Institute of General Semantics

With "A Simple Definition of General Semantics" (ETC v65n4, October 2008), Ben Hauck has provoked this post, which I hope will grow into one or several threads.
Hauck writes: "Long overdue is a simple definition of the term general semantics that people can relate to instantly upon hearing." Hauck understands the aspirations of Korzybski and appreciators of Korzybski to see general semantics regarded as science. In support of those aspirations, he proposes that GS'ers sharply distinguish "general semantics" from "applied general semantics" -- "general semantics" to name a study and "applied general semantics" to name the products and behaviors derived from that study. In Hauck's words, "What makes a science truly a science like physics, chemistry, etc., is the employment of scientific method" in its furtherance. He observes that most of what passes as "general semantics" in our current use of that label "is editorial rather than scientific." He says, "General semantics as a practice or a discipline historically conjures up images of prescriptions or recommendations of behavior.... When someone makes a prescription in light of scientific knowledge, he is doing applied science; he is not doing (pure) science." (All emphasis above in Hauck's original.) There's lots more in the article, e.g. Hauck's qualified conclusion that GS came into existence "primarily to solve problems with time-binding."
Please read the article. How should IGS react to the challenges it lays down? How do members of the Forum react?

"A Simple Definition of General Semantics" (ETC v65n4, October 2008) is viewable in a scan-to-.pdf at: www.benhauck.com/content/essays/a_simple_definition_of_general_semantics_by_ben_hauck.pdf
Those who don't have the magazine -- please read the article there. Thank you.

I've been looking into the work of Gaston Bachelard, one of the people who accepted Korzybski's invitation in 1939-1940 to become an "Honorary Trustee" of the Institute of General Semantics. Here's a quote from his 1940 book The Philosophy of No the English translation of which, by Korzybski's student G.C. Waterston, came out in 1969. Somehow this quote seems appropriate to me here, as we discuss definitions and attempts to clarify and explain Korzybski's work to others:"As far as theoretical knowledge of reality is concerned (a knowledge that is to say, which exceeds the bounds of simple description, leaving arithmetic and geometry aside) everything which is easy to teach is inaccurate." (p. 20)

The following represents some of my abstractions-response to Ben’s article.

I applaud my good friend Ben’s concern to make general semantics more inviting and attractive. At the same time I have some concerns with ‘defining to make easy’. Coming up with definitions works well in helping one integrate their ideas of what general semantics is about. I am concerned that unlike at seminars and workshops where misunderstandings will emerge and can be addressed, in print, definitions might be too easy for individuals to build on what they hear and read without too much questioning as to degree of accuracy. One example: “time-binding” which many still interpret as simply “passing on information form generation to generation”. And another: I haven’t heard mention in general semantics gatherings (over thirty years) “the sanity of the human race”, anymore. Early on in my engagement with general semantics I formulated quite a few definitions for myself. Now instead of defining general semantics, and responding to the question “What is general semantics?”, I translate the question to “What is general semantics about”, and respond from that perspective. Korzybski recognized a difficulty in ‘marketing’ general semantics. On page 489 in Science And Sanity he wrote. “It is easy to demonstrate empirically to the majority of us the usefulness or pleasurableness of automobiles and radios, but it is very difficult to demonstrate the benefits of consciousness of abstracting to those who have not acquired it.”

Some elaborations.
Science And Sanity: An Introduction to Non-aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, first published in October , 1933, was intended as a textbook showing how in modern scientific methods we can find factors of sanity to be tested empirically.” Science And Sanity, 5th. Edition, page xxxvii.

From my interpretation of the above and other readings, General Semantics was formulated as “a Theory of Sanity”, a “Theory of Evaluation” among other theories. The theories include predictions, and guides to conduct the experiments to negate or corroborate the theories. Anyone who cares to do so can check out the usefulness of general semantics theories by applying the methods-guides (doing the experiments by diligently applying the principles) and observing the results. As theories and method (principle-tools, devices, etc.) that we can use to understand our human behaviors and diverse interrelationships, etc., I consider general semantics “a set of theories which if explored, and the suggested methods applied to significant depths, would settle the debate as to whether general semantics constitutes a science or not”. (I think the system could be considered more as”meta-science” since we can use its method to study and improve the exercise we label “science”.

In exploring Ben’s article, let's keep in mind "over/under defined terms", “non-identity”, “asymmetric relationship” and others. General Semantics involves more than, and is not what we say it is, or define it to be. General semantics involves more than “study”. (Please note: I am not suggesting that Ben was not aware of, or was not applying these or other principles.)

