>Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 18:18:55 -0700 >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >From: JHS >Subject: Notes on Intro to 1st Ed Dear all, How about sharing our notes as a starting point for discussions? I attached my notes for the preface to the 1st ed. below, intentionally left unedited to maintain the general line of thought. I'd like to point out that I'm an admirer of AK. Unfortunately, remarks and discussions, more often than not, focus on the differences or unclarities of a text, thereby shadowing the agreement about the _rest_ of it!! Joachim -------------------------------------------------------- Intro to First Edition - Notes: - pg xcii 2nd para: "The system by which the white race lives..." Any reason why is he limiting the discussion about the 'white race'? - pg xcii bottom: "Few of us at present realize that, as long as such ignorance of our rulers prevails, _no solution of our human problems is possible_." (italics indicated by enclosing '_'). Ignorance? Most leaders (at least in Europe) went to private schools (Jesuites, for example) and were taught Roman rhetorics. In other words, how to intentionally USE words to mislead the audience. pg. xciv 2nd para: Aha! "Nevertheless, the twisting system of his system and the imposed immobility of this twisted system, as enforced for nearly two thousand years by the controlling groups, often under threats of torture and death, have led and can only lead to more disasters." That sounds more like it! What I often thought was how one could embarrass the 'leaders' by publicly disclosing their maneuvres. pg xcvi end of first para: "..., based on the work of Einstein and the quantum pioneers." As usual, a flag raises when I read a general remark like this. By all what is known today, Einstein cashed in on the scientific work of his first wife and was a lousy, lazy mathematician himself. But then again, who would have listened to a woman at the turn at the century? In that sense, it sure was _his_ work that made it known. Foot note pg xcvi ff: Max Born? _Non-elementalistic_ methods??? Wasn't he into Hegel's 'Dialectic' and into Schopenhauer (Vedanta?) I wish AK would specify what these methods were... perhaps later or elsewhere he does? That brings me to the idea that AK might have restricted the scope to the 'white race', in order to limit the frame of reference to Western thought and not to muddy the waters with Indian philosophies. It would have been nice if he would have mentioned that Buddha's core teaching was the recognition of the world as Non-I (an-atta). - end of notes for intro to First Edition - ***************************************************** ** Joachim H. Steingrubner, PhD ** ** Internet: jhs@newciv.org ** ** WWW http://www.newciv.org/ ** ** CompuServe 71762,1757 ** ***************************************************** ============================================================================ >Date: Mon, 2 Oct 95 18:05:17 -0700 >From: mcpherso (John McPherson) >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >Subject: Re: Notes on Intro to 1st Ed Joachim Steingrubner wrote: I attached my notes for the preface to the 1st ed. below, intentionally left unedited to maintain the general line of thought. Thank you! Of course, you realize that that will probably tell us more about you than about the text in question ... :-) I'd like to point out that I'm an admirer of AK. I greatly admire the non-A system that he produced, but I disagree with a fair amount of his not-explicitly-gs musings. I also like what little I've picked up about his style of presentation (from the 1937 Seminar and from the historical note on the S.D.). He would've been an interesting grandfather ... Unfortunately, remarks and discussions, more often than not, focus on the differences or unclarities of a text, thereby shadowing the agreement about the _rest_ of it!! Right ... I suppose you could offer additional examples and your own perspective on things you especially resonate with. Any reason why is he limiting the discussion about the 'white race'? I do think it was a mistake for him to abstract and focus on the skin color of the people in question rather than the 'culture' of them (Western). I think it's more coherent to abstract _relevant_ characteristics. "Few of us at present realize that, as long as such ignorance of our rulers prevails, _no solution of our human problems is possible_." Of course, there is the embodied assumption that "rulers" somehow can solve those problems, and perhaps that the "ruler-ruled" paradigm is not to be questioned ... but I do question it. This is an example of one of many of K's non-gs ideas in S&S. Ignorance? Most leaders (at least in Europe) went to private schools (Jesuites, for example) and were taught Roman rhetorics. Okay, they may be ignorant1 of science, linguistics and semantics, but not ignorant2 of rhetoric, oratory, persuasion, etc. Also, they would be ignorant3 of the myriads of facts by which individuals make life decisions in their actions and interactions, which effectively precludes total dictatorial "rule" (thank goodness!). F. A. Hayek covered this what-might- be-called "extensional explosion" in an essay called something like "The Uses of Knowledge in Human Society", which is not a work of general semantics but is relevant in this context. "Nevertheless, the twisting system of his system and the imposed immobility of this twisted system, as enforced for nearly two thousand years by the controlling groups, often under threats of torture and death, have led and can only lead to more disasters." What I often thought was how one could embarrass the 'leaders' by publicly disclosing their maneuvres. By explicitely showing where