"The map is not the territory" (Alfred Korzybski).
"Towards a new general system of evaluation and predictability for solving human problems" (Alfred Korzybski).
The Origin of a New Discipline
Alfred Korzybski, originally from an aristocratic family, was born in a part of the Russian Empire now belonging to Poland, and signed up as a volunteer in the 2nd Russian Army (where he served as an intelligence officer) in World War I (1914), when he was 35 years old. After being wounded, he left the battlefield and moved to North America in 1916 to coordinate the supply of war material for the front and the recruitment of compatriot volunteers. After the war, he decided to remain in the United States, where he became a citizen in 1940. His war experience marked him deeply and led him to wonder about the reasons for the absurd human behavior that leads to wars and other disasters. His reasoning was as follows:
First of all, he wonders about human nature: what is the unique characteristic that makes human beings human and distinguishes them from animals? He gives the answer in his first book, from 1921, "Manhood of Humanity. The Science and Art of Human Engineering". In this work (which became a best seller for several years) Korzybski advocates a revision of the foundations of philosophy and science. In it he gives a "functional definition of man" from an epistemological, historical and engineering point of view. Instead of defining what man is, he attempted to describe what man does.
Korzybski classified living things from the functional point of view:
Energy-binding. It is the ability to use and convert energy (e.g., photosynthesis, food). Plants belong to this category.
Space-binding. It is the ability to use space (move). Animals belong to this category.
Time-binding. It is the unique ability of human beings to transmit information and knowledge between generations. This ability, which makes civilization evolve, is based on language, the most important faculty of human beings, who are time-binders. Language plays a fundamental role in human affairs: it allows us to condense and generalize our experience and transmit it to others, thus preventing them from making the same mistakes and from reinventing and discovering what has already been invented and discovered. Language is a system of communication, a system of knowledge representation, a tool to solve problems and to build science. Language is the key factor of the human.
Second, he asks, "Why is it that structures erected by an engineer do not collapse or, if they do, physico-mathematical and other errors of evaluation can be easily detected, while political, economic, social, etc. systems, which are also human products, sporadically collapse in the form of wars, revolutions, financial depressions, unemployment, etc.?"
This question lead him to another: "What, then, do engineers do, neurologically, when they erect bridges or other constructions?" The answer was, "They use a special, restrictive but 'perfect' language called "mathematics," a language of similar structure to that of the facts it deals with and which produces, consequently, predictable empirical results."
He then reflects on the neurological activities of the "builders" of political, economic and social structures, and which have been revealed to be unstable. The conclusion was that they used languages whose structure was not similar to the facts of science. That is why the results are unpredictable and often lead to disasters.
He came to the conclusion that the solutions to this type of social problems have remained blocked by metaphysical, mythological and pre-scientific dogmas that have prevented the detection of fundamental errors. And that, therefore, it was absolutely indispensable to revise certain concepts inherited from primitive men and systematized in ancient Greek culture. These concepts are reflected in language.
And finally comes to the solution: it is necessary to create a "general system" based on scientific methods and concepts (especially physical-mathematical) of structure, order, relationship, etc.. This system would make it possible to carry out adequate evaluations of the problems and, consequently, to achieve predictability.
In 1933, he published his masterpiece: "Science and Sanity. An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics", in which he creates a discipline he calls "General Semantics". This work is the main reference of the discipline. Korzybski justified this denomination because it deals with the nervous reactions of the human organism considered as a whole against the stimuli of the environment, because of its general character and because it is based on the meaning or semantics of the reality reflected in language.
From 1933 until the end of his life, Korzybski devoted himself to promoting General Semantics, giving seminars, organizing conventions and developing applications in various fields of knowledge. He also published new texts summarizing the discipline and disseminating the latest developments. Among the last texts published, "The Role of Language in Perceptual Processes" stands out.
The Philosophy of General Semantics
The 3 principles of General Semantics
General Semantics is based on 3 fundamental principles:
"A map is not the territory it represents".
"A map does not represent the whole territory".
"A map is self-reflective".
These principles apparently stem from Korzybski, being a staff officer, ordering a disastrous attack in which the Poles stumbled into a deep ditch that was not on the maps.
These 3 principles are really metaphorical and really refer to the following:
The language (the map) is only a description of reality, it is not the reality (the territory). It is the "non-identity principle": words are not the things they represent. For example, the name of a person is not the person, the menu is not the food, etc.
Language (the map) is an incomplete description of reality (the territory). Words cannot cover everything they represent. Language is an abstraction, a process of selecting certain features of reality.
The map can be considered another level of reality, albeit abstract. From this level of reality we can make another map (representing another level of abstraction) and so on. At the language level, this means that a language has several levels of abstraction and refers to itself.
Some reflections on map-territory (language-reality) relations are:
A good map (language) has a structure similar to the territory (reality), and has predictive value. However, because of the limitations of language, it is difficult to make verbal maps that do not distort, to some degree, the territory. That is, there is no perfect correspondence between language (map) and the external world (territory).
