Stuart Chase f. Levels of Knowing and Existence, by Harry L. Weinberg (ISBN: 0-910780-00-5) g. Drive Yourself Sane!, by the Kodish's (Most of the books listed in #3A,C and #4 below are available from ISGS or IGS. See addresses in #6) B. Explore the formulations and their application with others: a. discussion on the g.s. mailing list b. take a course in "Critical Thinking" c. attend one of the annual General Semantics conferences d. attend one of the IGS annual Seminar-Workshops C. Read Science and Sanity, by Alfred Korzybski (ISBN: 0-937298-01-8) 4. "Can you recommend some additional readings in hardcore g.s.?" A. Timebinding: The General Theory, by Alfred Korzybski B. General Semantics Seminar 1937, by Alfred Korzybski C. General Semantics: An Outline Survey, by Kenneth G. Johnson D. Manhood of Humanity, by Alfred Korzybski E. Periodicals put out by IGS and ISGS. (addresses below in #6) 5. "How about softcore g.s., books that either use g.s. or refer to it obliquely, or related books that might interest someone interested in g.s.?" A. D. David Bourland, Jr.: a. To Be or Not: the E-prime anthology, b. More E-Prime: To Be or Not II B. Anatol Rapoport: a. Science and the Goals of Man: a study in semantic orientation (foreword by S. I. Hayakawa) b. Operational Philosophy: integrating knowledge and action C. Ken Keyes: Taming Your Mind D. Robert Anton Wilson: Quantum Psychology (written in E-prime) E. A.E. van Vogt (science fiction): a. The World of Null-A (SBN 425-03322-8, or ISBN 0-425-05454-3) (Publisher, paperback, Berkley) prev. title: "World of A" b. The Players of Null-A (SBN (NOT ISBN) 425-03368-6) (Publisher, paperback, Berkley) prev. title: "Pawns of Null-A" c. Null-A Three (ISBN 0-88677-056-4) (1985, Daw Collectors Book #634) F. Neil Postman: a. Crazy talk, stupid talk: how we defeat ourselves by the way we talk and what to do about it b. Teaching as a Subversive Activity c. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business G. Gina Cerminara: Insights for the Age of Aquarius (author applies g.s. rigorously in a New Age context) H. George Lakoff: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things I. Gregory Bateson: a. Mind and nature: a necessary unity b. Steps to an ecology of mind (A fuller bibliography of all g.s.-related books is available from the WWW g.s. home page or John McPherson ) 6. "Are there any organizations dedicated to g.s.?" There are at least two major organizations: A. IGS (Institute of General Semantics) 163 Engle Street, #4B Englewood, NJ 07631 (201) 568-0551 * publishes an annual journal, "General Semantics Bulletin" * conducts annual seminar-workshops on GS. * has catalog of publications, cassettes, films, etc. B. ISGS (International Society for General Semantics) Box 728 Concord, CA 94522 (510) 798-0311 Email: Paul Johnston (Executive Director) Earl Hautala (President) Emory Menefee (Secretary) * publishes "Etc.: A Review of General Semantics", quarterly * has extensive catalog of publications, cassettes, films, etc. * subscribing membership $30 / year 7. "Some of the g.s. literature seems strangely marked up with numbers and dates, and I think the word 'etc.' is used an awful lot. Can you explain this?" John McPherson wrote: Subject: Dating, Indexing, & "Etc.": Here is a simple introduction to perhaps the 3 most important extensional tools of GS: dating, indexing, and the "etc." Apparently, Korzybski used to say that if one could learn to use these 3 in all situations, and to have the habit sink down to the level of feeling and intuition, one could forget about the rest of GS and still have the most important part of the system. 1. Dating -- reality, at least at the molecular level, is always changing, and one way to represent this is through dating one's statements/words/etc. For instance, since I am not the same as I was 20 years ago, John(1994) is not John(1974). Also, my truck(1994) is not my truck(1991), I can assure you! I could at least start up and drive my truck(1991), but not my truck(1994). One can also apply dating to "concepts", fields of knowledge, etc., such as science (1994) is quite different from science (1894). 2. Indexing -- reality, at least when considered at the microscopic and molecular levels, consists of inter-related "events" occuring in space-time, no two of which are "identical". The proposed GS way to highlight this is to borrow from mathematics the idea of indexing variables. For instance, person1 is not person2, car1 is not car2 (or car3 or car4, etc.), observation1 is not observation2, idea1 is not idea2, etc. Although various "objects" can be said to be of the "same type", they aren't identical and we sometimes make errors when we try to treat them as if they were "the same" instead of treating them as the unique individuals they are. I think this becomes especially useful when considering words and concepts. For instance, Moral1 (adherence to "American Tradition" and Christianity) is not Moral2 (supportive of a "humane" welfare state) is not Moral3 (consistent with individual liberty and self-responsibility), etc. We often see people throwing words around as if they meant the same thing, but we know from painful experience that they do not. When reading, I often put index marks on words when I suspect they are being used to refer to or mean different things. It helps me to keep them clear. 