With regards to making a distinction between “study” ands “application”: Let's not forget non-elementalism: "He who learns and learns and yet does not what he knows, is (“like” (my inclusion)) one who plows and plows yet never sows'". In this modern non-aristotelian system we have not only to 'know' elementary facts of modern science, including neuro-semantic researches, but also to apply them.” Science And Sanity, Fifth Edition, Page lviii. And inside front cover Science And Sanity.

“…..experience shows that when the methods of general semantics are applied, the results are usually beneficial ….If they are not applied, but merely talked about, no results can be expected.” (See inside front cover Science And Sanity).

The system “General Semantics” was formulated, among other things, as a discipline with the tools to help us do general semantic. And as general semantics involves “a theory of evaluation”; and as some evaluation is involved in anything we do : I suggest that although seemingly paradoxical, one arrives at better and better understanding of general semantics through applying general semantic principles to what one reads about general semantics--including the text book “Science And Sanity”.

To get maximum benefits, we not only need to read, study, and discuss the formulations—the books “Science And Sanity”, “Manhood of Humanity” and others, we need to read, study, discuss, and do (behave according to what we understand at a time).. General Semantics for me is not the words we read. From my understanding: The method of general semantics, and the application of general semantics constitute the system “general semantics”. I suggest we probably would be engaged in “elementalistic behavior” to make the application of general semantics principles distinct from the discipline labelled “general semantics”. The tools (method, principles, devises, etc.) we need to help us do general semantic constitute an integral part of the system discipline “general semantics”. I would say we do not do general semantics if we only read and study. Without applications, I propose there is no general semantics—just as reading books on physics is not physics or doing physics.

The science we call “physics” involves a study of matter, energy, and their interactions. In their studies ‘physicists’ often make their own tools, devise their own experiments or follow the experiments devised by others. ‘Physicists’ do experiments to gather information from which to formulate, test theories, refine theories, and make predictions. They do not usually do experiments to become better ‘physicists’. And one can qualify as a ‘physicists’ without applying any of the knowledge and findings gained from the study of matter, energy and their interactions. Student-practitioners of general semantics in doing the ‘experiments’ (applying principles) to refine their evaluations, improve themselves as experimenters, evaluators, and human beings. “General Semantics” as ‘generalized science and mathematics’ includes and specifies experiments (principles to apply) we can do to improve our understanding and corroborate or disconfirm general semantics theory of time-binding, theory of sanity, theory of evaluation, and others. I propose this: When we apply general semantics principles in our daily living, including “non-identity”, “non-allness”, “consciousness of abstracting” and others; when we adopt an experimental-heuristic approach in applying these methods (which already include an experimental approach), we are in effect testing the theories mentioned above; we are involved in the employment of scientific method. And in making refinement adjustments to further improving our evaluating and behavioral theories), we are in effect practicing science.

Regarding “Time-binding”: “In the present volume I undertake the investigation of the mechanism of time-binding”…..”The result of this enquiry turned out to be a non-aristotelian system, the first to be formulated….” Science And Sanity, page, 7

“The formulation of General Semantics, resulting from a General Theory of Time-binding, supplies the scientists and the layman with a general method of orientation, which eliminates the older psycho-logical blockages and reveals the, page mechanism of adjustment;” Science And Sanity, page 8

“The experimental development of science and civilization invariably involves more and more refined discriminations. Each refinement means the elimination of some identifications somewhere, but many still remain in a partial and mostly unconscious form.” Science And sanity, Page xcvii

I expand on “time-binding” in articles “On Time-binding Consciousness” ETC: July 2005, and “Practicing Conscious Time-binding” at <miltondawes.com>

As humans, we have natural time-binding abilities. As individuals we naturally, to varying degrees, improve (time-bind) what we do. We are not usually aware of our time-binding behaviors as time-binding behaviors. When we apply general semantics principles to what we think-feel, say, believe, imagine, do, etc. we are doing time-binding: We are improving on our natural tendency to “identify words with what we use them to represent”, “maps with territories they are maps of”, etc. Korzybski in formulating his “Theory of Time-binding” (General Semantics) endeavoured to bring to our awareness this natural talent to think better, evaluate better, and do better, etc. (By better I ‘mean’ more effectively, more efficiently, more appropriately, etc.)

When we apply general semantics methods (non-identity, non-allness, non-elementalism, etc.,) and we are aware of so doing, we are involved in “conscious time-binding”. In practicing conscious time-binding, we move towards “time-binding ethics”; we develop “time-binding intelligence, and “time-binding excellence”. Manhood of Humanity, pages, 92, 194, xliii.

