Below is an update of my proposition that general semantics can be considered "Advanced Thinking" and marketed as such. I was hoping that someone would state their disagreements (with supporting arguments) so we could do some time-binding on this proposition.

We were born communicating. We do not have to learn to communicate…But if the quality of our relationships (inner and outer) depends on the quality of our outer and inner communicating (inner talk)—We could experience more satisfying relationships through working at becoming better communicators. One way involves striving to become "advanced thinkers" by infusing our vocabularies with mathematics and general semantics terms, and using them to inform, modify, and improve the way we think-feel-talk about things. Advanced thinking is not about what, or how much one knows about anything. Advanced thinking refers "specifically to moments" of awareness, the contents of which involve a consciousness of abstracting--thinking in a general semantics (non-allness, non-identifying, non-elementalistic, heuristic, propositional, etc. way), about the ways we think about whatever we happen to be thinking about—including ourselves. In thinking a general semantics-critical-creative-time-binding (consciously seeking to improve) way about how we think, advanced thinking starts where most other thinking stops.

My latest update: Advanced thinking starts where other thinking stops. Advanced thinking is not about what, or how much one knows about anything. Advanced thinking refers specifically to moments of awareness, the contents of which involve a consciousness of abstracting--thinking in a general semantics (non-allness, non-identifying, non-elementalistic, heuristic, propositional, etc. way), about the ways we think about whatever we happen to be thinking about—including ourselves. In thinking a general semantics-critical-creative-time-binding (consciously seeking to improve) way about how we think, advanced thinking starts where our other thinking stops. Students of advanced thinking, as “self-conscious time-binders”, consciously work at increasing the frequency of their general semantics applications. (Proposing “general semantics” as foundation for “advanced thinking” is based on the following criteria from “Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary”: being beyond the elementary or introductory; greatly developed beyond initial stage; further on in time or course; being beyond others in progress or ideas; to bring or move forward; progress in development, gradual betterment, forward, or onward movement.) I would add: I am presently unable to imagine a thinking that could emerge and would go beyond the principles of non-allness and non-identity. Can you? I am anxious to 'hear'.

Milton

Latest update.

Mathematics, General Semantics, Ways to Improve Communication

We were born communicating. We do not have to learn to communicate…But if the quality of our relationships (inner and outer) depends on the quality of our outer and ‘inner communicating’ (inner ‘talk’), we could experience more satisfying relationships through working at becoming better communicators. One way involves striving to become advanced thinkers by infusing our vocabularies with mathematics and general semantics terms, and using them to inform, modify, and improve our usual ways of thinking-feeling, talking about and doing things. Advanced thinking is not about what, or how much one knows about anything. Advanced thinking refers specifically to moments of awareness, the contents of which involve a consciousness of abstracting--thinking in a general semantics (non-allness, non-identifying, non-elementalistic, heuristic, propositional, etc. way), about the ways we think about whatever we happen to be thinking about or reacting to—including ourselves. In thinking a general semantics, critical, creative, “time-binding” (consciously seeking to improve) way about how we think, advanced thinking starts where our other thinking stops. In the spirit of non-allness: Students of advanced thinking remain curious: When other thinking ‘say’ “It is so”, students of advanced thinking ask “Is it so?—If so--How so? Students of advanced thinking, as “self-conscious time-binders”, studiously work to increase the frequency of their general semantics applications. In addition to the principles of non-allness and non-identity, the proposition “advanced thinking” is based on the following criteria from “Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary”: being beyond the elementary or introductory; greatly developed beyond initial stage; further on in time or course; being beyond others in progress or ideas; to bring or move forward; progress in development, gradual betterment, forward, or onward movement? A school of thinking that claimed to have gone beyond general semantics would be supporting the general semantics principle of non-allness.