3. Etc. -- reality, especially on the molecular level, is far more complex, and our knowledge far too limited, to be able to say everything about any particular event/object/etc. One way to indicate that is to add "etc." to our statements, and especially to our thoughts on the matter; there is always more that can be said or noticed or inferred, etc. For instance, as I sit here writing, I'm feeling a little hungry, and I hear the air conditioning going on, and I hear the fan of the computer and the sound of the keyboard keys as I type, and I notice the reflection of the books in the metal mouse-pad, and I scratch an itch, then suddenly remember the myriad physiological processes going on in my body right now ... and in the people and plants around me, reminding me of the ongoing processes of evolution, and the billions of interacting molecules composing all of these things, ...etc.!! This is just a trivial example, but you'll find that an "etc." can almost always be applied. The main point about using these devices is to facilitate your awareness that events are infinitely complex, changing all the time (though perhaps in very subtle, imperceptible ways), and that no two are absolutely identical. This awareness should help you produce maps (verbal theories, visual thoughts, etc.) that better fit the territory, and to make better decisions and act more in accord with reality as it actually is ... and often it can help you decipher the writings of other people and to help you figure out what they're trying to say! 8. "I've never really understood what Korzybski meant by 'multiordinal' and 'over -----defined term'. What are they supposed to mean?" under John McPherson wrote: I'll handle "over/under-defined terms" and will leave "multiordinal terms" for someone else (perhaps 'me' at some later time :-). According to Korzybski [1], most of the terms we deal with "in science and life" can be considered as "over/under-defined terms". Indeed, K said there's no shortage of examples as "practically the whole dictionary could be quoted". As I understand it, terms can be seen as "over-defined" from a primarily intensional viewpoint, and can be seen as "hopelessly under-defined" from an extensional viewpoint. It basically seems to be a matter of "linguistic attitude". From an intensional orientation, one tends to "define" terms in terms of other terms :-), that is, to define words verbally (and to define the terms used in _that_ definition by still _more_ terms, ad infinitum). In this way, an intensional "definition" refers to words which in turn refer to still more words, etc., and one can see how such a multi-layered verbose "definition" can be thought of as being "over-defined". On the other hand, from a primarily extensional orientation, one tends to "define" terms by pointing to examples. For instance, to extensionally define the word "gazelle", if you were physically present here with me I could take you to the San Diego Zoo or Wild Animal Park and point at several (at least I _think_ they have gazelles ... alternatively we could travel to Africa to see some). Still you may not be satisfied, perhaps there are no old or baby gazelles to be seen, so we have to go look for them too. Okay, but we've just seen their outside forms ... what 'are' they inside? So we dissect one that has died, and you see what at least one looks like inside. But what about living ones? How does their physiology work? What about their 'social' behaviors? How do their embryos develop? What kind of population dynamics emerge from their interacting with their environment (food supply, predators, climate patterns, etc.)? On and on the questions go, all of which can be examined extensionally, but for practical purposes this investigation is endless; I'll never be able to show you "all" about gazelles! In this sense, extensional definitions are bound to be hopelessly "_under_defined". (Note: a shortcut which I've taken here is to use an "operational" example instead of an extensional one ... I've described various actions that can be taken _in order to_ investigate the matter extensionally.) One way to perhaps make the matter a little clearer is to say that "definition"1 is not "definition"2: an intensional definition is fundamentally different from an extensional definition, so, most terms can be considered as both over-defined1 and under-defined2. (Note: K apparently discussed "over/under-defined terms" more fully in two papers [2,3].) FWIW, "over/under definedness" can be considered as one of the 'characteristics' of most of our terms. Another characteristic of many of them is their "multiordinality", which someone will hopefully feel inspired to explain. :-) [1] _Science and Sanity_, by Alfred Korzybski, 4th ed., pp. lii - lvii (section G. of the introduction to the 2nd ed. (1941)) [2] "Over/Under defined Terms", 1939. [3] "General Semantics, Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Prevention", 1940. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Richard Plourde wrote: here is my first 'stab' at multiordinality. List of some multiordinal terms: love, hate, fear, fault, notion, true, yes, no, fact, difference, reality, abstract, evaluate, question, enjoy, etc. Different levels of abstraction without multiordinality: intensional food ^ fruit | apple | this apple (pointing) extensional Different 'orders' of abstraction: I enjoy my enjoyment of apples used in evaluation of: I enjoy experiencing the flavor of apples used in evaluation of: 'Enjoy' is a multiordinal term; it has 'similar' meanings at each order of abstraction (positive evaluation, pleasure) but the 'meaning' itself is dependent upon which orders of abstraction are being 'connected.' An intentionally (and intensionally) unhappy person, on the other hand might: I enjoy depriving myself of pleasure I despise the pleasure I get from apples I enjoy experiencing the flavor of apples With no awareness of orders of abstraction, the unhappy person might be called 'ambivalent;' each 'enjoy' term would seem to be at the same order of abstraction; the person would seem to both enjoy and not-enjoy apples. But unwrap the orders of abstraction, and the self-contradictory ambivalence disappears. (Hint: an awareness of multiordinality destroys many Aristotelian paradoxes.) An awareness of multiordinality can thus defuse the confusion of apparent ambivalence. But awareness gives us still more power. Three premises -- offered without proof. 1: Our actions are predominantly 'controlled' by the lower orders of abstraction. Our unhappy example is likely to eat an apple, and then despise himself for eating it. 2: Higher order abstractions gradually 'affect' lower order abstractions -- eventually, our unhappy example may stop enjoying eating apples. 3: We have the ability to add higher orders of abstraction 'on top' of existing orders of abstraction. Example: Unhappy person with additional order of abstraction: I do not enjoy my enjoyment of depriving myself of pleasure. I enjoy depriving myself of pleasure. I despise the pleasure I get from apples. I no longer enjoy apples. no Person, perhaps no longer unhappy, at a later time: I do not enjoy my enjoyment of depriving myself of pleasure. I do not enjoy depriving myself of pleasure. I enjoy the pleasure I get from apples. I enjoy apples. 9. "What does the abbreviation 's.r' mean?" Earl Hautala wrote: s.r (abbreviated just that way with no period after the r) refers to a "semantic reaction." From my reading I believe that K intended s.r to encompass every possible effect any quantity of symbolic input has a a person's neural system. [Many parts of g.s. will confuse people who haven't become somewhat familiar with K's terminology, another weak point in attempting to disseminate it to a general audience.] People may react strongly to single words, phrases, propositions, or dissertations. He uses a strange example of a person (allergic to roses) who carries on a normal conversation with K until K moves a folder so the person can see a rose on his desk. The rose consists of dyed, starched, silk. The person, seeing the "rose" suddenly begins sneezing, coughing and diplaying the symptoms of an allergic reaction to a potent allergen. K calls this a "semantic reaction" because no chemical allergen has impinged on the person. PNR's (personal neural representations) can have varied and perhaps pathological effects. Some people "shudder" when they hear the word "lawyer." Lawyers on the other hand may become quite incensed upon hearing the phrase "lawyer joke." And so it goes. --Earl ------======ooooOoooo======------ -- John McPherson general-semantics email list host * Send posts to gs-L@worldtrans.org * To (un)subscribe, send email to majordomo@worldtrans.org with the appropriate line (below) in the body (not subject) of the message: subscribe gs-L-Digest [optional: your email address] subscribe gs-L [optional: your email address] unsubscribe gs-L-Digest [optional: your email address] unsubscribe gs-L [optional: your email address] * selected web archive: http://genius.ucsd.edu/~john/p/gs_dir/ "general-semantics ... an idea whose time was bound (to come ;-)."