>From: Hjmoore@cris.com >Subject: Preface to the 5th Edition >To: ssread-l@newciv.org (S&S reading-list) >Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 14:36:05 -0400 (EDT) >Cc: borzoi@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Michael Isaacson) Fellow evaluationally energetic and self-selecting people, Although I got my 4F years ago, I was drafted into starting this out. So here goes: In the Preface to the Fifth Edition, Bob Pula gives an historical overview of what has happened g-swise in the 60+ years since S&S was first published, and a list of what he considers to be AK's greatest original formulations. He posits that AK's greatest gift to time-binders was: "_general semantics_, ...the first non-aristotelian system _applied_ and made _teachable_." Of the original formulations, etc., I consider the following to be especially note worthy: 1. _Time-binding, time-binding ethics_ [I personally feel that more attention should be spent on considering, teaching, and applying the ethics of time-binding.] 3. The _neurologically_ focused formulation of the _process of abstracting_. 5. _Consciousness of abstracting_. 6. _The structure of language_. 7. _Structure as the only 'content' of knowledge_. 13. _Languages, formulational systems, etc. as maps and only maps of what they purportedly represent_. 16. _Extension of Cassius Keyser's "Logical Fate"_. 17. _The circularity of knowledge_. 21. Epistemology as centered in _neuro-linguistic_, _neuro-semantic_ issues. 22. The _recognition of and formulation of extensional and intensional orientations as orientations. 28. _General uncertainty_. 31. _Predictability as the primary measure of the value of an epistemological formulation_. Your choices will probably differ. In fact, I am highly suspicious of anyone whose list is congruent with mine. Review the article, and let the group know which items *you* think are of greatest interest, importance, etc. I remain, over 200 I'm sure, Homer Sole Acolyte to, and Chief Detractor of, The Big Pu. (Self-appointed) From jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk Sun Oct 1 12:11:10 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA05119; Sun, 1 Oct 95 12:11:10 -0700 Received: from s5.sys.uea.ac.uk (0@s5.sys.uea.ac.uk [139.222.1.5]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA06076 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 12:02:32 -0700 From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk Received: from chrome.sys.uea.ac.uk by s5.sys.uea.ac.uk; Sun, 1 Oct 95 20:06:23 BST Date: Sun, 1 Oct 95 20:06:20 BST Message-Id: <29581.9510011906@chrome.sys.uea.ac.uk> To: ssread-l@newciv.org Subject: Some comments on Pula's preface Status: RO I'll set the ball rolling by expounding my understanding of Pula's preface. Pula begins by describing the growth of g.s since S&S, in the form of the various books published, ETC., and the GS Bulletin. He then outlines the major points of originality, as he sees it, in AK's work. Here they are with Pula's numbering. There is some overlap among them, and my explanations introduce more, since explaining one usually requires dragging in others. In each item, the first sentence simply states the feature, the following paragraph, where present, is my own expansion. I could expand on these much more, but if I took all week over it, it would rather defeat the point. :-) [PS inserted just as I was about to unload this: just saw Homer's account: >Your choices will probably differ. In fact, I am highly suspicious of >anyone whose list is congruent with mine. Review the article, and let the >group know which items *you* think are of greatest interest, importance, etc. I haven't rated the items here, but I expect I'll get back to this some time this week.] 1. Time-binding, as the primary feature distinguishing humans from other animals. Humans alone can use the stored knowledge of the past, accumulating knowledge without bound. Other animals have nothing more impressive than the spread of potato-washing among monkeys. 2. Language, as the primary mechanism by which time-binding operates. 3. A description of the process of abstraction in terms of neurology. 4. Arising from that, the notion of orders of abstraction. 5. Consciousness of abstraction as a key technique for sane mental functioning. 6. The multiordinality of many terms. I.e. the fact that they mean different things at different orders of abstraction. 7. Structure as the only content of knowledge. Knowledge consists in semantic reactions having a similarity of structure to the external world. 'Form' and 'content' cannot be split. 8. The notion of semantic reaction, which avoids the elementalistic splitting of 'mind' from 'body': the total reaction of an organism to a symbol. 9. The functional interdependency of brain and language. 10. The notion of neuro-semantic environment. A human's environment is not just the surrounding physical objects, it consists also of symbols and abstractions. We all live within such a neuro-semantic environment, whose influence on us is at least as important as the physical conditions in which we live. 11. The formulation of a non-aristotelian *system*, an integrated whole of which all these ideas are a part. 12. The Structural Differential as an accurate and tangible model of the nature of abstraction. 13. All formulations as maps. They are necessarily distinct from the territory they represent, representing it through similarity of structure, not identity. 14. A 'non-allness' orientation. A consciousness that one never knows 'all' about any phenomenon, and a concomitant avoidance of linguistic formulations expressing 'allness'. 15. Non-identity. Trivially, a thing is not the words naming it; more deeply, it is not identical to the meaning of those words. Whatever we say a thing is, not merely are the air vibrations or bytes we emit not the thing, but our meaning, being something inside our minds, is not the thing either. Whatever we say, whatever we think, the thing is still something separate from these. We think about it, but the only possible connection between that process and the thing is a similarity of structure, not an identity. 16. The not merely logical, but psycho-logical (the hyphen is important here) implications of axioms, beliefs, and ways of inference. How we think affects not just how we think, but how we behave. Faulty premises lead not merely to faulty conclusions, but to faulty functioning of the nervous system. 17. The circularity of knowledge. The abstractions we make influence our process of abstraction. 