>Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 20:01:57 +0300 >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >Subject: Copy of: Russell Meyers MD. Abstractioins ****Pals, I want to make sure everybody received Milton Dawes' post (below) on Oct. 1, presenting an overview of the Russell Meyers Intro. to the 4th edition. He sent it to me. I thought it was my copy off the list and just saw _my_ name on the "To" line tonight. ARGGGH. My computer was acting up that day so I'm not convinced this post got to anybody. Sorry, Milton, if so. I read some comments apparently about something else you wrote and thought it had circulated. But maybe it _did_ get out. Hmmmmm. Better twice than not at all, in this case, right? Carmen (read on) *** Hi Nervous Systems Welcome all. I have been invited to contribute my impressions of Russ Meyers' M.D. Preface to the Fourth Edition of Science and Sanity. What follows represents a sampling of my impressions. Dr. Meyers emphasized that Korzybski in formulating his Non-Aristotelian System and General Semantics, true to the self-reflexive spirit of the system, anticipated changes and revisions to the system. But he noted that in our modern (1957) world of rapid changes, with deeper understanding of our inner and outer worlds, and many new advances in technology, nothing had emerged that demanded fundamental changes in either the theory or the practice of the system: (I believe this to be still the case in 1995). Dr. Meyers, a world reknown neurosurgeon made this anology charasteristic of his discipline: He suggested that Korzybski, "like a skillful diagnostician", penetrated deeply into our human condition. He recognized and systematically elaborated the significant influence language had on all our "thinking-and-doing": from our most lofty philosophical pronouncements to our most trivial everyday behaviors. Korzybski uncovered what to him represented the more serious deterrents to our human endeavours; disorders that cramped our creative potentials; hampered our problem-solving capabilities; and put grave strictures on improvements in diverse areas of our human relationships - personal, cultural, institutional, international... The agency that Korzybski thought contributed to this pathology of the human situation, was our "linguistic habits", embedded in "the academically -revered and ubiquitously exercised aristotelian formulation of logic". According to Dr Meyers, this diagnosis qualified as an "intellectual triumph", an act of "personal integrity" and a tremendous and unusual brand of daring and courage.And he was not surprised that this challenge to the established mode of 'thinking' also required a tremendous amount of 'physical' energy. Like Copernicus and Galileo before him, Korzybski in challenging the popular and academic mode of inquiry of his time, got a reception that was similarly unpopular. But having made his diagnosis, Korzybski did not stop there. He also formulated "effective prescriptions" for the prevention and treatment of these pathologic conditions of personal, cultural, and institutional misevaluations and delusions. For him, these were "unmistakable marks of unsanity, however 'normal' they might appear to be in a statistical sense" Dr. Meyers stated that Korzybski's general-semantics formulations facilitated insights for advancements in such areas as the psychology of perception, child psychology, education, anthropological theories, ethics, psychotherapy, psychology and related disciplines, scientific method, and much more. They were found valuable in creating improvements and innovations in the busy realms of commerce, industry and transportation; military organization and civil administration; law, engineering, sociology, economics, religion, labor and management relationship, our communication processes, and so on. "These" wrote Dr. Meyers, "constitute no negligible extensions of general semantics into the world of 'practical' affairs". That no major changes were needed after 25 years of rapid changes, was no proof that no improvements would ever be required. Regardless of the enthusiasim of students and others, " they are persuaded that modifications, major as well as minor, must come as newly acquired information necessitates;" gs as a system, not withstanding the faithfullness of fervent followers, 'demands' self-criticism in the spirit of a scientific approach. There will be updates: but these will be based on the predictive accuracy of information. They will not be accepted based on dogma, authority, power bases, or revelations from any supernatural beings. Individuals attracted to gs are usually not of the type that is impressed with or by 'authority'. They are usually highly critical individuals. In the openness of its foundations and structures; in its requirement for self-critiicism, in its dependency on predictive information, in its explicit references and acknowledgements of its man made origins - attendance to the formulations of gs, severely restricts the formation of cults in the propagation of its message - notwithstanding the charges of ill-informed critics. Twenty five years after its appearance, the formulations and practitioners of gs, were viewed with less suspicion, and had gained a degree of acceptance. And the widening sphere of gs influence, local and world wide, was indicated by the increase in growth of membership in two major organizations (The Institute of General Semantics, and The International Society for General Semantics) concerned with the development, teaching, and uses of gs. And especially in the area of