We must first study the territory, the structural characteristics of this non-verbal world (the territory), and then build the language (the map), the verbal world, as similar in structure as possible to the territory.
We live in a changing world and we represent it through a language that has rather static characteristics. The world changes faster than words do. We tend to use verbal maps that are no longer adequate to describe the territory. Even the best map becomes obsolete sooner or later. Therefore, it is necessary to continually update the maps we use.
The more territory a map covers, the less we can tell about the territory. Details are lost when generalizing.
Different maps can show different aspects of the same territory. A map (language) reflects a certain view of the world.
Our physical and psychological adjustment (even our survival) to the world around us depends on having good maps of the territories we encounter.
A map, in principle, is correct as long as we do not discover an inconsistency with the territory it represents. This ties in with Popper's philosophy of science of falsifiability: every theory must be accepted provisionally until a counterexample (empirical evidence) is found to refute the theory.
The fundamental concepts
Extensional and intensional worlds.
The world of sensible things that we experience (the territory) is the extensional world. The verbal world can be considered a map of the extensional world.
The intensional world is our internal, nonverbal world, in which we make abstractions and generalizations.
Objective world and subjective world.
We cannot speak of an objective world. Only each person can speak of his subjective world. We perceive a subjective world of events-meanings. Things have no meaning. It is our nervous system that manufactures meanings from the data collected by the sense organs. It is more appropriate to speak of degrees of objectivity.
Sometimes, the particular, the perceptions of concrete facts, and influenced by language, confuse man. We cannot always rely on our sensory perceptions.
Abstraction.
Human beings cannot experience the world directly, but through its abstractions, which are nonverbal impressions that come from the nervous system and verbal cues that come from language.
Our sense organs abstract, they simplify a complex reality by selecting certain characteristics of an event, ignoring the others. Without abstraction, thought would be impossible. Many conflicts could be avoided if we were aware of the process of abstraction and the fact that each person abstracts differently.
Evaluation.
It is the process by which man associates to an external stimulus (usually verbal) a certain semantic category (at the internal level). In turn, that semantic category can be considered a stimulus that can lead to another category of higher level of abstraction, and so on. Evaluations are all the more precise the more degrees of difference we recognize. We must not confuse evaluation with description.
General Semantics is really a general theory of reality evaluation. "We can consider the process of abstraction as a process of stimulus evaluation."
The natural order of evaluation (and the most logically coherent) is: evaluate first the facts, the concrete (evaluation by extension) and then make generalizations (evaluation by intent). One must always go from the particular to the general. However, the Aristotelian form of language gives priority to the intension, confusing the map (what I say it is) with the territory (what it is).
Relativism.
Everyone abstracts differently. Words mean different things to different people. Words mean different things at different times. Words mean different things in different environments.
Semantic (or evaluative) reaction.
A reaction resulting from the evaluation of an environmental stimulus or event (not just words), a total reaction of the person as a whole, including verbal and nonverbal reactions, thoughts, and sensations.
Psychological disorder stems from the confusion of abstractions and erroneous evaluations that produce inappropriate semantic reactions.
Our habitual semantic reactions are founded on unconscious, pre-scientific and primitive postulates, and which are reflected in language. "It is no exaggeration to say that language enslaves us through the mechanism of semantic reactions."
Deferred semantic reactions.
They are non-automatic semantic reactions, meditated, with internal elaboration. They are the most useful for the survival of the human being. We must train ourselves to have meditated responses and not respond like a Paulov's dog, with automatic conditioned responses.
Non-totality.
Totality is a problematic issue at the linguistic level:
Just as a map cannot say everything about a territory, we cannot say or know everything about something. It is completely impossible to give a complete description or definition of a physical object that includes all its particularities, since we would have to describe its macroscopic and microscopic characteristics, its relationships, etc. We cannot describe everything because of the limitations of language.
We cannot make a proposition about all propositions since, by doing so, we would, in fact, generate a new proposition, arriving at a contradiction (a paradox).
There are many "totalitarian" sentences or disguised generalizations, for example: "There is only one solution to this problem", "The thing to do is ...", "This is not art", "I know everything about this matter", "This is the whole story", etc. They should be formulated in a less dogmatic way, for example: "In my opinion...", "As far as I know...", etc.
Adopting the language to non-totality has the advantage that we become aware that we abstract some features and omit others, and that we adopt an attitude of openness.
Facts vs. inferences.
The structure of language leads us to confuse facts with inferences and common sense assumptions. An inference is a judgment about the unknown made on the basis of the known. For example, when after observing several particular facts, we infer or induce a general law. It can also be an assumption, not based on any particular experience. This confusion can lead to errors of evaluation and inappropriate semantic reactions.
Definition vs. description.
A distinction must be made between definition and description. A definition is a relationship between words. A description is a relation between words and things.
No-identity (Null-I). Similarity vs. identity.