Re. General Semantics as "Advanced Thinking".
Is there no one involved with general semantics with a comment, a criticism, or anything to offer?
If the proposition of general semantics as "Advanced Thinking" seems outrageous, incredible, strange, etc., I am anxious to hear "How so"?
Has no one studied the system more comprehensively than I have, or deeply enough to counter this proposition?
Is there no one able to muster enough courage to make a comment? (Historically, 'unusual' ideas generally meets disapproval, is usually ridiculed, and so on.)
Where have all the time-binders gone?
I am not asking for agreement. I am hoping to initiate a discussion so I can discover where I am misguided in this view. I would like this proposition to be ridiculed...with supporting arguments-- naturally.

Milton,
I really like the idea of "marketing" gs. After reading your comments it seems to be quite a challenge.
The very little that I know about business reminds me the I (we) should invest in a market study before we invest more or launch our 'business.'
In my view of marketing GS the first question asked is Who is our "target" audience? Who do we want to market GS to? Would it be large corporations, small businesses, retaliers, etc. How about higher education, public schools, etc. What about the general pubic i.e. TV, radio, internet, etc.
Perhaps there are several 'target' audiences that 'gs.org' (or Milton) would like to reach. That may require a different approach and presentation to each of the chosen markets.
How would you for example market GS to a large corporation v. a piblic school?

Where HAVE all the time-binders gone?

Sincerely,
William LaShell

Here is a time binder. Though admittedly I have not been involved with GS for a long time it will forever be a useful influence in my life. Here is something to think about: it is one thing to say GS techniques may be able to help us think more advanced. But where is the practical usage of doing this? Just talking about how it might be useful just goes in circles after a while. One must lead by example. I think that GS principles DO create a saner, more intelligent organism-as-a-whole-in-its-environment than the average OAAWIIE. I'm not to keen on what the society has been up to these days, but I remember taking a seminar once and being very impressed. I hear that institute is moving from TX back to NY. Will there be plans to create a more permenant forum there with routine seminars and other "awareness projects" or other means of spreading information?

drez

Hi William,
Hi Drez,

Drez: In terms of "what's the use". First a question: How has general semantics influenced your life? You might find that if you explored this you might discover an answer.

"Advanced thinking" goes beyond our usual conditioned (but conditional) ways of thinking.

A great deal of what we do involves thinking. Except at times when we are making plans, having to decide on what and how to do, making choices, and so on, much of our 'thinking' goes on at neural-unconscious levels. Our behaviours are usually on 'automatic' most times. For improvements we have to shift from automatic to 'mindual', or mindfulness. To make conscious time-binding adjustments for improvements, we have to be aware of what we want to achieve (our goals); what, and how we are doing towards this; recognize the gap between 'where we are' and 'where we want to be'; having the tools and skills to diminish this gap; and using these skills and tools. Part of general semantics practice involves learning about and applying general semantics principles (the tools) so we can bring more of these non-conscious thinking to conscious levels--where we can do modifications and improvements.

"Advanced thinking" goes beyond our usual ways of thinking.

Re. marketing. From my experience over the years, the label (brand) "general semantics" does not 'sell' well. The name is not well known, and not much (as far as I know) is presently being done to improve this. "Thinking" is not a label that needs much explanation. General Semantics offers a "general method" that can be shown, 'taught', learned, and applied towards improvement by any individual, group, business, and any field or area of activity. From my experience: "This cannot be done effectively through words alone": Not many find it easy to convert principles (mainly words) to experience and action, in order to counteract our many years of 'thinking' our usual, familiar and more comfortable 'cewt' ways (culturally expected ways of thinking). For several years The Institute of General Semantics offered seminar workshops towards helping participants move from words to experience. This practice seems to have been abandoned for whatever reasons. You might contact the 'Institute' for more information on this.

Milton

Well, I know for myself the usefulness of GS. I've felt in the past that it should be something ingrained into our school curriculum from a very young age. This would be the most effective use of teaching GS. Not offering it as an upper level college course. Maybe some day someone or myself will be able to create a line of GS intructional books geared towards the elementary classrooms! Perhaps, once a product of such sort has been created, then the marketing will be easier!