18. Electro-colloidal processes as fundamental to understanding neuro-linguistic systems. I'm not sure what to make of this one. I read New Scientist regularly, and I can't remember the second-last time I saw the word "colloid" there. I would have said "last", not "second-last", and that it has the smell of dated (1933) science, except that the last time I saw the word in NS was just a few weeks ago, in an entire article about the biological importance of structures on the colloidal (the author's word) scale. I didn't make the connection with g.s when I read it, but I'll try and find it again and see if the author was tacitly writing from a g.s standpoint. We have much more knowledge now than in 1933, or 1958 (the 4th ed. of S&S) of many structures on a scale above the molecular, but below the macroscopic: the detailed physical structure of cells, the fabrication of electronic circuits on the submicron scale, buckyballs and buckytubes, the importance of protein folding, etc. When I read AK on colloids, to understand what he is really getting at I ask myself what sort of examples he might use if writing from the viewpoint of science-1995, and what would be invariant under the change. 19. Non-elementalism. Not splitting linguistically that which cannot be split in reality. Thus one cannot speak of a separate 'body' and 'mind', a separate 'animal' and 'higher' component of human nature ('human nature' is not 'animal nature' plus 'time-binding'), a separate 'organism' and 'environment', etc. To both practice and encourage non-elementalism, AK recommends using formulations which express it. "Formulation" is an example: it avoids an elementalistic splitting of 'word' and 'meaning'. The words are not merely chosen to express the meaning, one's meaning can depend on the words one finds ready to hand to express it. 20. The existence of a variety of logics, rather than a single logic. Even for purely boolean,two-valued mathematical logic, the Aristotelian subject-predicate form is inadequate, and was replaced by a logic of multi-argument relationships. Multi-valued logics and (since AK) constructive logics, topos theory, type theory, situational calculus, and many other logical systems provide a vast menagerie of possible logics. 21. The neuro-linguistic, neuro-semantic basis for epistemology. We know *only* the maps we construct in our heads, which are never the same thing as the external world. 22. The notion of extensional vs. intensional orientation. I recently received an extreme example of an intensionally-oriented document. Perhaps some of you have received it, or a similar piece -- it's being spammed all over the Internet. It begins: >What would you say if a Liberal "social scientist" told you to >jump into a pool filled with five hundred ravenous piranhas? If you haven't received it, it continues in the same vein, telling a parable of a hypothetical caricature of a 'liberal' who encourages you to swim with the piranhas and then blames you for getting bitten by them. The interesting thing about it, from a g.s point of view, is that although the story is clearly intended to promote certain views, it does not contain a single fact. By this I don't mean that it says things that are false, but that it does not say anything that even purports to be true. It is entirely a manifestation of the symbolic systems of its authors, containing not a single reference to any empirically decidable fact about the world. An extensional orientation is to be favoured. This does not mean a crude empiricism which denies that abstract concepts have any meaning, but an awareness that all one's concepts have to be tied to the reality outside one's mind. 23. Psychotherapeutic implications of the system. Understanding the mechanisms of abstraction and formulation, and the effects of faulty abstraction and formulation, suggests psychotherapeutic diagnoses and treatments. 24. The fundamental role of mathematics. Its notions of functional dependence, rate of change, non-linearity, structure, similarity of structure are basic to g.s. I'm inclined to agree with Heinlein here: an understanding of mathematics, or at least the ability to acquire an understanding, is a basic part of being human. 25. Investigating science and mathematics as forms of human behaviour. Although this is very much a standard idea now, AK (says Pula) was the first to fully consider science in this light, rather than as a disembodied abstract ideal. 26. The limitations of subject-predicate formulations. When applied without consciousness of abstracting, subject-predicate formulations are inadequate for describing the known structure of the world. A system in which all statements are presumed to be of the form "this thing has this property" cannot express relations. With consciousness of abstraction, one sees that subject-predicate formulations are merely one minor part of a much larger class . The non-A system extends and includes the A system, rather than replacing it. 27. Invariance under transformations. Objects are perceived as such because of the invariance of properties under transformations. This is so for everyday objects like pencils (pick it up, turn it round, write with it; we perceive something that persists invariantly throughout the process) and for the more abstract concepts of fundamental physics (conservation of energy etc.). 28. General uncertainty. This arises from non-allness and non-identity. Our formulations must always be open to revision, they are never the final word. 29. Distinguishing mechanism from 'machine-ism'. To explain the mechanisms of human thought and behaviour is not to render humans "merely machines". 30. Infinite-valued evaluation. One can in general not make simple true/false is/is-not judgements and categorisations. The structure of such language is inadequate to describe the world. 31. Predictability as the measure of epistemological formulations. Beauty, cleverness, or consistency are not enough for a sane orientation to the world. One's formulations must accurately predict, or be revised where they fail to do so. ___ \X/ Richard Kennaway, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk, http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/ School of Information Systems, University of East Anglia From CKUBVYA@grove.iup.edu Mon Oct 2 12:55:12 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA05463; Mon, 2 Oct 95 12:55:12 -0700 Received: from maple.grove.iup.edu (maple.grove.iup.edu [144.80.128.6]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA17190 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 12:50:42 -0700 Received: from grove.iup.edu by grove.iup.edu (PMDF V4.3-13 #2467) id <01HVY0JOQCS08WY5XX@grove.iup.edu>; Mon, 02 Oct 1995 00:19:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 1995 00:19:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Cindy Forsha Subject: Pula's preface To: ssread-l@newciv.org Message-Id: <01HVY0JOQCS28WY5XX@grove.iup.edu> Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania X-Envelope-To: ssread-l@newciv.org X-Vms-To: NETMAIL%"ssread-l@newciv.org" X-Vms-Cc: CKUBVYA Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: RO I read Pula's preface and the corresponding summaries on this list and have a question -- or two. They both have to do with item 16, so I will type the pertinent portion as it is on p. xvii. 16. *Extension of Cassius Keyser's "logical Fate"*: from premises, conclusions follow, *inexorably*. Korzybski