We have fewer words and concepts than experiences, and that this circumstance makes us tend to consider two or more situations identical.
The so-called "law of non-identity" or "law of individuality" states that no two situations or phenomena are identical in all aspects and details. Sometimes we regard similarities as identities. Differences must always be taken into account. Language pushes us to emphasize similarities and ignore differences, which keeps us at the level of primitive forms of evaluation, where similarities are emphasized and differences are (unconsciously) overlooked. We do not "see" the differences and react as if various situations were the same.
Circularity of language.
Language is circular. A dictionary includes many circular definitions: words refer to themselves indirectly through intermediary words. There are no primitive, essential concepts from which all others are defined.
Feedback.
Verbal language does not seem very adequate to describe feedback. At the internal (nonverbal) level, we perform feedback when we evaluate our assessments, think about what we think, doubt our doubts, wonder about our questions, etc.
Elementalism.
"Elementalism" is the verbal separation of what cannot be separated empirically, as:
Mind and body, space and time, and so on. For example, the theory of relativity united space and time in the concept space-time, a generalized 4-dimensional space.
The isolation of a person from his environment. No event occurs in isolation, everything has an environment. Instead of saying, for example, "the organism as a whole, in its environment," we should say "the organism and its environment, both as a whole."
Looking for a single cause of something, when there may be several (e.g. juvenile delinquency).
The world is multi-dimensional, multi-causal and multi-level.
No-euclidianismo (Null-E).
The space in which we live cannot be adequately described with the language of Euclidean geometry.
The subject-predicate structure.
Aristotle's assumption about the universality of the subject-predicate form of all propositions is false. There are expressions that do not conform to this pattern, such as arithmetical relations (greater than, less than), temporal (before, after), compositional (the whole and the parts), etc. Habits of subject-predicate type thinking in Western culture are inherited from the Aristotelian concept of "first substance".
The problem of the verb "to be".
The verb "to be" is too general, ambiguous, and creates confusion. In particular, there are two misuses of this verb: as identity and as predication.
In "The rose is a flower", an identification is made between rose and flower. The correct thing to say would be "The rose is a type of flower", indicating belonging to a class or category.
In "The rose is red" a predication is used. A single attribute ("red") is applied, ignoring the rest of its attributes and ignoring the observer. The observer could also perceive a different color under different circumstances.
No-aristotelismo (Null-A).
The Aristotelian logical principles of contradiction ("Nothing can be and not be at the same time") and that of the excluded third ("All things must either be or not be") must be revised. We must avoid bivalent logic (true-false) and dichotomy of thought (good-bad, big-small, old-young, etc.) and consider everything in terms of degrees, as science does.
Aristotelian logic is a restrictive and particular system, not adequate for the complexity of reality and human nature. Non-Aristotelian thinking provides more degrees of freedom. However, Aristotelian logic must be considered as a particular case of a more general system. It is somewhat analogous to Einstein's theory of relativity, which converges to Newton's dynamics when relative velocities are negligible compared to the speed of light.
Id.
These are associations (more or less unconscious) of verbal levels with non-verbal ones. When in such associations the levels of abstraction are confused, inappropriate semantic evaluations and reactions may result. For example, they may correspond to prejudices, to associations related to lived situations, etc. The more we evolve, the greater our awareness, the more identifications decrease, the more correct evaluations increase and our psychological health improves.
Semantic therapy.
It is the therapy aimed at eradicating unhealthy habits of evaluation. Mental health is obtained with the correct functioning and perfect differentiation of all levels of abstraction. The use of language in a proper and conscious way helps us to desirable changes in our semantic reactions.
The silent levels.
These are the nonverbal levels, those not expressible in words. The levels of perception of an event, the processes of abstraction, feelings, beliefs, assumptions, etc. are silent because there is no verbal activity.
Characteristics of the nonverbal or silent levels are:
They constitute our inner, personal experience, not subject to scientific analysis. We live and experience our lives in the world of silent, non-verbal existence.
They always exist, whether we speak or not, whether we think or not, because they are profound. What happens is that we are not usually aware of them.
They cannot be rationalized, understood or expressed. They are ineffable.
They are timeless. They have no beginning and no end.
The higher the level of abstraction, the more we are aware of them. Also contributing to these levels is awareness of internal and external sensations and awareness of the present. General Semantics uses abstraction, levels of abstraction and self-reflection in search of the essential (order, relationships and structure).
They constitute the source of the verbal world.
It is a dimension of order, consciousness, freedom, transcendence and creativity, with which we can establish all kinds of relationships.
The union between verbal and non-verbal levels.
The only possible link between the silent (nonverbal) and verbal levels is to be found in the similarity of structure existing between them and expressed in terms of relationships. The structure of all things, be it a language, a house, an image, etc. is established by relationships.
One must "think" in terms of visual images in order to transcend words, the verbal. Images, being perceptions, lead us to the silent levels. (Korzybski learned as a child 4 languages (Polish, French, Russian and German), which helped him not to bind thought to words).