To summarizes: I presently think of general semantics as a “time-binding guide” (among other variables), to help us improve our understanding in general, towards solving problems (among other things) resulting from our usual way of evaluating--making sense of things, giving meanings to, etc.. I see it as a guide to help us solve problems involving our natural tendency to “identify words, beliefs, explanations, theories, opinions, etc. (our verbal and imaginative maps), with territories that are not those maps”. I do not see general semantics as a “study of reaction to language”. Korzybski did that study: General Semantics is (of existence) the time-binding theory he formulated based on his observations, research, and study. As a great deal of our identification involves our use of words, I recommend installing general semantics principles as a modifier of our thinking-feeling as one of the best ways to practice and get a feel of the power of the discipline for helping us in any our diverse interactions—including our reactions to words. From my readings and present understanding: I do not think “general semantics came into existence primarily to solve problems with time-binding”. General Semantics offers us ways to continuously refine our ‘observations’ and evaluations towards improving time-binding intelligence. I do not make a distinction between the formulation (words related to general semantics) and the practice encouraged through the words. I see General Semantics as generalized science and mathematics (page 755), and as a time-binding tool, providing us with a method we can use to do more time-binding more consciously, improve our general method of orientation towards becoming better time-binders, towards time-binding excellence, fewer instances of “sameness”; and higher levels of saneness--human excellence.

Ben's article has 'stimulated' a very good result already—your discussion here, Milton.

I have unstickied this thread for now. Should the conversation renew, I would happily sticky it again.

Ben
Moderator

Re definitions of general semantics, here's a little segment from a blogpost I just saw:
A Very Pernicious Blog (formerly Blog My Ride): Stuff For Me - You ...
By Sir Blogalot - Earl of Blogland
from Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics, which is a system for looking at the semantic reactions of the whole human organism in its environment to some event, symbolic or otherwise. In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is ...
A Very Pernicious Blog (formerly...blog-my-ride.blogspot.com/2009/02/stuff-for-me-you-can-ignore-it.html

The writer, who doesn't seem to consider himself a 'general semanticist', didn't seem to have any trouble with understanding that general semantics is not limited to studying human reactions to symbols and language. Some of us have been harping on that point for decades and it seems that it has had some effect on a broader public.

Sir Blogalot correctly points out that a semantic reaction does not consist solely of a reaction to language and symbols but to any event, verbal or non-verbal. He doesn't make the point that 'semantic reaction' in the korzybskian sense in itself consists of non-verbal processes too, i.e., does not consist of words and symbols.

With all respect to my dear friend Ben, who made a number of good points in his article, I'm not going to accept a overly-limited, language-oriented, definition of GS now.

F.Y.I--
J. Samuel Bois' 1953 translation of Section VI of Chapter V of Gaston Bachelard's La Philosophie du Non, published in 1940, by Presses Universitaires de France. This appeared in General Semantics Bulletin 12 & 13
www.generalsemantics.org/gsb/articles/gsb12-bachelard.pdf

In my estimation, a definite must read for GS student-practitioners who want to get more in the know.

Are two threads emerging here?
(1) Dawes resists the proposal in Hauck's article to distinguish between GS and "applied GS."
(2) Kodish rejects the specific definition of GS that the article proposes. ("I'm not going to accept an overly-limited, language-oriented, definition of GS now.")

Hi all,

Phil, thank you for your interest in starting this thread and discussion. I want to comment briefly on some of the reactions so far, in no particular order, just what comes to mind right now.

I believe probably the most contentious position I hold in my essay comes in seeing general semantics as the study of reactions to language and not (so much) reactions to events. In other words, I define the term "semantic reaction" as "a reaction to language" or "a reaction to words" rather than the more popularly-held and (I believe) textually supported "reaction to words AND EVENTS in connection with their meanings."

I make this distinction about words and events in my head for a number of reasons. I don't think I really touch on why I separate out reactions to events in my essay; I merely give an explanation of the word "semantics" in the name "general semantics." Cognitively speaking, semantics has something to do with language and linguistics. Cognitively speaking, semantics does not have to do with phenomena and the like. At least not in my head. So partially for that reason, I keep general semantics to dealing with reactions to language and not more generally reactions to other things like events.

So how do I personally treat reactions to other things like events? I treat that as applied general semantics. Let me see if I can explain simply, which I think I can: In general semantics, we study how people react to words. From that study, we gain knowledge. Now, as I see it, AK takes that knowledge and applies it to how we react to events. Thus, when we talk about reactions to events, we find ourselves in the realm of applying our knowledge gained from studying our reactions to words. We find ourselves doing applied general semantics.

I don't know that I totally agree with that position, but I see things a little bit like that. Possibly as a way to reconcile event reactions, we might say that the study of reactions to words implies in some situations reactions to events, specifically in times when we don't converse with someone else, hearing another's language. In these times when our stimulus comes not from another's speech or writing but from "the territory," we formulate words in our heads in reacting to these events. So we see start to see in general semantics the connection between event and self-generated word, and self-generated word and reaction to that word.