recognized that conclusions constitute *behaviors, consequences, doings*, and that these are not merely logical derivatives but *psycho-logical* inevitabilities. If we want to change *behaviors* we must first change the premises which gave birth to the behaviors. I first would question Keyser's statement -- by it, does he mean that from specific premises, certain conclusions will definitely follow? If this is what he means, I don't think that that is necessarily true. I think that between the premise and the conclusion is a process, a way of thinking which could lead a person to one conclusion or another. So, then, following on through to Korzybski's addition, would K. be talking about the initial premises made, the premises of the "thinking process," or both? In Kennaway's post, he states that,"Faulty premises lead not merely to faulty conclusions, but to faulty functioning of the nervous system." Does this refer to an actual, physical "faulty functioning of the nervous system" that has been affected by thought ... or something else? Cindy Forsha From CKUBVYA@grove.iup.edu Mon Oct 2 15:53:55 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA05722; Mon, 2 Oct 95 15:53:55 -0700 Received: from maple.grove.iup.edu (maple.grove.iup.edu [144.80.128.6]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA18515 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 15:38:37 -0700 Received: from grove.iup.edu by grove.iup.edu (PMDF V4.3-13 #2467) id <01HVYG7OFA1S8WYF38@grove.iup.edu>; Mon, 02 Oct 1995 08:36:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 1995 08:36:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Cindy Forsha Subject: On Pula's Preface To: ssread-l@newciv.org Message-Id: <01HVYG7OG2Z68WYF38@grove.iup.edu> Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania X-Envelope-To: ssread-l@newciv.org X-Vms-To: NETMAIL%"ssread-l@newciv.org" X-Vms-Cc: CKUBVYA Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: RO I sent a previous message to the ssread list on this same topic last night, but suspect that it never made it because my screen locked up at this end right after I sent it. My apologies if you receive some duplicate comments from me. I read Pula's preface in _Science and Sanity_ as well as the summaries to ssread on the same, and have a few questions/comments to share. The first is a little far out, but I am going to mention it anyway. It has a bit to do with essentialism -- separating things which cannot be separated -- and the idea that "we can *not* know 'essences', *things in themselves*; all we can know is what we know as *abstracting nervous systems*. ...,we can *not* transcend' ourselves as organisms that abstract" (p.xxvi). I realize that for a generic system such as this, one that can "work for everyone," with science as a metaphysic, that this assumption is necessary. However, I suspect that, as in many things, this statement presumes that we know more about the topic than we might actually know. I say that this has to do with essentialism because I believe that we are an integral part of our earth-system and some people have methods of relating to parts of that system which extend beyond their nervous systems -- a "connection" which gives them an awareness not initially gained through the senses. Ultimately, the experiences are translated through the nervous system ... except for after the body is gone. Unfortunately I have only anecdotes for support -- one of a friend who, while focusing on a hawk flying above him, suddenly found himself seeing what the hawk was seeing as if it were through the hawk's eyes. Although he attributed the experience to his imagination, it seems to me that the vision went far beyond this. The other is personal. In a state of meditation, I lost awareness of my self and "became a part of the sky." This seemed to me to be outside of my nervous system because as soon as I "thought," I was hurled back into myself. Anyway, I am not saying that Korzybski's assumption is incorrect, but rather that it might be wise to consider even this assumption in non-absolute terms. __________________________________________________ I also had a question or two about item 16 -- the Extension of Keyser's "Logical Fate." The pertinent portions are quoted below: 16. *Extension of Cassius Keyser's "Logical Fate"*: from premises, conclusions follow, *inexorably*. Korzybski recognized that conclusions constitute *behaviors, consequences, doings*, and that these are not merely logical derivatives but *psycho-logical* inevitabilities. If we want to change *behaviors*, we must first change the premises which gave birth to the behaviors (p.xvii). This more or less makes sense to me -- I am looking more for clarification than anything here. I first question Keyser's statement -- by it, does he mean that from specific premises, certain conclusions will definitely follow? If this is what he means, I don't think that that is necessarily true. I think that between the premise and the conclusion is a process, a way of thinking which could lead a person to one conclusion or another. So then, following on through to K.'s extension, would K. be talking about the initial premises made, the premises of the "thinking process", both, or something different? ____________________________________________________ Kennaway, in his summary stated that "faulty premises lead not merely to faulty conclusions, but to faulty functioning of the nervous system." Does this refer to actual, physical "faulty functioning of the nervous system" with the malfunction being brought about by thought ... or something else? ... and if it does, what extensional proof is there for this assertion? Cindy Forsha From jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk Tue Oct 3 01:17:05 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA06388; Tue, 3 Oct 95 01:17:05 -0700 Received: from s5.sys.uea.ac.uk (0@s5.sys.uea.ac.uk [139.222.1.5]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA22761 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 01:15:26 -0700 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 09:19:17 BST Received: from [139.222.4.119] (jrk.sys.uea.ac.uk) by s5.sys.uea.ac.uk; Tue, 3 Oct 95 09:19:18 BST X-Sender: jrk@139.222.1.5 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ssread-l@newciv.org From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) Subject: Re: Pula's preface Status: RO Cindy Forsha writes: [Pula's item 16] >I first would question Keyser's statement -- by it, does he mean that >from specific premises, certain conclusions will definitely follow? If >this is what he means, I don't think that that is necessarily true. I >think that between the premise and the conclusion is a process, a way of >thinking which could lead a person to one conclusion or another. So, >then, following on through to Korzybski's addition, would K. be talking >about the initial premises made, the premises of the "thinking process," >or both? Both, and I would add that they cannot