"When we think without words, with images or visualizations (which imply structure and thus relations), we can discover new aspects and relations at silent levels, and thus we can formulate important theoretical results in the general search for a similarity of structure between the two levels, silent and verbal. Virtually all important advances have been made in this way."
The union of verbal and nonverbal (the union of opposites) is essential for developing awareness and achieving better evaluations.
Extensional devices
To favor or achieve the consciousness of abstraction, Korzybsy adopted certain techniques that he had learned from science, especially from mathematics, because mathematics is the science of maximum abstraction. He called these techniques "extensional devices" and they serve to make us aware of abstractions and of the different characteristics of language.
Indexes. Since two things are not exactly alike, Korzybski recommended using indices on words to distinguish entities, situations or phenomena. They help us to be aware that no two words have the same meaning twice, that there are individual differences resulting from perception and evaluation. For example, "chair1" (my chair), different from "chair2" (your chair).
Chain indexes. They are used to indicate that there are variables dependent on factors, conditions, situations, etc. that can be numbered. For example, "casa1-1" (Pepe's house in summer), different from "casa1-2" (Pepe's house in winter). They can also serve to indicate chain reactions in a complex environment (a cause can have several effects, and these effects can in turn be causes). They can indicate a single event, which occurred to an individual in his childhood and which can provoke chain reactions) for the rest of his life, etc. It is also a reflexive mechanism (indexing an index).
Arrows. They are attributes that allow us to fix in time a situation in a dynamic world. They make us aware that things are constantly changing. For example, "Spain2004" is different from "Spain2008".
Etc. It makes us aware of the existence in a process of an indefinite number of factors that can never be expressed or known in their totality.
Quotes. They serve to warn us about something that is metaphorical, not exact or doubtful and that is chosen because a more appropriate term cannot be found.
Hyphens. They serve to link elementary terms and to establish relationships between concepts and disciplines. For example, space-time (in relativistic physics), psycho-biology, psycho-somatic, socio-cultural, neuro-linguistics, neuro-semantics, etc.
Korzybski gave only these examples of extensional devices or mechanisms. He asserted that more mechanisms would have to be created to develop abstraction consciousness, mechanisms that would help us to free ourselves from the archaic, pre-scientific, Aristotelian limitations inherent in our old language structures.
The Universality of General Semantics
Semantics is a branch of linguistics. But General Semantics is neither a branch of semantics, nor a formalization of this discipline. Its name perhaps does not reflect the aim of the system developed by Korzybski: to create a synthesis of all sciences (a universal discipline, a meta-science or a transdisciplinary science) taking language, thought and neurophysiology as its foundation, with two aspects:
At the theoretical level, a science providing a general conception of the world. Korzybski considered his system so general that it transcended Aristotelian logic, Newtonian physics and Euclidean geometry.
On a practical level, a science aimed at the reform of society and harmonious adjustment in all facets of human life: private, public and professional.
According to Korzybski, General Semantics provides a general, universal view of reality, which must have great implications:
In the sciences.
The principles of General Semantics must be applied to the sciences themselves in order to systematize them, starting with mathematics itself. It is necessary to achieve the methodological unification of the sciences and those related to human behavior, applying elementary and simple techniques.
The scientific method must be general and applied in all fields, be they scientific or of human behavior. Scientific methodology must necessarily be universal in scope. The scientific method has proven to be the most effective means for the transmission of knowledge (time-binding),
Scientific language emphasizes operational definitions and high-level predictive generalizations. Generalizations and conclusions are always provisional, rather than certain, as they are subject to continuous revisions and updates. The goal is to achieve maximum simplicity: with a minimum number of postulates, to predict the maximum number of phenomena.
At school.
General Semantics must be taught from school as a "semantic hygiene", to break the mental habits that prevent to think in a clearer and more effective way. Language is a fundamental tool for learning to think. At school they teach what to think, but not how to think. The current compartmentalization of teaching must also be eliminated.
In General Semantics itself.
General Semantics must apply to itself. According to Korzybski, General Semantics must be continually re-evaluated and updated in the light of new knowledge and discoveries. Its foundations must be subject to the same critical review as all scientific knowledge. General Semantics remains a map (an abstraction) that must always be kept up to date, although the map of General Semantics is really a meta-map of all reality.
Korzybski suggested the creation of a new scientific language, more precise, and avoiding the problem of circularity. But he personally did not even attempt it, although he suggested that this language should include the primitive concepts of "structure", "order" and "relation", where "relation" would be the most fundamental concept ("everything that exists is based on relations") and "structure" would be the concept that would provide knowledge ("structure is the only content of knowledge"). These primitive terms could not be expressed in words, but only by showing how to use them in concrete sentences. The "extensional devices" can also be considered contributions in this same general linguistic sense.
This new formalized scientific language would serve to:
Eliminate old habits of thought and thus be able to see the world differently, and even question what seems obvious to us. "The discovery of the obvious is the most difficult thing, since old habits of thought have blocked our ability to see the old in new ways."
