What Is General Semantics?

WHAT IS GENERAL SEMANTICS? Pour DrJ0F1o~STO~N * N* A personal View oMETIMES when people ask "What is General Semantics?", I S don't want to answer. My reluctance to categorize general semantics arises from the general semantics principle of non-identity . This postu- lates that no two things are identical in all respects . Suppose I say, "Pat is a politician ." Such a sentence uses a form of "is" called the is-of-identity . It violates the non- identity principle. In effect, I've said, individual noun (Pat) equals class noun (politician), X is identical to Y, "Pat is identical to politician ." This seems harmless, you say . Not so! Tunnel Vision I've confused the specific with the general, confused things with words, and imposed linguistic limitations that do not reflect the rich diversity of a living human who has personal- * Paul Dennithorne Johnston serves as executive director of the International Society for General Semantics. Copyright 0 1995 Paul Dennithorne Johnston . 299 300 Et cetera • FALL 1995 ity, hopes, habits, a certain physique, etc . I've reduced Pat to a label, politician. My self-imposed tunnel vision will pre- judge and damage my relationship with Pat . By treating this individual as identical to a class, category, or group, I can't help but think and act as if all politicians are alike . If a particular politician has disappointed me, I will probably react badly to all . Labels That Limit Suppose we have a task to do, and we only have a screwdriver. We can say, "I can't do it, I only have a screwdriver ." In practice, we can use a screwdriver to drive screws, to ham- mer, chisel, lever, wedge, garden, open cans, crack ice, stir liquids, etc. Similarly, we can use the numerous "tools" of general semantics to achieve diverse goals . Hence my reluctance to limit general semantics with is-of-identity labeling. Yet to describe, we must focus, select, abstract . Inciden- tally, a key formulation of the system of general semantics says that we process information at biological and verbal levels by abstracting, by leaving things out. We've chosen not to describe the system by means of the is-of-identity, by what it "is." We can describe something by what it does. Success and Survival I think of general semantics as a system for making evaluations vital to success and survival . By evaluating, I mean our processing of perceptions and inferences as influenced by existing conscious and unconscious assumptions . Evalua- tions, not necessarily conscious ones, involve our thoughts, feelings, judgments, decisions, etc . Generally we do something as a result. Evaluating leads to appropriate or inappro- priate action. We might describe general semantics as an integrated system for improving our thinking, evaluating, communicating, etc . Of course, in doing so we've only just begun. WHAT IS GENERAL SEMANTICS? A PERSONAL VIEW 301 Alfred Korzybski formulated general semantics in the first half of this century in his major work, Science and Sanity, and he continued to write and lecture about general semantics until his death in 1950. Numerous educators, writers, and editors have continued to develop and disseminate his work, including Irving J . Lee, Wendell Johnson, Harry Weinberg, Francis Chisholm, Kenneth Johnson, S . I. Hayakawa, Elwood Murray, Russell Joyner, Robert Pula, Anatol Rapoport, Mary Morain, D. David Bourland, Jr ., Susan Presby Kodish, Bruce I . Kodish, Earl Hautala, Jeremy Klein, and Gregory Sawin . Beyond Aristotle Korzybski called general semantics a non-Aristotelian system because its many-valued logic goes beyond the two-valued, either-or logic attributed to Aristotle . Two-valued Aristote- lian logic says either X is Y, or X is not Y; it offers no middle choices, and it often leads to either-or evaluating. Non- Aristotelian logic employs multiple values, a range of choices, more in keeping with the diversity of lived experience . It adheres to the principle of non-identity by allowing degrees of difference or similarity. Separation of Word and Thing Korzybski recognized that language and lived experience consist of two distinctly separate realms . He said "The word is not the thing," and "Whatever you might say the object'is,' well, it is not." Such expressions remind us that the our verbal descriptions do not equal the external world, that words (maps) and lived experience (territory) do not constitute the same thing. Hence Korzybski's analogy, "The map is not the territory." In the system of general semantics, lived experience goes by several terms : territory, silent level, non-verbal level, "facts," un-speakable level, object level . If you accept these two disparate realms, language on the one hand, and lived experience on the other, where does it lead you? Language can't replace or duplicate experience . Language can only point to, label, or describe experience . 