be split. For example, in mathematical logic, there are various different ways of formulating equivalent logical systems, in which different divisions are made between axioms (sentences taken as true) and inference rules (for getting from true sentences to other true sentences). >In Kennaway's post, he states that,"Faulty premises lead not merely to >faulty conclusions, but to faulty functioning of the nervous system." > >Does this refer to an actual, physical "faulty functioning of the nervous >system" that has been affected by thought ... or something else? Well, the physical and the mental cannot be divided (I seem to be in I-spy-elementalism mode today), but what I had in mind was not faulty functioning of the sort that would show up in a dissection or a brain scan, but faulty structures of thought -- that is, structures not similar to the territory of which they are supposed to be a map. In your terminology above, the process, as well as the premises. If there are not merely factual errors in what one believes, but errors in the very process, the mechanism of thought, then functioning will be impaired in a way which is unlikely to be remedied by merely finding evidence to correct the errors, as the very process by which such evidence might be searched for, found, and dealt with has gone wrong. To use an analogy (which is not intended to prove anything, only to enliven the point of view), if a car has wobbly steering, loose wheels, a murky windscreen, and the driver is looking backwards, progress will be slow and fitful, if it happens at all. Continual crashes are more likely. ___ \X/ Richard Kennaway, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk, http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/ School of Information Systems, University of East Anglia From rplourde@scoot.netis.com Tue Oct 3 04:12:55 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA06445; Tue, 3 Oct 95 04:12:55 -0700 Received: from scoot.netis.com (root@scoot.netis.com [198.186.186.7]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id EAA24144 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 04:11:43 -0700 Received: from rplourde.scoot.netis.com (scoot.netis.com [198.186.186.7]) by scoot.netis.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA12382 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 06:44:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199510031044.GAA12382@scoot.netis.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard Plourde" Organization: Electronics Consultant To: ssread-l@newciv.org Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 07:12:29 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Pula's preface Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Status: RO Richard Kennaway wrote: > Cindy Forsha writes: > >Does this refer to an actual, physical "faulty functioning of the nervous > >system" that has been affected by thought ... or something else? > > Well, the physical and the mental cannot be divided (I seem to be in > I-spy-elementalism mode today), but what I had in mind was not faulty > functioning of the sort that would show up in a dissection... The physical and the mental cannot be divided -- however we can divide along behavioral, perception, microphysiology, and macrophysiology lines. What we see is a function of how we look, often as much as it's a function of what's there to look at. -------------------------------------------------------------- Some comments about Pula's preface: 1: It holds together. In my experiences with reading S&S, I found myself going back to this introduction, just to get my bearings. From time to time (to time to time to time), I found myself bogged down in Korzybski's -- eloquent style. Pula provided something to snap what I was reading back into a structural relationship with the whole. I touched bases with the introduction frequently, using it in much the way I use a glossary. 2: Pula managed to fall into the currently popular (and, I think, credibility damaging) trap of referencing Heisenberg (p. xix, item 28) inappropriately. The trap is one of those "the name is the thing" traps. Heisenberg spoke of uncertainty(physics) and it seems almost inevitable that anyone speaking of 'uncertainty' ends up making reference to Heisenberg. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle *does* have a potential explanatory-place in g.s., since the uncertainty principle can be represented as a 'fuzzy-domain' transform -- and in that context, provides a marvelously vivid example of "invariance under transformation" (an extremely powerful, but I suspect almost totally not-understood tool in g.s.), but it *does* *not* relate to anything 'uncertain' in the macro-world. 3: In item 30 (p. xx), Pula wisely placed scare-quotes around the word 'infinite.' Korzybski spent a pretty fair amount of time working with 'infinity' in S&S (Chapter XIV), and *I* think that he messed up pretty badly in that section. Korzybski seemed to have settled on 'infinity' as a rough synonym for "very large" or "indefinitely large," and persisted in this rather unconventional usage without qualification through much of the book. We'll probably get on to Korzybski's 'infinity' eventually, but for the time being, I think it a good idea to follow Pula's lead, and to place an imaginary "''" around the word "infinity" each time Korzybski uses it. -R -- Richard Plourde (rplourde@scoot.netis.com) From CKUBVYA@grove.iup.edu Tue Oct 3 05:23:05 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA06470; Tue, 3 Oct 95 05:23:05 -0700 Received: from maple.grove.iup.edu (maple.grove.iup.edu [144.80.128.6]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id FAA24515 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 05:21:55 -0700 Received: from grove.iup.edu by grove.iup.edu (PMDF V4.3-13 #2467) id <01HVZUJD7BZK8WZ603@grove.iup.edu>; Tue, 03 Oct 1995 08:18:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 08:18:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Cindy Forsha Subject: Re: Pula's preface To: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk Cc: ssread-l@newciv.org Message-Id: <01HVZUJD7V9U8WZ603@grove.iup.edu> Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania X-Envelope-To: ssread-l@newciv.org X-Vms-To: NetMail%"jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk" X-Vms-Cc: NETMAIL%"ssread-l@newciv.