To be able to express the structure of the discoveries of science, physics especially, which demand a new language, with new, more abstract concepts and a new logic.
To have a generic and abstract model of reality, a "similarity of structure" between the internal and the external.
To develop an awareness of abstraction, a more generic and universal way of perceiving reality.
General Semantics vs. MENTAL
MENTAL can be considered a "general semantics" in the literal sense, since it is a language based on universal semantic primitives of supreme level of abstraction. Korzybski intuited, but failed to discover, define and formalize these universal semantic resources.
There are many parallels between General and MENTAL Semantics:
Simplicity.
Korzybski said that maximum simplicity had to be achieved with the minimum number of postulates or principles. This is precisely the philosophy behind MENTAL: the principle of economy. Korzybski said that discovering the obvious was the most difficult thing to do.
Language of supreme level of abstraction.
We know that the higher the level of abstraction of a language, the greater its applications and the greater the correspondence between the real (external) world and the mental (internal) world. In addition, problems are seen more clearly and are simplified or solved. In this sense, MENTAL is a general framework that allows not only scientific-technical applications, but also the modeling of all types of phenomena of reality, including social and psychological phenomena. The modeling is based on the use of the degrees of freedom represented by the primitives. And this is so because reality, at a deep level, is abstract and common to all things.
Science advances by abstraction, towards the maximum possible abstraction that allows to understand all reality, a universal abstraction that relates all things. MENTAL represents the highest possible level of abstraction, corresponding to the archetypes of consciousness. The process of abstraction ends in the archetypes of consciousness.
Universal language.
Korzybski said that the present natural language is not adequate to reflect reality and that a universal language, of supreme level of abstraction, would be needed to be able to see reality in a more generic and universal way, to develop consciousness and to serve as the foundation of universal science.
MENTAL is a universal language capable of expressing the general and the specific. And it is a universal paradigm that allows to see the common essence of reality.
The best "map" of reality.
MENTAL provides a universal abstract model of reality with "similarity of structure" (as Korzybski puts it) that links the internal and the external. Because what connects mind and nature is abstraction. MENTAL is a good "map" (a good language) because it has a structure similarity to the "territory" (reality) and where there is correspondence between the internal and the external.
It is a new consciousness that dissolves frontiers, not only at the scientific level, but also at the humanistic level. A new consciousness where the universal is the essential.
Consciousness expands, develops, as the language is applied to different domains, because if consciousness is union, more unions are produced between the deep level and the superficial level.
MENTAL makes us aware of all types of existing relationships, which makes us differentiate better: between the particular and the general, the qualitative and the quantitative, the sequential and the parallel, the decisions and the deductions, between the internal and the external, and so on. And we can formalize all this knowledge.
It is the language to understand, not only the external world around us, but to understand ourselves, our inner world, because at a deep level there is a fundamental unity in everything.
Non-circular semantic language.
MENTAL has no circularity because it is built with basic building blocks (the universal semantic primitives), which are "semantic axioms". In MENTAL the main thing is semantics, which can be represented in different ways.
Self-reflexive language.
MENTAL is a self-reflexive language that manifests itself in several ways: as a metalanguage, as a recursion mechanism (of data and processes), as conceptual reflexivity (generic expressions of generic expressions, etc.), and as a feedback mechanism.
Non-euclidean language.
MENTAL allows defining all kinds of abstract geometries, including Euclidean. Deep geometry is represented by abstract space, the space where expressions are related.
Non-Aristotelian language.
MENTAL allows defining all kinds of logics, including Aristotelian.
Static and dynamic language.
Korzybski complained that human language is rather static, in the face of a changing reality. But MENTAL does not change, just as the essence of everything (the real and the possible) never changes. As we raise the level of abstraction, the possible interpretations decrease, because in the deep resides the universal, which is the essential and immutable. Primitives never change because they belong to a higher level of abstraction, which is independent of their manifestations or instances. With MENTAL, meaning does not have different interpretations. Primitives have an absolute and immutable meaning, but they allow to express the changing world through expressions, which can have different interpretations or models.
Simple language.
Korzybski intuited that simplicity is related to abstraction. And that the maximum possible consciousness led to maximum simplicity. The primitives of MENTAL are simple. Consciousness is the supreme simplicity. MENTAL states that the limits of abstraction, of the cognizable and the expressible are in the primal archetypes.
Language of representation of knowledge.
MENTAL allows to differentiate all the possible linguistic categories: attributes, inferences, intensive and extensive expressions, definitions, descriptions, etc. It is a language or system for knowledge representation. With MENTAL we can cover all the different aspects of reality.
The subject-predicate form.
The subject-predicate form is an instance of the primitive "particularization", which is one of the dimensions of reality, a primary archetype. And therefore it is one of the gates of consciousness, which connects the inner and the outer world.
The verb "to be".