Hi Drez,

Yes, I think that would be very effective in terms of higher levels of exposure--to a younger age where there might not be so much to unlearn. Now if you embark on that journey, be prepared for the resistance you will experience from many directions: Another problem faced by anyone courageous enough to introduce 'new ways': With regards to "thinking", what is proposed will be "judged, reacted to, and most likely dismissed" by 'thinking' based on the very ways one is proposing to improve. To illustrate, I use the analogy of a chest cold: If one has a chest cold and is offered advice, one uses ones 'mind' to evaluate, to act or not act on the advice. Now if one has a mind cold...

BTW. I had not read your introduction before I responded to your post. Welcome. I hope you continue the conversations.

Milton

I hope the IGS or another organization will offer seminar workshops once again. This, to me is an effective way or 'method' to experience what 'GS' offers. The summer seminar I attended 14 years ago was a profound experience for me. It seems to me that the very principles I was exposed to in that summer seminar could be further delineated to the various levels of education, all the way 'down' to the kindergarten level.
I have also taken a GS class at the college level. It seems to me that this class could easily be adapted to a high school 'level' class. So the question I have is how can GS be marketed to a public school? Perhaps by not using the term "General Semantics" but another label, maybe "Clear Thinking" or "Consciuos Abstracting."

Hi William,

I think "Clear Creative Thinking" or "Advanced Thinking" might work better than "Conscious Abstracting" which might be evaluated as too 'abstract'. I don't think there are many familiar with the term "abstracting"--although this relates to what's going on with us asleep or awake. Using terms that are already familiar to most might be more effective.

A more familiar term may be more effective as a lure for sure. By the time said courses are completed I'm sure that the recipients vocabulary will then encompass the Korzybskian terms "consciousness abstraction" and "infinite-valued" and "non-elementalistic" etc etc... At least I should think that to be the point And of course they will have structural differentials tattooed on their forearms so that they shall never forget!

OK, so "Advanced Thinking" or "Clear Creative Thinking" could be the name of a public High School course. How would we sell it to the school principal or the school district administration?
What would be the course description? What would be the course syllabus?

been there, done that, had a rewarding 30 year career teaching gs on a high school level--the course is still being carried on at Weymouth High School in Massachusetts

Hi Bill,

Nice hearing from you. Hope things go well with you. Did you actually name the course "Advanced Thinking"? If so, I would like to hear of some of the reactions from other teachers, and how you went about having the course accepted? I think W_LaShell would also be interested.

I have introduce the idea of "g.s. as advanced thinking" to members of the board of IGS., hoping there would be some interest shown with follow up explorations and discussions. So far, I have heard from only two members. (If you send me your address I will send the article from which the idea emerged.)

If there is anyone interested in receiving the essay proposing "General Semantics as Advanced Thinking", I will be pleased to send. This essay includes some general semantics principles and math. methods such as variable, functions, sets, calculus and others, with examples of ways to apply them to improve our communication-relationships. My E-mail address--

Milton Dawes
Ambassador-at-Large
Institute of General Semantics

Milton,

I am interested in your essay. What is your e-mail address?

Bill Doherty,

I am interested in learning more about the class you taught at Weymouth High School. What was the title of the class? Can you share the syllabus - course description? What about lesson plans.
I have a passion for teaching G.S. in the district I live in. In the current education climate here I think it would be very difficult to market to the school board and school administration.
What would you suggest?

Sincerely,
William LaShell

Hi William,

My e-mail address is
Milton Dawes
Ambassador-at-Large
Institute of General Semantics

Hi William,

I don't know how come the computer left out the e-mail address. Here is another try:

Milton

It appears that the software strips email addresses out of posts. I imagine this is to protect against the spamming of email addresses.

I'm brokering a connection to you over email. Please check your inboxes in a few minutes for an email from the IGS Webmaster with email information for you both.

IGS Webmaster

Hi William,

If you visit my web site miltondawes.com/contact/ you will be able to send me an e-mail. I will then have your address and will send you the article.

I have also written a few 'poems' which you will find on the site. I think this a good way for anyone to practice and illustrate general semantics principles. You might find examples of these illustrations in the piece "Thinking About Thinking".