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: RO A few thoughts on elementalism. Although it might not be possible to separate an as-a-whole person from his environment, and it is important to acknowledge that there is constant, dynamic interaction between a 'whole' and all of its parts, for the purposes of analysis, it can be useful to consider those various parts on their own. I think where the error lies in this method is not then following through on one's conclusions about the part by considering once again how it interacts with the whole ... as a method of checking the accuracy of the conclusions or of the proposed adjustments. An example: I have a horse and I notice that he seems to have vision problems sometimes, I focus on his eyes and the problem directly related to them as I do my research. I discover that there is a disease called Periodic Ophthalmia which fits the symptoms, but there are several possible causes. I then consider the entire horse, his environment and background and come to the conclusion that a lack of riboflavin is causing the problem. At this point, I might be tempted to think that all I have to do is give him riboflavin -- but this would be a serious mistake, because doing this might cause a deficit in the other vitamins present in the B-complex which would, in turn, create other problems in the horse's body. I would probably settle on some natural high-level source for the B-vitamins -- possibly brewer's yeast or a good alfalfa hay. This 'treatment' would then be monitored for effectiveness, and if it didn't appear to be working, I'd be back to square one -- looking at possible causes again. I think for the successful evaluation of any problem one needs to consider the 'part', how it interacts with other 'parts', and the whole. Richard Kennaway writes: > ...what I had in mind was not faulty >functioning of the sort that would show up in a dissection or a brain scan, >but faulty structures of thought -- that is, structures not similar to the >territory of which they are supposed to be a map. By whose standards are the relevant aspects of a territory to be drawn? Doesn't "what is important" vary from person to person? And for his particular uses might not one person's method of choice and evaluation work better than another's? >In your terminology above, the process, as well as the premises. >If there are not merely factual errors in what one believes, Again, who is to determine which premises are 'correct' and what method is to be used to judge this? Would it be healthy for the human race if every person held the same basic premises, the 'correct' ones and arrived at the 'correct' conclusions using the 'correct' way of thinking? >but errors in the very process, the >mechanism of thought, then functioning will be impaired in a way which is >unlikely to be remedied by merely finding evidence to correct the errors, >as the very process by which such evidence might be searched for, found, >and dealt with has gone wrong. Personally, I think problems lie not so much in 'correctness' as in lack of flexibility, in finding one solution to a particular type of problem and assuming that that is the only 'correct' solution. "Many roads lead to Rome..." Cindy From ceclark@students.wisc.edu Tue Oct 3 06:18:05 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA06482; Tue, 3 Oct 95 06:18:05 -0700 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id GAA24841 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 06:16:48 -0700 From: ceclark@students.wisc.edu Received: from [144.92.182.50] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id IAA50897; 8.6.9W/42; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 08:16:51 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 07:35:06 +0300 To: ssread-l@newciv.org Subject: Re: Pula's preface Status: RO Cindy wrote to Richard K, in response about this brain structure/function thing: >> ...what I had in mind was not faulty >>functioning of the sort that would show up in a dissection or a brain scan, >>but faulty structures of thought -- that is, structures not similar to the >>territory of which they are supposed to be a map. >By whose standards are the relevant aspects of a territory to be drawn? >Doesn't "what is important" vary from person to person? And for his >particular uses might not one person's method of choice and evaluation >work better than another's? Is everyone (or, are both, in this case) in agreement that whenever (I know this sounds kind of all-ish) people entertain a thought or at least make some sort of connection, expression, etc., that literally little synapses map that particular connection between wherever the schema-storage places the physical representation of those concepts in the brain? It's not even a linear path, but sort of a 3-D, all-in-one. This is my understanding, anyway, and my psych courses were pretty recent, as in four years for the last. This issue is very important. It's not whether one standard map is desirable for humans--the maps really couldn't be standard, I don't think. It's more like maybe circuitry for thought. If you use lots and lots of wires and design yourself circuitous circuts (?), even at the speed of light for electrical transfer, you've got a hodgepodge that can never be removed. And maybe stray voltage. Old thoughts 'never die,' by this frame of reference--they just atrophy. One's physical thought pathways, even if abandoned for decades, spring into use more easily than a pathway that was never constructed. [This is also very important to me. It maybe explains why I can tell if critters are young by watching their behavior closely, especially in response to me. Many/most young critters are recognizable to me for their innocence, naiivety. They haven't been around to grow enough synapses for lots of different situations?] If you think I have gross misunderstandings, please speak up, but I got A's in advanced psych and learning theory. We talked about a lot of the structure of thought. I am more than willing to give up what I was taught and life is not about "A's" at a liberal arts college, if you point it out and I can rethink and re-check. :) I think it is pretty accepted from research as well that people reflect in their organs and muscles many of their thoughts, rather like the sleeping dog running with her little feet. Thus, a connection can be established between the thoughts and the physical functioning. If one's thoughts were scarey, some adrennalin would be produced by just thinking the thought. I think it unlikely that adrennalin would be the only case of this sort of phenomenon. So is the word the thing? No, but the wiring that adds up to the perspective, the consciousness of abstracting, probably plays an enormous factor in whether your body thinks it is. And if it makes 'drugs,' then a thought can trigger a chemical release in your body, that can trigger thoughts, that can trigger chemical releases, etc. on and on. Not good sometimes. Now remember, I'm a newbee. So, feel free to *smile* and say, "Carmen, that's dumb." I have not had a chance to grow very many soothing synapses around discussions of g.s. on the net, and I need to get some. "'That's dumb' is ok with me if it lies within a kind webbing." By the time we finish the book I'll be transformed, right? Carmen Clark From rplourde@scoot.netis.com Tue Oct 3 14:47:59 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA06823; Tue, 3 Oct 95 14:47:59 -0700 Received: from scoot.netis.com (root@[198.186.186.7]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA28924 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 14:40:09 -0700 Received: from rplourde.scoot.netis.com (scoot.netis.com [198.186.186.7]) by scoot.netis.