and how they twisted Aristotle's system? I like it ... though it may be too late to use this strategy. Most politicians I've heard tend to put forward "family values", "the common good", "the good of the country", "for the sake of the children", etc., etc., etc., rather than trying to cash in on Aristotle ... but perhaps K' meant this in a deeper way ... As usual, a flag raises when I read a general remark like this. By all what is known today, Einstein cashed in on the scientific work of his first wife and was a lousy, lazy mathematician himself. But then again, who would have listened to a woman at the turn at the century? In that sense, it sure was _his_ work that made it known. Huh? "By all that is known today" _by you_, but not _by me_! This is news to me and probably would be to every scientist I've ever talked to. Do you have any evidence for this? Didn't E originate the thought experiment of "riding a beam of light" or whatever it was? Max Born? _Non-elementalistic_ methods??? Wasn't he into Hegel's 'Dialectic' and into Schopenhauer (Vedanta?) I wish AK would specify what these methods were... perhaps later or elsewhere he does? "by the application of the non-el methods of Einstein ..." which I think refers to the use of the space-time paradigm (vs. the 'space' "and" 'time" paradigm). Perhaps Born _also_ used dialectical methods, but perhaps the results that K is talking about here are explicitly linked to space-time math. It would have been nice if he would have mentioned that Buddha's core teaching was the recognition of the world as Non-I (an-atta). Heh :-) Not even K could take it _all_ in and synthesize it. Plus, of course, he may not have been very aware (or accepting of) of "Eastern" thought. I've only really seen it fairly recently in the attempted syntheses of "The Tao of Physics" and Kosko's writings on fuzzy logic. Thanks for sharing your notes with us. John M. ======================================================================== >From: "Richard Plourde" >Organization: Electronics Consultant >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 15:56:19 -0500 >Subject: Preface to the First Edition "The present work therefore formulates a system, called non- aristotelian, which is based on the complete rejection of identity and its derivative, and shows what very simple yet powerful structural factors of sanity can be found in science." -AK, Preface to the First Edition of Science and Sanity p.xcvii of Fifth Edition With this sentence, Korzybski presented what seems the scope of the theory of general semantics. "Identification appears ... as something 'infectious', for it is transmitted directly or indirectly from parents and teachers to the child by the mechanism and structure of language, by established and inherited 'habits f thought', by rules for life-orientation, etc.. "...it seems imperative that the neuro-psycho-logical factors which make general sanity impossible should be eliminated." -- ibid p. xci With this sentence, Korzybski presented what seem a primary purpose for general semantics. "Experience and experiments show that this 'change of human nature', which under verbal elementalism was supposed to be impossible, can be accomplished in most cases in a few months, if we attack this problem by the non-elementalistic, neuro-psycho-logical, special non-identity technique." -- ibid p. xciii With this sentence, Korzybski presented a claim that general semantics works in a theraputic way, and pointed to what he claimed a possible (and practical) accomplishment of general semantics. (Note that I've intentionally separated out purpose, or intent, from accomplishment, or what happens.) The primary focus of the introduction was, as I saw it, on 'identification.' "This 'emery' in the nervous system I call identification." [ibid. p. xc] Abrasives in the lubricating oils of a machine would cause a machine to break down. The routine or habitual usage of abrasives in lubricating oils would have the effect of making machines inappropriate in a society -- the cost to build would be too high for their limited lifetimes. We need oil-filters on our machines; we need identification-filters on our brains. I also found a strong political component in the introduction, a component that seemed not particularly evident throughout the remainder of S&S, and thus perhaps worthy of special attention in our discussions. "If the ignorance and identifications of our rulers could be eliminated ... delusional factors through ... powerful agencies would cease to be ... enforced upon us ... "...as enforced for nearly two thousand years by the controlling groups, often under threats of torture and death ..." ibid pp. xciii-xciv. This constitutes a revolutionary political meta-doctrine. The traditional approach to political doctrines (the meta-doctrine) has been that we invent a political system and from that political system we promise happiness (or pride or profit or domination or whatever.) Korzybski proposed a different meta-doctrine: create sanity and the political system will follow. Such a meta-doctrine directly opposes the approach of defining the political system first; as with scientific theories, you can start from anyplace and 'spiral' along a path of continual improvement without committing heresy. Those were the primary 'bold' points that I saw in Korzybski's Preface to the First Edition. For the rest, he presented substantial justification for the introduction of a 'non-aristotelian' system, with frequent reference to science and mathematics, and a connection to psycho-logical (his hyphen) relationships, and of course the obligatory assertions of appreciation to those who helped him in his work. -R -- Richard Plourde (rplourde@scoot.netis.com)