business, where time, energy, and money is at a premium, the steady increase in the application of gs formulations appeared " to offer eloquent testimony of their effectiveness". In 1949, Korzybski attended the Third American Congress on General Semantics, (This turned out to be his last public appearance) and had the satisfaction of hearing reports on the diverse applications of gs. "The impact of Korzybski's work on Western culture (wrote Dr. Meyers) is now unmistakable". He felt that it was reasonable to expect that implementation of gs formulations by serious students, would have an increasing impact and deep influence on future generations. In closing, Dr. Meyers true to the spirit of an experimental approach wrote "It remains to be seen what effects the regular implementation of these precepts will bring to mankind". And earlier on, he had this to say: "...the continuing substantiality of Korzybski's 1933 formulations must be regarded as a tribute to his vision and integrative genius". .( As a student-teacher-practitioner of gs for over 25 years, I can say from personal experiences, "I heartily agree"). Milton ============================================================================== >Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 12:12:08 -0400 (EDT) >From: Cindy Forsha >Subject: no update needed >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania On Oct. 1st, in his summary of Meyers' preface, Milton Dawes states: >Dr. Meyers emphasized that Korzybski in formulating his Non-Aristotelian System >and General Semantics, true to the self-reflexive spirit of the system, >anticipated changes and revisions to the system. But he noted that in our >modern (1957) world of rapid changes, with deeper understanding of >our inner and outer worlds, and many new advances in technology, nothing >had emerged that demanded fundamental changes in either the theory or >the practice of the system: (I believe this to be still the case in 1995.) Ah ... that I could be so sure of such things ... but the ice maiden haunts me ... in the early morning hours she visits with icy fingers tearing at the fabric of our beliefs we ourselves have given her life through our curiosity and questioning open minds allow her frightening entry into our thoughts and she threatens us, she can steal our identity, our souls, isn't this the definition of death, the loss of self-awareness? Death is something to be respected and feared there is no return from Death, once you have died there is no way back we'll close our minds, we'll unsubscribe, we don't have to listen to this, these murderous truths we can shut our ears and blind our eyes, deprive our senses of the reality of living WE CAN MAKE IT STOP! but then what happens? we die... Cindy Forsha ckubvya@grove.iup.edu ============================================================================ >Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 00:40:32 +0300 >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >From: ceclark@students.wisc.edu (carmen clark) >Subject: Mayers question #1 - Wha hoppie? Sorry, pals: I'm trying to get my questions in under the wire. :) 1. The big question, detective-wise, to be pondered by me for some time, is "What happened after 1958?" Meyers closes his intro. stating "All in all, then, a healthy state of affairs appears to prevail in respect of general semantics. The impact of K's work on Western culture is now unmistakable and there is every reason to be optimistic that his precepts will be read by ever-widening circles of serious students and that the latter, in their turn, must deeply influence generations of students yet to come. It remains to be seen what effects the regular implementations of these precepts will bring to mankind. Many of us are convinced that they will prove highly salutory."(xxvii-xxviii) It is easy in 1995 to just blow Meyers off as a zealot who projected success out of his own enthusiasm for g.s. But I think that would be a mistake. Looking at the era, the decade of the 1950s, people were wild about the scientific advancement of launching a thing about the size of a grapefruit (that made a single steady tone, I think) into outer space. A bunch of the technology from that came from my demonstrating alma-mater (I was suspended for demonstrating, not graduated ), from University of Iowa, home of the physics department where James VanAllen reigned. Wendell J. was running the speech department there, and Russell Meyers of U. of Iowa hospitals, was literally a world-renowned surgeon. I imagine that from where Russell M. stood, the age of Aquarius, 50s style--scientific, not new age--was dawning. W. Johnson wrote like that too. He said that American society was in transition from old Aristotleian culture to science-based culture. Well, good luck. For sure, the transition has never taken place. I, the flaming red, maintain that's because Aristotleian culture is very profitable. People buy goods based on those propaganda ploys we discussed in the spring ETC. Government propaganda slides down better, too, when a few all-isms and Aristotleian justifications accompany them. So if advertisers and government liked Aristotleian culture, why promote g.s.? Commercials certainly wouldn't employ g.s. I think there's more, however. I think it might be a generational thing in a way, since K died around 1950, Lee died sometime in the 50s, I think, and Wendell J. in the mid-60s. But there's still more. I think what it really comes down to is that maybe a bunch of fields co-opted many important aspects of g.s. to use as 'tools,' but did