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA21343 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 17:12:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199510032112.RAA21343@scoot.netis.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard Plourde" Organization: Electronics Consultant To: ssread-l@newciv.org Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 17:41:15 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Pula's preface Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Status: RO Cindy Forsha wrote: > Richard Kennaway writes: > > > ...what I had in mind was not faulty > >functioning of the sort that would show up in a dissection or a brain > >scan, but faulty structures of thought -- that is, structures not > >similar to the territory of which they are supposed to be a map. > > By whose standards are the relevant aspects of a territory to be drawn? > Doesn't "what is important" vary from person to person? And for his > particular uses might not one person's method of choice and evaluation > work better than another's? >From what I can tell, "what is important" varies from person to person, but not arbitrarily. As an example, consider: "the boss doesn't like me." If that's important to you, then you may act in one way, while if it's not important, then you may act in a different way. *Your* 'attitude' regarding 'important' defines, to some degree, the way you operate. But, if that boss that doesn't like you decides that you need no longer work there, then your environment changes, and that affects you regardless of whether you considered the boss liking you important or not. > Personally, I think problems lie not so much in 'correctness' as in lack > of flexibility, in finding one solution to a particular type of problem > and assuming that that is the only 'correct' solution. "Many roads lead > to Rome..." I think that problems lie in both places. I suspect that one source for rigidity in solution-approaches comes from a specific not-correctness in a person's higher-order evaluation processes. I'm thinking of assumptions of process-linearity. Push a little, move a little, push more, move more, push more, system snaps back in your face. One example comes with alcohol-usage, something where the nonlinearity of euphoria as a function of alcohol consumed seems very evident the next morning. It's possible to describe many nonlinear mathematical functions, ones with multiple maxima. Many of these mathematical functions have a similarity-in-structure to what happens around us. With game theory, 'interesting' games are those that have multiple 'correct' solutions. ('Games' tend to involve both organisms *and* environments; the two interact.) It appears to me that rigidity in evaluation cannot survive a consciousness of the consequences of nonlinear systems -- the world we live in. -R -- Richard Plourde (rplourde@scoot.netis.com) From ceclark@students.wisc.edu Tue Oct 3 15:59:24 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA06965; Tue, 3 Oct 95 15:59:24 -0700 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA29480 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 15:47:23 -0700 From: ceclark@students.wisc.edu Received: from [144.92.182.50] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id RAA70719; 8.6.9W/42; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 17:47:27 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 17:05:42 +0300 To: ssread-l@newciv.org Subject: Re: Pula's preface Status: RO Using the example, "The boss doesn't like me," I think we could be dealing with single factors or combinations of both underlying assumptions and abstraction/evaluation, which sounds like it might approach the structural dif again? In other words, if you assume the boss doesn't like you and the boss comes your way with a pink slip of paper in her hand, you might infer before she got across the room that she was coming to fire you and set yourself yourself to respond emotionally to that when it hadn't even been established. Poor evaluation? Underlying assumption? --both. If you assumed the boss didn't like you, you might not be able to have a relaxed conversation with her, even if you decided to stop by her office to wish her a happy birthday. Your underlying assumption would keep your tense. If you decided you didn't know whether she liked you, and it was no longer a big deal to you whether she liked you, and that you didn't really know what's going on with her, or what her attitude toward you really involves, and other things about her that might influence her behavior or thoughts at any moment, etc., etc., you would be changing your 'frame' on the whole subject. That, I suppose is an underlying assumption in itself. And if you were able to observe her closely and freely with no underlying assumption, then _consciously_ entertain a thought about her, like "She doesn't like me," and ask yourself what evidence you have for that assumption, then I think you're doing both: changing your underlying assumption about her and improving your evaluative process. I would like to point out that even evaluational processes probably vary within the person on various subjects, and different events at different times. A great evaluator could keep chosing bad wives. A person could be worrying about being late for work and drive poorly, and get into an accident. Carmen Clark From kitk@mudshark.sunquest.com Tue Oct 3 08:16:28 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA06523; Tue, 3 Oct 95 08:16:28 -0700 Received: from venus.sunquest.com (Venus.Sunquest.COM [149.138.1.68]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id IAA25769 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 08:14:37 -0700 Received: from mudshark.sunquest.com (Mudshark.Sunquest.COM [198.133.87.10]) by venus.sunquest.com (8.6.12/8.6.4) with SMTP id IAA22754 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 08:14:46 -0700 Received: from kkauffma.Sunquest.COM by mudshark.sunquest.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA31271; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 09:14:18 -0600 Message-Id: <9510031514.AA31271@mudshark.sunquest.com> X-Sender: kitk@mudshark.sunquest.