302 Et cetera • FALL 1995 We live in language as fish live in water . According to the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis, our language colors our perceptions, our logic, our reasoning. We live through experience, but we also live very much through language . Our use of language makes us different from fish, or any other form of life . This difference led Korzybski to define humans in terms of func- tion, what they do . Time-Binding Korzybski asked, what do humans do that no other species does? Humans do language . Furthermore, using symbols, humans store experience-knowledge that others can later use, generally to their benefit . Thus, instead of choosing metaphysical or philosophical definitions, Korzybski as- signed a functional definition to humankind . As Robert P. Pula wrote recently: Rejecting both theological and zoological definitions, Kor- zybski adopted a natural science, operational approach and defined humans by what they can be observed doing which differentiates them from other classes of life ; he defined them as the time-binding class of life, able to pass on knowledge from one generation to another over 'time .' Derived from this definition, which evaluates humans as a naturally cooperative class of life (the mechanisms of time- binding are descriptively social, cooperative), Korzybski postulated time-binding 'ethics' - modes of behavior, choices appropriate to time-binding organisms . Korzybski recognized that language (symbolizing in general) constitutes the basic tool of time-binding .... (1) As far as we know, fish live quite happily without under- standing theories about water . Our immersion in language seems as natural and invisible as a fish's liquid environment . But, unlike fish, we humans often encounter serious problems when we evaluate, communicate, etc . Our use of lanj guage can lead to great accomplishments and great joy, but it can also lead to extreme suffering and violence . Why do WHAT IS GENERAL SEMANTICS? A PERSONAL VIEW 303 problems occur? Partly because we can construct "logically" consistent "worlds" in language that have little relation to experience, and then confuse such constructions with experience. We hear, "the economy is doing well," and base our spending decisions on this verbal statement . We say, "our brakes are safe" without checking the car . We create tauto- logical or untestable verbal explanations . We make treaties and promises, but our acts do not reflect these contracts . Korzybski's formulation of abstracting says that we obtain incomplete information . If we remain conscious of our abstracting, we can reduce delusions arising from confusion of our linguistically created "worlds" with the world of lived experience. Abstracting The term abstracting refers to a general-semantics formulation relating to how we obtain and process knowledge . Dur- ing abstracting, we process information by leaving things out . For example, if you look at one face in a crowd, you leave out the others, and you miss many characteristics of that face . Abstracting assists survival in many ways. At the biological level, our hearing responds only to certain frequencies . By further abstracting, we can attribute meaning to these vibrations in the air, while our connection to those vibrations be- comes less direct . We abstract from the vast variety of electro-magnetic waves surrounding us in order to see, touch, smell, "make sense" of objects, of space, of light, of "hot" and "cold ." Conversely, at the verbal level, we can move from the general to the particular, from dogs to Fido, from politicians as a group, to Pat the individual, who likes dogs, eats vegetarian food, and owns one old bicycle . From Experience to Symbols We abstract in stages, from sensory input to words, from experience to symbols, at each stage leaving something out, producing incomplete, but useful working knowledge . A 304 Et cetera • FALL 1995 diagram, the structural differential, helps us understand abstracting processes. (2) A simplified flow chart of my abstracting relating to a "tree" might look something like this: 'LOWER' EVERYTHING SILENT, UNSPEAKABLE LEVEL LEVELS EXPERIENCE, -FACTS' OF TERRITORY' ABSTRACTING PERCEIVED THINGS "HIGHER' THIS TREE VERBAL LEVEL LEVELS WORDS OF 'MAPS' ABSTRACTING Th TREES IN GENERAL SOURCE OF LUMBER THEORIES ABOUT1 THE ABOVE I" The down-arrows show the correct order of abstracting for healthy evaluating, from silent "facts" to descriptive words . The dotted-line "feedback loop" indicates that our inferences, evaluations, and language influence our perception . Note that abstractions further removed from experience, we call "higher," although they appear lower on the chart . WHAT IS GENERAL SEMANTICS? A PERSONAL VIEW 305 As we abstract, we make inferences . We see the front of a house and infer that it has an interior. In this sense, we add something of our own, usually based on previous experience . Non-Allness Because we abstract, we cannot say or know all about any- thing. Hence the general semantics principle of non-allness . Consciousness of Context From use to use, our words don't mean precisely the same thing.

Load more