not take with them a solid 'core' of g.s. principles, such as Pula listed in his intro. So, essentially, people got the shell and not the taco, pretty soon. And if fewer or less dynamic people are working on the taco-middle, then pretty soon there is drift. (is this idiosyncratic speech? I hope not) When I sold encyclopedias, we used to tell prospective buyers that in this day and age scientific information doubled about every seven years. That must have been true, our supervisors would not have told us so. :) Even so, I think somebody else says a generation can be considered to turn over every 18 years. So, if we're dealing with 37 years after Meyers' day, two more generations have turned over and every new generation needs educating. I don't know the answers. Just trying to speculate. But understanding the historical past is important to this question. Carmen ========================================================================= >From: "Richard Plourde" >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 11:35:07 -0500 >Subject: Re: Mayers question #1 - Wha hoppie? carmen clark wrote: > 1. The big question, detective-wise, to be pondered by me for some > time, is "What happened after 1958?" Meyers closes his intro. > stating "All in all, then, a healthy state of affairs appears to > prevail in respect of general semantics. The impact of K's work on > Western culture is now unmistakable and there is every reason to be > optimistic that his precepts will be read by ever-widening circles > of serious students and that the latter, in their turn, must deeply > influence generations of students yet to come. Your question has bothered me for quite some time. What happened? I think that a bunch of things happened, some in society-in-general, some in the g.s.-movement itself. Paradoxically, the success of science (measured as leading to an astonishing increase in productivity and to that highly-abstract thing, wealth) may have played a part in the process. We depend on "what's out there" in order to stay alive, but, once you've managed to accomplish that, then there's time for other things. Some examples of "other things" include learning more about "what's out there," but other examples include watching television and indulging in 'idealism.' Consider: it wasn't all *that* long ago that most people were engaged in farming, because if they weren't, there wouldn't be enough food to go around. Now, in the U.S., technology and *science* has made it possible for only a very small fraction of the population to grow the food. We pretty much ignore farmers, farmland, and the technologists and scientists who made that possible (and there's gonna be hell to be paid for that) *because* *we* *can*. Consider: after the farm came manufacturing as the place where most people worked. Technology and science has now made it possible for a very small fraction of the population to build the objects we need. (The U.S. Government Accounting Office reported, a few years ago, that there are more people employed in government in the U.S. than there are people employed in manufacturing.) Further, let's consider that many of the people involved in manufacturing are *not* building anything; they are pushing buttons. I suspect that, today in the U.S., it is possible to live a long and fairly comfortable life while retaining all sorts of false-to-fact illusions. We seldom get punished for our illusions. There are consequences, of course, but the consequences of operating non-extensionally (I'm not sure that television-watching even qualifies as 'intensional') don't generally happen *right* *now*, but later. For "right now," we can afford Simpson-fascination (both O.J. and Bart). For "right now" we can tail-gate on the highway and forget the physical consequences -- and we can, most often, get away with it. For "right now" we can blame science for science-stupidly-applied and for science-not-up-to-our-whims. And we do. We can get away with it. Some things are easier than others. General semantics is not easy. Science is not easy. Why get involved? And, that's not a rhetorical question. The quick answer (one I'm not at all satisfied with) that I can think of is, "For the rewards." Abstract 'rewards' -- abstract 'wealth.' I think that if we could get those 'rewards' to point to something, then g.s. might not remain stalled. -R P.S. I've thought about this a bit, and so far the most satisfying 'reward' I can think of relates to "shocks to the nervous system." We need not experience 'disappointment' as painful. Perhaps there are other rewards that others can think of as relevant to 'wealthy-society(1995).' -R -- Richard Plourde (rplourde@scoot.netis.com) ======================================================================== >Date: 07 Oct 95 12:49:47 EDT >From: "Milton L. Dawes" <102362.1465@compuserve.com> >To: "(Abstractors)" >Subject: Mayers question #1 - Wha hoppie? Hi Abstractors Patience. Patience. Patience. Remember that for gs to become more accepted and established, there has to be, among other factors, an increase in critical non-acceptance of 2000 years of aristotelian, attitudes languaging institutions -(commercial, political, religious, educational, social, cultural, etc). Korzybski refered to this as our "neurolinguistic and neurosemantic environments", which we contribute to, and in which we have been developiong from birth. Now if we remember how much effort we put into and how much difficulty we encounter, changing some aspects of our own selves that we desperately want to change; and applying the formulation "relative invariance