I appreciate Milton soliciting disagreements with his proposal in order to generate a discussion. For discussion's sake, I have several criticisms to offer, but first I want to acknowledge the justifiable concern about appearing "elitist" or "pretentious" when putting oneself forward as an "advanced thinker." A good many people would infer from that self-description an implied comparison to themselves as "not advanced" and in need of remedial assistance. Not a good marketing strategy, in my opinion.

More importantly, though, I take issue with the concept of "Marketing" itself. It sounds transparently and deliberately neutered of several connotations expressed through its common synonym, "Selling." As my late mother used to say about religious proselytizing: "If you've got something good, you don't have to sell it. Other people will steal it from you."

In fact, "Selling" connotes a spectrum of associated meanings, like "persuading," "convincing," "proselytizing," "converting," "evangelizing," or even "manipulating" (if not "cheating"). All of these meanings in one way or another strongly imply Rhetoric, or "the art of adapting our discourse to its ends," in I. A. Richards' description. So, the question becomes: Do we really want to persuade, convince, or even manipulate others -- all for their own good, of course -- into embracing and putting into practice a form of Do-It-Yourself clinical psychology? Would we advise a lawyer to defend himself in court or a surgeon to operate on his own brain? Korzybski himself admitted some dangers: "When you touch the fundamental verbalisms around which an individual has organized his life pattern, it may be too disturbing for him to face." Some of his students, Korzybski said: "became my enemies for life." Wendell Johnson advised caution as well in his university-level GS textbook, People in Quandaries:

"Cases differ in the amount of general semantics instruction they need and the amount they can grasp and use effectively. To some individuals, general semantics must be presented slowly and in very simple terms, not only because they are lacking in intelligence or have serious semantic blockages, but also because it may prove to be more or less upsetting to them. To have certain beliefs and attitudes seriously challenged, or to become too suddenly aware of certain identifications, can be rather disturbing. ... Instruction must be adapted to the individual, not only as to kind but also amount and rate."

In summary, then, I think that the notion of broadly "marketing" or "selling" General Semantics as a self-advertised form of "advanced thinking" suffers from several inherent handicaps. The prospects get even worse when one considers the type of persons and semantic strategies most often encountered in the world of "marketing" today. Before adding anything more on this subject I advise checking out the PBS Frontline documentary, "The Persuaders," which features in-depth interviews with several contemporary marketing gurus who just can't wait to get down to the "silent level" -- yours.

(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/themes/magic.html.

Thanks for your comments Michael. You wrote: "I have several criticisms to offer, but first I want to acknowledge the justifiable concern about appearing "elitist" or "pretentious" when putting oneself forward as an "advanced thinker."

Milton. In the article related to this proposition, I proposed "general semantics as "advanced thinking""...I deliberately avoided the idea of "advanced thinkers": Anticipating comments in that area, and hoping to avoid the idea of anyone being an "advanced thinker", I deliberately and specifically used the label (at various places) "students of advanced thinking". Notwithstanding, I will propose this: In the instances of (and only in those instances) when one is "conscious of abstracting"--when one is "self-consciously applying general semantics principles", one is engaged in advanced thinking. To avoid "allnessing" (one might not restrict their idea of advanced thinking to the specific instances I mentioned, and might start to think of him or herself as an "advanced thinker" in general), I will avoid making references to, or using the label "advanced thinker".

Re. marketing. Your point is well taken. I did not feel comfortable using the term. I should have put it quotations. I was responding to earlier statements I heard where the term was used. I preferred the term "promoting" and used this elsewhere. Re. your mother's (RIP) advice: "If you've got something good, you don't have to sell it. Other people will steal it from you." I respond: In terms of "order"--They, the potential "stealers", will "first" have to hear or read about this 'good thing' or idea, before they can consider it worth stealing...Following this, one has to do something--"promoting", "marketing", "selling", etc. I am wondering: How did you find out about general semantics?