MENTAL simplifies, clarifies and homogenizes the knowledge specification relative to the verb "to be": "The rose is red" is represented as pink/red. And "The rose is a flower" is represented as rose/flower. Qualitative particularization always applies.
The verbal - non-verbal connection.
Korzybski said that the only way to connect the verbal and non-verbal levels was by means of similarity relations between them. Now we can clearly see that these relationships are precisely the primary archetypes. These primary archetypes are present at all levels of abstraction, thus linking the deep with all surface levels.
Language of union of opposites.
Korzybski insisted a lot on differentiation and extensionality. But MENTAL, as a language of consciousness unites opposites or duals, as:
Unity in diversity.
The union of the finite and the infinite, since it allows to specify infinite events by means of a finite number of resources (the primitives).
The union of the verbal and the non-verbal. The non-verbal is associated with the right hemisphere (the synthetic mode) and the verbal with the left hemisphere (the analytical mode). Consciousness is the union of both modes of consciousness. The non-verbal corresponds to the primitives, and the verbal to the particular instances of the primitives.
Etc.
Relational language.
For Korzybski, the structure of all things is established by relations. MENTAL is a language of relations that are established by instances of primitives.
Universal science.
Korzybski said that a universal science, a synthesis of all sciences or a meta-science, had to be created. MENTAL is a language that claims to be the foundation of all sciences, especially the formal sciences.
Theoretical and practical language.
Korzybski intended universal science to have practical applications, including the reform of society. MENTAL "only" intended to formalize scientific language and with practical applications, mainly in computer science.
The conclusion is that MENTAL is postulated as the universal language of science, the universal language postulated by Korzybski.
Addenda
Impact and Diffusion of General Semantics
Korzybski's work influenced numerous fields, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. Among the fields he has most affected are: linguistics, education, psychology, psychiatry, anthropology, politics, justice, Gestalt therapy, and Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP). General Semantics also has important connections with analytic philosophy, epistemology (theory of knowledge) and philosophy of science.
As stated in the third edition of "Science and Sanity", the U.S. Army employed General Semantics in World War II to treat neurosis in over 7,000 combatants in the European theater of war.
Cognitive therapy, developed by psychiatrist Aaron T. Beck, now considered the most effective treatment for the most common psychological problems, is inspired by General Semantics.
The popularity of General Semantics grew enormously when Science-Fiction writer A.E. Van Vogt published in 1945 his book "The World of Null-A", which dealt with General Semantics and non-Aristotelian thinking.
In 1952, Martin Gardner, in his work "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" criticized (and at the same time popularized) General Semantics. A critique of Gardner's critique appeared in 2004 [Kodish, 2004].
The founder of the Church of Scientology (or Scientology), L. Ron Hubbard, claimed that his work was partially based on General Semantics. However, Samuel Hayakawa (a disciple of Korzybski) accused Scientology and Dianetics (the science of the mind) of using pseudo-scientific language and of dragging people into the realm of magic and semantic confusion.
In the United States, two institutions were created to promote General Semantics: in 1938, the Institute of General Semantics (IGS), created by Korzybski himself (with the help of several of his followers), near the University of Chicago, as a training and research center; and in 1943, the International Society for General Semantics. In 2003, the latter merged with the IGS and its headquarters moved to Fort Worth, Texas. There are also the New York Society for General Semantics, the European Society for General Semantics and the Australian Society for General Semantics.
In the United States, General Semantics is taught at some colleges and universities. The IGS organizes some weekend seminars each year, as well as 5-day advanced seminars for those who wish to obtain a General Semantics teacher's certificate. An annual conference is also held. The ISG publishes quarterly ETC: A Review of General Semantics.
The "Structural Differential" (SD) or Anthropometer
It is a physical device invented by Korzybsy to visualize and help understand the process of abstraction. It was composed of objects of various shapes, where each shape indicated a type of abstraction. The objects have holes that represent the details, the microscopic. The objects are linked by strings that connect the holes and represent the subtle or microscopic or non-sensitive connections between the objects.
From lowest to highest level of abstraction, there were the objects-levels of:
E (event or reality). It has the shape of a notched parabola (indicating that it is unlimited) and represents the event, what is happening in our environment.
O (object or experience). It is circular in shape and represents an aspect or characteristic of the event, which is experienced at a non-verbal level through the sense organs.
D (descriptive level). It is the first verbal level of the abstraction process. It is adjusted to the experienced facts.
I (inference level). At this level a meaning is assigned to the experience. This inference can take the form of theory, judgment, belief, conclusions, etc.
G (generalization level). At this level the inference is generalized for a variety of events.
Etc. This level indicates the existence of further levels of abstraction.
Arrow. Connects the Etc level to the original event. Represents feedback, in the sense that experiences and abstractions can be converted into event-level aspects or characteristics that could be experienced in the future.
In addition to this vertical structure, there is a horizontal structure composed of a succession of this set of abstraction processes over time.
