General Semantics Discussion Forums
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
Updating Korzybski (a bit of ranting opinion) Forum is locked
(1 viewing) 1 Guest
Go to bottom
TOPIC: Updating Korzybski (a bit of ranting opinion)
#1212
five_hundred
Posts: 11
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Re:Updating Korzybski (a bit of ranting opinion) 2 Months ago  
I agree with Ben that in context this work is most interesting. Actually, in the intro to MoH, I was tickled by his description of advancement of science versus advancement of human organization, seeing as its a problem that has not changed in the past 80 years but instead seems to have gotten worse with computer technology (they actually have determined a logarithmic function that predicts the advancement of computer technology and so far has been accurate... leave it to the math geeks).

However, because it needs to be in a context, I'm wondering how much can apply today. To quote the intro:

The reading of it should be done with a view to seeing how much can be found in it of what is new and good that may be elaborated further, and put into better form. This new enterprise is too difficult and too vast for the unaided labor of one man-life is too short.

What I said originally is that I didn't see this happening very much based on the websites. It seems like people default back to his terms and ideas in their original form and not much has been done to update them. I may be mistaken in this, but from what I've seen so far, that is how it is.

Thomas,
Survival of the fittest, like I said, is rather complex and not always applicable anyway. The fit do not always survive in nature (because of catastrophe or genetic drift for example) and the supposed "unfit" often do survive. I understand Koryzbski means to say that man doesn't need to be subject to this tenet of natural selection, but if you think about people were the ones who defined it in the first place, or in other words, created it. There is this sort of inherent idea that, this concept means that some deserve to live and others to die, and that is a purely human perspective. Sure, you can say people aren't subject to it, because they made it up. It does not mean that whatever forces man observed are no longer going to apply, just his idea of what it means would change. I'm going to wait and see what he says about it, though... he's actually rather utopian in a convoluted kind of way.

By the way I accidently turned someone else on to MoH by mentioning it... spreading the joy.
 
Logged Logged
  The topic has been locked.
#1219
diogenes
Posts: 168
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Gender: Male xenodochy Theoretical foundations of GS Location: Williamstown, Massachusetts Birthday: 05/03
Re:Updating Korzybski (a bit of ranting opinion) 1 Month, 2 Weeks ago  
www.xenodochy.org/gs might supply something of interest for you...
 
Logged Logged
 
Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr.
Foundations & theory of general semantics analyzed
It's not that seeing is believing, believing is seeing,
and we're much better at believing than we are at seeing.
Santayna
  The topic has been locked.
Go to top

Support IGS

IGS would like to thank you for your continued support. We are a not-for-profit organization and your donations keep us operating.

If you would like to make a donation to IGS, please use the button below and you will be directed to our Safe & Secure website where you may pay by credit card or PayPal.

Thank you!

Contact Us

Institute of General Semantics
3000 Landers Street
Fort Worth, TX 76107
Tel: (817) 922-9950
Fax: (817) 922-9903

IGS Webmaster

Can't find something on the IGS website? Find a broken link? Send an email to the IGS webmaster.
The Institute of General Semantics is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation deriving its funding from membership donations, seminar and lecture tuitions, and private gifts. Donations are tax deductible as the law allows.