Re. "Selling" connotes a spectrum of associated meanings, like "persuading," "convincing," "proselytizing," "converting," "evangelizing," or even "manipulating" (if not "cheating")

I ask: If one wants to bring to others attention, the idea or existence of general semantics as a discipline: What term would you use, that would make it impossible for some human being to behave humanly, as you mentioned above? I would also add: In whatever is done with regards to 'sharing', 'bringing general semantics' to others attention, etc., one does not have to engage in manipulating, cheating, proselytizing, etc. I did not find Korzybski doing this in "Science And Sanity", or in Bruce's "Korzybski Biography", or in this Forum we are involved with.

Now a burning question: Forgetting "promoting", "marketing", etc., What do you think of the notion of "advanced thinking" based on the following criteria? Or this: From what you understand of, and your practice of general semantics, what kind of thinking would you consider labelling thinking that is based on the following?: In addition to the principles of non-allness and non-identity, the proposition “advanced thinking” is based on the following criteria from “Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary”: being beyond the elementary or introductory; greatly developed beyond initial stage; further on in time or course; being beyond others in progress or ideas; to bring or move forward; progress in development, gradual betterment, forward, or onward movement? (BTW. A school of thinking that claimed to have gone beyond general semantics would be supporting the general semantics principle of non-allness.)

Hello, Milton.

As I said in my self-introduction, I first became aware of general semantics through word-of mouth at an early age. I don't want to repeat that introduction here, Suffice it to say that later in life I revisited S. I. Hayakawa's updated classic "Language in Thought and Action" where I read this in the preface to his book (slight E-Prime paraphrase):

"Insight into human symbolic behavior and into human interaction through symbolic mechanisms comes from all sorts of disciplines: not only from linguistics, philosophy, psychology, and cultural anthropology but from attitude research and public opinion study, from new techniques in psychotherapy, from mathematical biology and cybernetics. How [should we bring together and synthesize] all these separate insights? ... I cannot claim to have performed [that task] here, but I have examined the problem long enough to believe that [one cannot integrate these insights] without some set of broad and informing principles such as [we find] in the general semantics of Korzybski."

So, I started from Hayakawa's Selected Bibliogbraphy and went from one book to other books (including anthologies of articles from ETC.) until I had filled several shelves of my library with material from several related fields all dealing with "human interaction through symbolic mechanisms." If you want a handy, inoffensive title for your general semantics promotion campaign, well, there you have it.

I'll return to this thread with more observations and questions of my own a little later, but first I I've got to put all these books back in their proper place.

Regards,

Mike Murry -- Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Hi Mike,

It seems to me you have done a lot of reading. If I might ask: Have you also done a lot of applying the principles of general semantics to your thinking and doing? General semantics (among other factors) offers us a set of tools we can use to improve anything we do--including ourselves. But to benefit from any tool, it has to be used. Reading manuals about the tool does not help much.

Thanks for the suggestion of a title but I already have one. I propose this: If someone finds the title "Advanced Thinking" "offensive", and stop their thinking at that conclusion, they are not 'advancing' their thinking. They could go on to ask: "How does these two words offend me?" "How could someone support this claim about general semantics. Or "What is it about general semantics that would support someone's claim that applying it's principles qualifies as "advanced thinking?"

"Thanks for the suggestion of a title but I already have one."

Good luck to you, then. I won't suggest others.

"Reading manuals about the tool does not help much."

Upon what basis do you assume that those who read extensively cannot extract lessons from their reading and apply them to daily life situations? I could say, as well, that anyone can parrot jargon, too, but I would have to give evidence of individual cases in order to support such a highly intensional claim.

Personally, I have practiced E-Prime -- or "is"-less English -- for the past thirteen years without any "manual" other than my own understanding that I would like to avoid identification and unconscious projection to the greatest extent possible. Yes, I've used the hyphens, scare-quotes, date-indexes, and subscripts, etc., but these did not force a restructuring of the most insidious language patterns that entrench themselves in our nervous systems through repetition.