With this device Korzybsy intended to help:
Become aware of the different levels of abstraction. To become aware that the event is not the object, that the object is not the words that describe it, and that these words are not inferences or generalizations. To become aware of the differences between verbal and non-verbal levels, between descriptions and inferences, between descriptions and higher order descriptions, etc.
Contacting the silent levels.
Detecting the circularity of knowledge.
To become aware of negative formulations. What happens is not ...; What I experience is not ...; What I describe is not ...; The meaning I generate is not ...; The general meaning is not .....
Learn the principle of non-identity.
Learning deferred semantic reactions.
The Structural Differential generated a lot of controversy in the General Semantics community. Some wanted to improve it and others developed a new model, such as Hayakawa's abstraction ladder.
E-Prime
To avoid confusion arising from the use of the verb "to be," D. David Bourland, Jr, one of Korzybski's disciples, developed a language called "E'" or "E-Prime" (short for "English Prime"), an English version without the verb "to be" (ser or estar), in all its forms (ser, es, soy, fue, fueron, fueron, siendo, seré, seré, etc. ) and in all its uses (and not only those denounced by its master).
He presented it in 1965, 15 years after Korzybski's death, in an article entitled "A Linguistic Note: Writing in E-Prime", published in the General Semantics Bulletin. In this article, Bourland wrote the general formula E' = E - e, where E is the set of English words and e is the set of conjugated forms of the verb "to be".
Examples of English sentences and their corresponding E':
Roses are red → Roses look red.
To be or not to be → To exist or not to exist.
Honey is sweet → Honey tastes sweet.
The Electron is a Wave → The Electron appears as a wave to instrument A.
The Electron is a Particle → The Electron appears as a particle to instrument B.
According to its author, the advantages of E' are:
The language is less dogmatic and general, more concrete, considering the circumstances, the environment, the actor or observer.
It clarifies thinking, because it is more scientific, more operative and phenomenological.
It reduces possible misinterpretations. And it reduces, therefore, possible conflicts.
Reduces confusion of abstraction orders.
Eliminates paradoxes. Many apparent paradoxes in science stem from the structure of language. As an example, the two behaviors of the electron mentioned.
Improve the psychological health of writers, speakers and their audiences.
Bourland proved that it was possible to write and speak perfectly well without the verb "to be". And, despite its wide use, it could be dispensed with.
E' was received with great interest, but divided opinion. Some writers produced works done entirely in E' and several speakers practiced it. Others felt that the verb 'to be' was under attack, and not just certain uses.
In 1969, the New York Society for General Semantics invited Bourland to give a lecture on E'. He tried to give it in E', but recognized that it was much more difficult to speak it than to write it, because of "bad" habits acquired, so that a much higher level of linguistic sensitivity was needed.
Bourland published 3 volumes of essays in support of his innovation: "To Be or Not: An E-prime Anthology" (1991), "More E-Prime: To Be or Not II" (1994) and "E-Prime III!: A Third Anthology" (1997).
Zen and General Semantics
General Semantics has certain parallels with Zen Buddhism. Even General Semantics has been called "a Western form of Buddhism". Although Korzybski did not acknowledge any such influence, nor is there any reference to it in his writings, the fact remains that General Semantics was formulated to coincide with the popularity of Zen in the West. On the other hand, it seems that Alan Watts, one of the main popularizers of Eastern philosophy, and of Zen in particular, was influenced by the ideas of General Semantics. His 1957 book "The Way of Zen" is considered a classic. Zen Buddhism is the result of the fusion of Mahayana Buddhism (originally from India) and the Chinese philosophy of Taoism.
For Zen, reality cannot be understood through any system based on theories, definitions, classifications or categories. Reality has a deep, transcendental essence that is beyond its superficial manifestations and the thoughts we have about it. This transcendental essence is identified with emptiness (sunyata), the field of all possibilities, from which everything emerges. Reality must be contemplated without mental filter, without thoughts. Reality should not be interpreted, but experienced directly. Zen seeks to reach the ultimate category, which is the Self. This Self is the essence of inner and outer reality. The Self is experienced as a state of unity, freedom, creativity and transcendence, an eternal "now", a silent, non-verbal state, beyond opposites and all manifestation.
Zen does not use any system, doctrine or belief, but uses practical techniques such as:
The zazen (meditation or sitting contemplation) to quiet the verbal mind, the internal dialogue. Zazen can be performed during wakefulness to connect rest and activity, as in the doctrine of Taoist wu wei.
The koan is a phrase aimed at breaking logic and reasoning and contacting the deep levels of the mind, the non-verbal, the intuitive, the ineffable, to free the mind from the deception of language. The most famous koan is "What is the sound of a clapping hand?".
The mondo (rapid fire). It is a dialogue between a Zen master and a disciple oriented also to break the superficial logical thinking and help to awaken to the deep, transcendental, non-verbal reality.