As for Bruce's quotation of Bachelard ...
"As far as theoretical knowledge of reality is concerned (a knowledge that is to say, which exceeds the bounds of simple description, leaving arithmetic and geometry aside) everything which is easy to teach is inaccurate."... I think Bruce means to suggest that my essay amounts to an oversimplification of general semantics, and insofar as it makes general semantics easy to teach, it makes the teaching inaccurate. Your comment made me wonder, then, about a subject easy to teach. If I taught an easy-to-teach subject, would I teach it inaccurately?

More to the point, with the essay, I express concerns in marketing GS and aligning it with science. So I have clear and explicated agendas. I hinge a lot of the essay on giving a quick answer to the question "What is general semantics?" Rather than admitting to a complete description of general semantics, I offer a definition. This definition aims to give people who ask the question 1) an answer 2) to move conversation forward 3) so the hearer has some understanding of general semantics 4) without confusion 5) such that a schoolchild could understand the endeavor. Furthermore, this definition aims to make general semantics more marketable. In my opinion, many of the descriptions and definitions of general semantics make it impenetrable by the general public. If we find it hard to teach, does that make the teaching accurate? I think not. I think we invite potential inaccuracies and misrepresentations if we find it hard to teach. Simplifying the teaching in the beginning may limit these inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Heck if I know without trying, though!

Think of the definition like an "in" to the subject. I could give you some elaborate, hyphen-laden description of general semantics. I could give you some multi-sentence answer that sounds so foreign as an endeavor that the speaker feels mystified by GS. And as a result, I potentially shut "out" people rather than give them an effective "in." Neither of these approaches (I don't mean a neither-nor here) serve GS, in my opinion. Having a simple, recognizable answer on the ready helps.

Furthermore, do the definitions of other sciences I provide misrepresent the sciences? Do they make it easier to decide whether one has an interest in the field? Do they simplify the field to a level of grossly offensive representation? I don't think so. They define the fields as studies, and they list what the students/scientists study.

In the essay, I seem to think that not only does the definition help, but it also puts so many of the ideas presented in S&S and other related GS works into a kind of order. In other words, the definition has a sort of logic to it, with implications. I think most of you would agree that GS has a messy presentation. (Feel free to disagree there.) We don't know how many of the ideas relate to each other. I feel as if this definition serves to bring many of the ideas together in a way that makes almost complete sense. And it makes GS easier to teach. Does having GS hard to teach help GS? No, because we have (more?) potential for inaccuracies. Make it easy to teach, and I think that aids the endeavor of popularizing the field and its insights with less potential for inaccuracies. (When it comes down to it, we have more of a concern with teaching accurately than teaching simply.)

As for Milton's post: Milton, thank you for your extensive reply. I explained in an email I took a little issue with shifting the question from "What is general semantics?" to "What is general semantics about?," mostly because it leaves the question "What is general semantics?" unanswered for the asker, but also because the answer to the question "What is general semantics about?" more than likely (in my opinion) will lead to a complicated, unfocused answer. (I provide in one of the early notes in the essay a distinction between a definition and a description which might shed some light on the possible fallout of answering the shifted question.)

I have had issues for a long time now with seeing general semantics as "a theory of" anything. My issue comes from confusion about what Korzybski means when he uses the word "theory" in this context. In the context of GS, "theory" seems to refer to something along the lines of "a validated hypothesis with much support"--the scientific sense of the term. By extension, hearing "a theory of evaluation," it makes me think there must exist some kind of hypothesis about evaluation that has had validation and much support.

I later learned a more pedagogical use of the term: "Theory" could mean just a teaching. You might consider "the theory of time-binding" as the teaching that man exists as a time-binder, a class different from animals and plants. But in terms of general semantics, that use of the word didn't seem to fit. I really didn't know what the phrase "a theory of values" meant--and I couldn't find a satisfying, clear answer. (I can't recall if I've ever really seen "a theory of evaluation" before.) Ultimately, I don't find "theory" a very helpful, clear word to use to market or teach GS.

Ultimately, Milton, I see that you disagree with what I say, but I don't really know why you disagree. I wonder if you could comment more on some of the specific points in my essay (if it interests you to do so) so that I understand better your disagreement. We both have the interest in teaching general semantics and increasing its exposure. A definition of the sort I write about serves as a tool to aid that interest. I don't think necessarily we have the ultimate definition of general semantics, but for now, for me, it serves that. In other words, I have an answer to the question "What is general semantics?" that can start a conversation about it.

I imagine I have more to write. I hope to check back in soon. It flatters me to see response and the desire to discuss. I'm going to be on a TV set the next couple days so I won't have the ability to provide extensive replies until maybe Saturday or so.

Ben!