As Wendell Johnson wrote (and I paraphrase): the ability to recognize characteristics of language behavior in oneself and others gives one a measure of control over them. Professor Johnson also said about the revealing quality of these language characteristics: "any statement you make about anything at all refers in some measure to yourself. It may, up to a certain point, contain information ... but it also constitutes evidence of your own inner state." Any statement we make about anything at all, therefore, also says something about what we think of others. This probably accounts for why Dr. Frank Luntz the marketing guru preaches: "It's not what you say, it's what other people hear." Hence, the due distinctions we may want to draw between implication (what we say) and inference (what other people hear). Without knowing more about the intended audience (which you still have not designated), it would seem inadvisable to comment further on this topic.

Hi Michael,

I wrote: "Have you also done a lot of applying the principles of general semantics to your thinking and doing?" I consider that a question--not an assumption.

Hi Milton.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I assiduously practice E-Prime (the most transformational general semantics technique, I think) as my principle method of reading, writing, thinking, and doing . For example:

Today, I revisited Umberto Eco's book "A Theory of Semiotics" (1976) and went to work to see what I could understand and adapt from my reading. I came upon the following passage under "Epistemological Boundaries":

“Everybody who wants to know something wants to know it in order to do something. If he claims that he wants to know it in order to “know” and not in order “to do” it means that he wants to know it in order to do nothing, which is in fact a surreptitious way of doing something, i.e., leaving the world just as it is (or as his approach assumes that it ought to be).”

I read and followed the author easily until the mental alert sounded with:

" ... which is in fact a surreptitious way of doing something, i.e., leaving the world just as it is (or as his approach assumes that it ought to be).”

OK, I thought. Three cases of "being"-about-"being" (two "is" and one "to be"). What does this verbiage say and what can I do with my understanding of it? So I tried a paraphrase converting the static nouns to active verbs with:

(1) ... which, in fact, surreptitiously does something, ...

One down, two to go. Now for the place holder "that is":

(2) ... namely: ...

OK. Two down, one to go. Then:

(3) ... leaves the world unchanged (as his approach assumes it should remain).

That takes care of the grammatical structure problems with "being," but what about the semantics, i.e., "meaning" of the sentence? In fact, the world does not remain static, as “being” implies, but changes continuously. Therefore, deliberately doing something changes the world whereas doing nothing leaves the world to change at random or at the will of others. So, another paraphrase produces -- tentatively:

(4) ... which leaves the world to change as it will (as his approach implicitly assumes that it should.)

All changes taken together, I have a revised "formulation" to remember and possibly put to use in the future:

(5) Knowing without doing in fact surreptitiously does something, namely: leaves the world to change as it will (as such an approach implicitly assumes that it should.)

I hope that the above example of E-Prime practice illustrates the way I put general semantics to use on a daily basis. I hope it adequately responds, as well, to your complete statement:

"It seems to me [that] you have done a lot of reading ... But to benefit from any tool it has to be used. Reading manuals about the tool does not help much."

You selectively responded to the " ..." ellipsis (wherein you asked your question) but not to what I inferred from your complete statement. And I would advise rephrasing to say (leaving out the contrary implications of "But"): "To benefit from any tool, one should use it where appropriate." Active voice sentence structures normally convey information more clearly than passive ones (enabled by "being") which do not designate the responsible agent.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings about my application of general semantics -- and common-sense literary -- principles.

Regards,

Mike

A pleasure to read Mike, I admire your dogged intelligence. It is encouraging to this dilettante to see G.S. used so well.

Hi Mike,

I applaud your E-prime applications and in terms of "consciousness of abstracting", "multi-meaning", "non-identity", and "non-allness", offer another interpretation. Am I correct in assuming that you go beyond E-prime, and also apply other general semantics principles?

“Everybody who wants to know something wants to know it in order to do something. If he claims that he wants to know it in order to “know” and not in order “to do” it means that he wants to know it in order to do nothing, which is in fact a surreptitious way of doing something, i.e., leaving the world just as it is (or as his approach assumes that it ought to be).”

I prefer "Some" instead of "Everybody" (applying principle of "non-allness".)

"...wants to know": I offer again in terms of "non-allness"--"sometimes wants to know".

"...wants to know it in order to do something". I see this as a "proposition" to be corroborated extensionally. I interpret this in terms of multi-causality--not one cause one effect--individuals do things for many reasons.