Comparison between Zen and General Semantics:
Both systems agree that the most essential is the silent, non-verbal, deep level, since it is the level that conditions the verbal levels of abstraction, the superficial ones.
Both systems pretend to go beyond the illusion of our thoughts. Zen abandons them altogether. Instead, General Semantics tries to order them, to structure them, to relate them. The mind structures and organizes reality by means of abstractions, which are reflected in language.
With the practice of Zen we reach a silent state, non-mental, without thoughts, which allows us to perceive the true essence of reality. In Zen, the final transcendental state is reached all at once. In General Semantics, it is a gradual process.
General Semantics and Zen are complementary. General Semantics is basically a rational approach. Zen is an intuitive approach.
Both systems share the same goal: the development of human potential: health and peace of mind, awareness of the self and the universe.
For both systems the world is subjective. There is relativity. Events, things, facts we describe relative to our point of view.
For both systems, everything is a process. For Zen, the world is a collection of processes. For General Semantics, the world and we ourselves are made of processes.
General Semantics and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
Korzybski wrote in Science and Sanity: "... the very structure of language reflects the structure of the world assumed by those who evolved language. In other words, we unconsciously read into the world the structure of the language we use."
According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, language influences or conditions our patterns of thought, perception, and action. Korzybski came to this same conclusion a decade before Whorf's famous work "Language, Thought and Reality" was published. When Korzybski learned of this work, he enthusiastically received its conclusions, recommending it to his students and colleagues. Whorf was invited to the II American Congress on General Semantics (1941). His contribution was a paper that was published in [1943].
"This is not a pipe", by René Magritte
Some of the works of the surrealist painter René Magritte invite us to reflect on the relationship between images and things, between language and reality. His most representative work in this sense is "This is not a pipe", belonging to the collection "The betrayal of images". Magritte also made other versions. The last one evokes reflexivity (the representation of representation) together with a "platonic pipe" suspended in the air.
Michel Foucault published an essay on this work entitled "This is not a pipe. Essay on Magritte" (1973), to reinforce his theories about the illusion that relates words and things. He even suggested that the word "This" could refer to the sentence itself, i.e., "This sentence is not a pipe."
Magritte also has paintings in which he assigns different names to the things depicted in order to provoke a psychological shock that favors transcendence. An example is the series "The Keys to Dreams".
Bibliography
Blake, Robert R.; Ramsey, Glenn V. (eds.). Perception: An approach to personality. The Ronald Press Company, 1951.
Bois, J. Samuel. The Art of Awareness. A Textbook on General Semantics. Wm. C. Brown Co., 1966.
Bois, J. Samuel. General Semantics and Zen. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 18-1, pp. 34-46, April 1961. Disponible en Internet.
Bridges, Jessica. Zen Buddhism and General Semantics. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, vol. 63, October 2006. Disponible en Internet.
Caro Gabalda, Isabel. Psicología y semántica general. Promolibro, 1990.
Casas Gómez, Miguel. Semántica general. Liceus, Servicios de Gestión y Comunicación, 2005. Disponible en Internet.
European Society for General Semantics (ESGS). http://esgs.free.fr/uk/gs.htm
Gardner, Martin. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Dover Publications, 1957.
Hayakawa, Samuel I.; Hayakawa, Alan R. Language in Thought and Action. Harcourt Trade publishers, 1991.
Holmes, Stewart W. What is the Zen Master Talking About? ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 50-2, pp. 157-164, Summer 1993.
Institute of General Semantics. http://www.generalsemantics.org
Johnson, Kenneth G. General Semantics: An Outline Survey. Institute of General Semantics, 2004. Disponible en Internet (web de IGS).
Johnson, Kenneth G. Thinking Creatically. Institute of General Semantics, 1991.
Kodish, Bruce I. In the Name of Skepticism: Martin Gardner's Misrepresentations of General Semantics. General Semantics Bulletin, Number 71, pp. 50–63, 2004.
Korzybski, Alfred. Collected Writings 1920-1950. Institute of General Semantics, 1990.
Korzybski, Alfred. Science and Sanity. An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. Institute of General Semantics, 1995. Disponible en Internet.
Korzybski, Alfred. Manhood of Humanity. The Science and Art of Human Engineering. FQ Books, 2010 y General Books LLC, 2009.
Korzybski, Alfred. El papel del lenguaje en los procesos perceptivos. Trabajo original publicado en Perception: An approach to personality. Traducción de Isabel Caro (Universidad de Valencia). Disponible en Internet.
Maas, David F. The New American Standard Bible in E-Prime. Institute of General Semantics, 2010.
Potier, Bernard. Semántica general. Gredos, 1993.
Stockdale, Steve. Here´s Something About General Semantics. A Primer for Making Sense of Your World. Internet.
Whorf, Benjamin L. Languages and Logic. Chemical Compound or Mechanical Mixture, a Sentence Hides within its Structure Laws of Thought. Papers of the 2nd American Congress on General Semantics, Denver, Colorado. Institute of General Semantics, 1943.