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 09:14:12 -0600 To: ssread-l@newciv.org From: kitk@mudshark.sunquest.com (Kit Kauffmann) X-Mailer: Status: RO Cindy Forsha wrote: > >I read Pula's preface in _Science and Sanity_ as well as the summaries >to ssread on the same, and have a few questions/comments to share. > >The first is a little far out, but I am going to mention it anyway. It >has a bit to do with essentialism -- separating things which cannot >be separated -- and the idea that "we can *not* know 'essences', *things >in themselves*; all we can know is what we know as *abstracting nervous >systems*. ...,we can *not* transcend' ourselves as organisms that >abstract" (p.xxvi). > >I realize that for a generic system such as this, one that can "work for >everyone," with science as a metaphysic, that this assumption is >necessary. However, I suspect that, as in many things, this statement >presumes that we know more about the topic than we might actually know. >I say that this has to do with essentialism because I believe that we >are an integral part of our earth-system and some people have methods >of relating to parts of that system which extend beyond their nervous >systems -- a "connection" which gives them an awareness not initially >gained through the senses. Ultimately, the experiences are translated >through the nervous system ... except for after the body is gone. > >Unfortunately I have only anecdotes for support -- one of a friend who, >while focusing on a hawk flying above him, suddenly found himself >seeing what the hawk was seeing as if it were through the hawk's eyes. >Although he attributed the experience to his imagination, it seems to me >that the vision went far beyond this. The other is personal. In a >state of meditation, I lost awareness of my self and "became a part of >the sky." This seemed to me to be outside of my nervous system because >as soon as I "thought," I was hurled back into myself. > I've rather enjoyed the exchange of ideas on Cindy's posting - wanted to mention that Stan Grof's evidence (as presented in "The Holotropic Mind") seems to confirm at the personal level the same sorts of universal "connectionism" implied by Richard Feynman's work in physics (to the limited understanding I've reached there) or the transpersonal connectionism of the Tibetan Book of the Dead (we could look to Jung & many others for similar theory & evidence). Personal & much anecdotal experience of mine & friends support the point she makes in the above quotation, and I wish to firmly support the idea that the assumption he/we are making about transcendentalism is (IMHO) perhaps no more than the sort of useful assumption that Newtonian physics was when Isaac lived (the best we can do with so many unknowns). Later, Kit Kauffmann - kitk@mudshark.sunquest.com AKA 73363,447 (Compu$erve) Finger me for my public key From djdaneh%pbhyc@PacBell.COM Wed Oct 4 12:12:57 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA07695; Wed, 4 Oct 95 12:12:57 -0700 Received: from s5.sys.uea.ac.uk (0@s5.sys.uea.ac.uk [139.222.1.5]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA04757 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 12:05:55 -0700 Received: from gw3.pacbell.com by s5.sys.uea.ac.uk; Wed, 4 Oct 95 20:09:46 BST Received: from gw.PacBell.COM by gw3.pacbell.com (5.x/PacBell-9/14/95) id AA03450; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 11:51:38 -0700 Received: from pbhyc.UUCP by gw.PacBell.COM (4.1/PacBell-8/16/95) id AA20391; Wed, 4 Oct 95 11:48:48 PDT Message-Id: <9510041848.AA20391@gw.PacBell.COM> Subject: Re: Some comments on Pula's preface To: jrk%sys.uea.ac.uk@PacBell.COM Date: Wed, 4 Oct 95 11:45:50 PDT From: "Dan'l DanehyOakes" Cc: ssread-l%newciv.org%sys.uea.ac.uk@PacBell.COM In-Reply-To: <29581.9510011906@chrome.sys.uea.ac.uk>; from "sys.uea.ac.uk!jrk" at Oct 1, 95 8:06 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL16] Status: RO My immediate reaction: What does this add? What is the value of Pula's Preface? After two readings, I find that, had I seen the book in the store and read Pula's preface, I might never have gone further. The first two paragraphs, in particular, seem to me a masterpiece of semantic manipulative techniques. The first paragraph briefly summarizes the broad influence of K's theories: in a way that, to a person not reading with semantic clarity, will imply that society has been greatly changed by GS. A brief glance at any newspaper will disabuse one of *that* notion; the majority of Smith[n]s continues to possess un-conscious, inappropriate s.r out the yingyang. (How's *that* for mixed vocabulary. . . ) The second paragraph ("Those who have been attracted. . . ") uses the finest manipulative techniques of modern advertising to give the affective message: "If you study this book, you will join an elite." That the affective content of the first paragraph ("GS practices are universal") and the second ("Practicing GS will make you one of the elite") contradict each other is only too typical of the overall semantic mishmash of Pula's Preface. I shall not belabor the point, or drag you all through a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of why I believe that the publication of S&S with this Preface is a tragic error. Most of the rest of the Preface, in fact, seems to me merely a hagiography, a fulsome praise of Korzybski and S&S which adds nothing to the "content" of the book. Indeed, rather more than half of this Preface consists of a numbered summary of points taken directly *from* the book, adding nothing to these points. To conclude: in his point #28, Pula seems to suggest that K. was able to formulate the principle of "general uncertainty" *because* of his background as a Pole. In my honest opinion, the only major contribution that K.'s background as a Pole contributed to S&S was his generally turgid syntax. Though Pula's Preface hardly models clear writing, it *does* seem, in many points, clearer than K's: and this, finally, may be the only value his Preface adds to S&S. His point-by-point description of many of K's basic principles may prove of some value to readers thrown for the first time into the maelstrom of Korzybskian prose. --dan'l i "am" not a nervous system From jhs@newciv.org Wed Oct 4 14:03:46 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA07817; Wed, 4 Oct 95 14:03:46 -0700 Received: from dell2 (jhs@netcom9.netcom.com [192.100.81.119]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA05892 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 13:59:54 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 13:59:54 -0700 Message-Id: <199510042059.NAA05892@newciv.org> X-Sender: jhs@newciv.