"...if he...": "I translate this to "he or she" based on personal experiences that not males only, but females also want to know.

"....it means..." I translate this in terms of "multi-meaning" to "a possible meaning one can give". In terms of an "extensional, rather than an intensional approach, "--Things do not mean: We humans give meanings. We humans say what something, or someone or "it" means. And from our many conflicts and disagreements, I speculate that there is no end to our meaning 'givings'.

"..he wants to know it in order to do nothing, which is in fact a surreptitious way of doing something, i.e., leaving the world just as it is (or as his approach assumes that it ought to be."

I see this as "a proposition to be tested extensionally". In a world of actions and interactions--the word "becoming" might be a more accurate description than "being"--unless "being" involves "changing" (which you suggested). The word "or" as used in the piece could be interpreted as an example of "two-valued thinking". (From another level of abstraction, another frame of reference: A proposition: the world as far as we know it is not changing. Things change in the world, but that's the world: a world of changes that leave the world unchanged.

"...ought to be": I ask--based on whose values, and standards? I am also thinking a possible "projection" of the author, and possibly without "consciousness of projection". Who knows what the world "ought to be--and that "oughtness" can be applied to a world?

Doing a ("my", others will likely interpret otherwise) general semantics evaluation of the above, I come up with the following abstraction: "Some, wanting to know something, sometimes want to know in order to do something. If he or she claims that he or she wants to know it in order to “know” and not in order “to do”, I could assume that he or she wants to know it with an intent to leave the world alone in its becoming. But I consider this impossible: If one is a part of, and active in the world, one contributes to the "changes" in the world."

Milton

Hi Milton,

This is a very interesting subject to me, because it leads us to consider the bases of GS, its origin and its functions. Here is my feed-back.
At the moment I prefer to put aside the marketing aspect to concentrate on the hypothesis of GS as an advanced thinking. On the scientific level, GS consists in a logic based upon modern physics, when the previous logics were based upon the physics of the previous steps of evolution of the West: Aristotle's logic rests on the antique physics, and Descartes' logic (XIIth century) was elaborated in the newtonian paradigm. Hence, compared to the previous ones, GS is the first logic which fits with our present scientific level of evolution.

Korzybski called GS a non-Aristotelian login. How did he came to it ? During the WW1, he stated that the mechanisms of thinking which had led to this war were based upon Aristotle's logic, and the antique vision of man and of the world. The postulates of this logic had mentally imprisoned its users into dualism, a logic of conflict. So he undertook to build up a new logic based upon the mathematics and physics of his time, using the approach of the mathematicians to build up a non-Euclidian geometry : he put aside the old dogmas to observe the facts directly. Considering them by the light of the works of scientists as Whitehead, Russell and Einstein, he formulated new premises which he verified empirically, in the framework of a scientific approach. On those premises, he created general semantics, to provide mankind with a tool of thinking which fitted to its step of scientific evolution, allowing to apprehend directly the facts of everyday life, and to adopt towards them a behavior structurally similar to the structure of those facts.
He formulated GS in introducing new terms which contained the structural implications of the new scientific concepts, allowing their users to apprehend those concepts, and integrate them in their vision of man and of the world, and their attitude in everyday life.

So can GS be considered as an advanced thinking ? The answer to this questions springs from the answers to the following questions :
- Do the works in mathematics and physics of the XX°th century, which have produced the whole modern technology, represent "advanced physics" compared to the antique and newtonian physics ? For instance is the computer I am using to write this post in this forum a more advanced tool than the typewriter I used in the eighties ?
- Does GS (XXth century) represent an "advanced thinking" compared to the previous logics (Vth century BC, and XVIIth century) ?
- Concerning applications of GS in scientific area, do, for instance, the researches of the biologist Henri Laborit on nervous system, the structure of living organisms, on inhibition in the action, and in pharmacology, which rested on GS, and their implications at human levels, represent advanced researches for mankind ? See the interview a rel="nofollow" href=" ">Rencontre avec Henri Laborit.

To those questions, I would answer yes. Hence I infer that GS can be presented as an advanced thinking in 2011.