3 ms·

>General Semantics isn't bullshit like NLP is Uh.. did you read Science and Sanity?![2] It's absolutely BS. Korzybski thought "is" should be eliminated. When y

>General Semantics isn't bullshit like NLP is Uh.. did you read Science and Sanity?![2] It's absolutely BS. Korzybski thought "is" should be eliminated. When you say "The car is red", there are many things the car 'is' besides red, so this is a lie. (No, really!) Thus a language without 'is' would be better.[1] He saw and wrote of himself as an Aristotle-scale genius. Science and Sanity has a couple of ideas: "map is not the territory"–no wonder this is quoted, it's the one coherent idea in the book–and the structural differential, a very interesting device made of string and bits of metal, for representing levels of abstraction and interrelations of concepts[0]. But the bulk of the thick book is comprised of a chapter on each of many traditional fields–psychology, linguistics, physics, etc, educating about the use of "general semantics" in each field. e.g. there's a maths/calculus/geometry chapter, with a bit purporting to explain the application of "general semantics" to it. These chapters seem meant to show what a polymath and genius Korzybski was - "Gee, how knows so much about so many subjects, there must be something to this". He was evidently staggeringly impressed with himself, well, many people are, but only cranks write about it to such a degree. I think its success lay in its nature as a (very) introductory textbook to a lot of different areas. It's all extremely basic stuff. The less generally educated you are, the more impressive it would seem. It's very weird that it got any kind of reputation though. Not many people are acquainted with Science and Sanity these days, it seems, (understandably) and just assume there must be something to it. [0] http://www.google.com/search?q=korzybski+structural+differential&tbm=isch http://www.google.com/search?q=korzybski+structural+differen... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime [2] Online here: http://www.rodsmith.org.uk/alfred-korzybski/science-sanity%20-%200011.htm http://www.rodsmith.org.uk/alfred-korzybski/science-sanity%2...

perl4ever 7y ago
You sound like you need to take a "cortico-thalamic pause"... https://www.quora.com/How-does-one-perform-a-cortico-thalamic-pause https://www.quora.com/How-does-one-perform-a-cortico-thalami...
- yesenadam 7y ago
  I can't tell if that's meant to be a joke or not.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    There are...several layers to it. My dad reputedly made references to the "cortico-thalamic pause", and it was probably a joke. I think maybe it was more of a reference to A E Van Vogt's science fiction than General Semantics as such. And possibly there was a (humorous) association with "we now pause for station identification" on the radio. Looking at Wikipedia, it seems like Van Vogt was significantly involved in Dianetics which later became Scientology, which seems vaguely disturbing (I also learned of Theodore Sturgeon's connections to it relatively recently). But, I mean, the concept of pausing and reconciling your feelings and analytical mind seems to make sense, kind of. The line between stuff that appeals to smart people who think laterally and total bullshit gets hazy sometimes. Or between obvious truisms and deep insights. My father was a physicist with an interest in various things including philosophy, and I recall books belonging to him by Chomsky and many others that don't necessarily appeal to me but I can't ask him now exactly what he thought of them and how seriously he took something.

perl4ever 7y ago

You sound like you need to take a "cortico-thalamic pause"... https://www.quora.com/How-does-one-perform-a-cortico-thalamic-pause https://www.quora.com/How-does-one-perform-a-cortico-thalami...

yesenadam 7y ago
I can't tell if that's meant to be a joke or not.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  There are...several layers to it. My dad reputedly made references to the "cortico-thalamic pause", and it was probably a joke. I think maybe it was more of a reference to A E Van Vogt's science fiction than General Semantics as such. And possibly there was a (humorous) association with "we now pause for station identification" on the radio. Looking at Wikipedia, it seems like Van Vogt was significantly involved in Dianetics which later became Scientology, which seems vaguely disturbing (I also learned of Theodore Sturgeon's connections to it relatively recently). But, I mean, the concept of pausing and reconciling your feelings and analytical mind seems to make sense, kind of. The line between stuff that appeals to smart people who think laterally and total bullshit gets hazy sometimes. Or between obvious truisms and deep insights. My father was a physicist with an interest in various things including philosophy, and I recall books belonging to him by Chomsky and many others that don't necessarily appeal to me but I can't ask him now exactly what he thought of them and how seriously he took something.