under transformation", ask ourselves this question. "How much more difficult could it be for my family, my friends, my acquaintances, a village, a town, a city, a society, a nation ... to change toward more non-a behaviors?" But being embedded in a mainly aristotelian environment is not in my estimation our biggest challenge. A far bigger challenge exists in our 'natural' psychobiological tendencies toward "allness, identification, elementalism, not being conscious of our abstracting, etc" . Not to discourage anyone, (but to encourage self-reflexiveness, and self-development first) (order), I have often wondered if humankind could ever achieve in the main a non-aristotelian orientation: if the aristotelian indoctrination and our 'natural' tendencies are not so well established as to keep gs at the peripheries.??? Let's concentrate on improving our own understandings and behaviors as a primary goal. I suspect we will be better able to share through our own experiences. Milton ============================================================================ >Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 01:06:42 +0300 >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >From: ceclark@students.wisc.edu (carmen clark) >Subject: cults and cults Meyers addressed a point dear to my heart in his discussion on pages xxv-xxvi, about cults. He essentially said, "G.s. is not a cult because it open-ends your thinking and promotes new thoughts. Cults want to close down thinking and have members hold the same thoughts." Now that makes a lot of sense. When I first became actively interested in g.s., I felt some concern over the idea that I was entering into a cult. I have been well-schooled in cult behavior in my academic work and belonged to a political group in the old days that behaved like a cult, and have de-programmed people from that group, so I know something about cults. There are certain earmarks. Yet, I concluded last spring precisely what Meyers offered, and I paraphrased above. Cults definitely don't want their members to have new thoughts. They want them to have old thoughts. However. I had forgotten about something important from communication theory. The best indoctrination, persuasion, propaganda, is self-persuasion. So a smart cult teaches people *what* to think *about* and *how* to think, and lets them draw their *own* conclusions (from that frame). Because of the "logical fate" of that orientation and process, the cult members will likely keep coming up with conclusions that match the cult's orientation. And they will adhere to them much more strongly because they thought them up themselves, rather than being told what to think. In terms of persuasion theory, this is a real hard nut to crack, especially if the cult has its own 'language' that sets it apart from outsiders, and if it is socially isolated, and so on (I could list this stuff for a long time). Now, I'm not calling g.s. a cult. Not. Not. Not. I'm just saying something has changed since 1958 when Russell Meyers wrote his introduction. I think what has changed is the sophistication of Aristotleian culture. And I think g.s. adherents could have inadvertently helped it change by not continuing to propagandize core g.s. propositions, probably more like Wendell Johnson did, concentrating on scientific vs. Aristotleian thought, and the perils of big categories, and more from the Pula list. I have a list I copied down of 12 fundamental g.s. points from _Dialogs With Street Fighters_, the g.s. publication (excellent book!) 1981 or something--I've lent it out so can't refer specifically. Anyway, I figured out that if you reverse the main points to their opposite--presto/chang-o--you've got cult behavior, e.g., "The word _is_ the thing." "What I say it is _is_ what it is." and so on. I think we may have contributed in some ways to our own problems by developing a great formula but not promoting the against-the-current use of it enough in recent years. Since Aristotlean culture dominates the media and the schools, where are people supposed to get it and how are they supposed to understand it? Solution? Well, shucks. I think the solution is to communicate that core list of 12 points, but also mainly the message of Aristotleian _culture_ being the *problem*, to whoever will listen in the American public. We live in a very self-absorbed generation. People want to use g.s. in their own lives or their own fields of research or something. But the culture is feeding bad thinking to every generation of kiddies that comes along. So they get alienated and join cults that are not very scientific, and come up with all kinds of valid-but-bizarre-and-anti-scientific explanations for why the world is a mess and they are chronically unhappy. Johnson's IFD explains it a little better, I think, as does much of the other K body of writing. Aren't you glad I don't hold back? :) Carmen ========================================================================== >To: ceclark@students.wisc.edu (carmen clark) >From: viking@cpcnet.com (George Kurien) >Subject: Re: cults and cults >Cc: gs, ssread-l@newciv.org >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 22:26:29 -0300 Fellow Time Binders, Even when it comes the question of cults - and the dogmas that accompany them, we cann go back to the event, process, non verrbal, silent, object levels and abstract the AMISH people that live in Pennsylvania, (where I live) and abstract some quite positive aspects of this cult. GS actually helps us to actually be open ended about and with the different viewpoints........ George.