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ssread-l@newciv.org From: JHS Subject: Practicing GS - Was: Re: Some comments on Pula's preface Status: RO At 11:45 AM 10/4/95 PDT, Dan'l wrote: ... >That the affective content of the first paragraph ("GS practices are universal") >and the second ("Practicing GS will make you one of the elite") contradict each >other is only too typical of the overall semantic mishmash of Pula's Preface. ... I second most of Dan'l's observations. What I thought when I first read the preface (after the new edition finally came out a while ago), was: how _did_ GS affected society in terms of mass-movements? One measure is certainly the number of off-springs from a certain philosophy. And there are indeed some interesting ones. For example, Dianetics, created by L.Ron Hubbard, whose only comments on AK were meant to ridicule him, and who later on founded an entire religion, the elements of which were equally maltransformed rip-offs of other authors. Then, NLP, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, which is a lot like Hubbard's stuff, but without a religious attitude or premise. How much Neotech is influenced by AK is an interesting question, too. I'm sure there are more off-springs or major influences of AK's theories that I'm not aware off. Regarding Pula's assertion "Practicing GS will make you one of the elite", I would want to comment that the _elite_ is not interested in practicing GS to begin with because it's the _major_ gimmick of their 'black magic' in controlling the masses. Joachim **************************************************************** ** Joachim H. Steingrubner, PhD TransMillennium, Inc. ** ** E-mail: jhs@newciv.org CompuServe: 71762,1757 ** **************************************************************** ** The New Civilization Network: A Community in Cyberspace ** ** Web: http://www.newciv.org/ Mailbot: listserv@newciv.org ** **************************************************************** From PacBell.COM!pbhyc!djdaneh Wed Oct 4 16:04:56 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA08110; Wed, 4 Oct 95 16:04:56 -0700 Received: from gw3.pacbell.com (gw3.PacBell.COM [129.245.2.24]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA06845 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 15:57:06 -0700 Received: from gw.PacBell.COM by gw3.pacbell.com (5.x/PacBell-9/14/95) id AA21530; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 15:57:17 -0700 Received: from pbhyc.UUCP by gw.PacBell.COM (4.1/PacBell-8/16/95) id AA26307; Wed, 4 Oct 95 15:57:16 PDT Message-Id: <9510042257.AA26307@gw.PacBell.COM> Subject: Re: Practicing GS - Was: Re: Some comments on Pula's preface To: PacBell.COM!newciv.org!jhs (JHS) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 95 15:56:26 PDT From: "Dan'l DanehyOakes" Cc: PacBell.COM!newciv.org!ssread-l In-Reply-To: <199510042059.NAA05892@newciv.org>; from "JHS" at Oct 4, 95 1:59 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL16] Status: R Joachim (der Newcivmeister, Floriferousperson, and all round cool dude) observed a possible relationship between K. and the founders of a number of quasi-scientific cults (Scientology -- of which I have a certain amount of personal experience --, NLP,.), an observation which had simply not occurred to me. (By the way, since we're all *reading* S&S, we're all comfortable with using abbreviations like m.o, s.r, el, ., aren't we?) As will quickly become clear, I'm something of the fox in this henhouse: as a Roman Catholic convert (not "who I am," but a significant feature of my psycho- logics) who thinks K. produced a number of profound insights, a far larger collection of tautologies and truisms, and not a few just plain boneheaded errors; a significant part of my postings to this list will consist of attempts to play devil's advocate. I shall mostly do this quite seriously; I think a number of K's statements need defending, and a few seem quite indefensible. But we'll get to them all in good time. . . Meanwhile. . . more fun with Pula. "Some aspects of general semantics have so permeated the (American) culture that behaviors derived from it are common; e.g., wagging fingers in the air to put 'quotes' around spoken terms. . . " What part of America, I wonder, does Pula live in? Nobody I know does this. ". . . Original korzybskian terms are seen used wihtout attribution, as if part of the general vocabulary; e.g., a paragraph long explanation of 'time- binding' appearing in a high school social studies text." Not, I hasten to add, in any of the texts I studied in high school; but that was in the 1970s, only 40 years after K's influence, apparently, began to pervade American culture. Most people, who have heard the term "time-binding" at all, have done so primarily as a result of reading science fiction. (That is, in fact, where I myself first heard the term, btw; and, surprisingly, glerking the term from context, I came away with a "meaning" something very close to the way K. uses it.) Most recently, I have run across an organization dedicated to preserving the history of science fiction fandom, calling itself (quite appropriately, in one way; inappropriately in another) "The Time-binders." "Science and Sanity has by now spawned a whole library of works by other time-binders. . . " Well, yes: and so have the Bible, and the works of L. Ron Hubbard, Sigmund Freud, Jacques Derrida,. Pula's listing (". . . doctoral dissertations, masters theses, scholarly papers, essays, and journal articles. . . ") seems, again, designed more for the value of its affective content in impressing an incautious mind, than anything else. After all, similar numbers of all (I think the word "all" is quite permissible when talking about a quantifiable and carefully-delimited universe -- in this case, five items) these things have been written on crystal therapy, logotherapy, Creation Science, and Lysenkovian evolution. Scholarly attention does not guarantee validity. So again the question arises: why did Pula write this, and why was it published as an introduction to S&S? (Personal s.r, by the way: the term "S&S" has, for years, meant in my vocabulary "swords & sorcery," a subgenre of heroic adventure fantasy fiction -- one which I read very little, but which occasionally looms quite large in the marketplace. . . So that is one abbreviation with which I occasionally feel significant discomfort. Oh, well. . .) I feel a strong temptation to regard Pula as having, at an unconscious level, _marked_ his territory, staked out the ground "heir of Korzybski" for his own by doing this. Thoughts. . . ? --dan'l From rplourde@scoot.netis.com Wed Oct 4 20:22:06 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA08589; Wed, 4 Oct 95 20:22:06 -0700 Received: from scoot.netis.com (root@scoot.netis.com [198.186.186.7]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA08818 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 20:16:20 -0700 Received: from rplourde.scoot.netis.com (scoot.netis.com [198.186.186.7]) by scoot.netis.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA14430 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 1995 22:49:28 -0400 Message-Id: <199510050249.WAA14430@scoot.netis.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard Plourde" Organization: Electronics Consultant To: ssread-l@newciv.org Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 23:17:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Practicing GS - Was: Re: Some comments on Pula's prefac Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Status: RO Dan'l DanehyOakes wrote: > (By the way, since we're all *reading* S&S, we're all comfortable with > using abbreviations like m.o, s.r, el, ., aren't we?) Not me, but don't let that stop you. The only place I've run into those abbreviations in any concentrated form was S&S; acronyms gain familiarity with usage, and the only way I know of to gain that usage is through use! This, of course, brings up another question -- do the acronyms or abbreviations *add* anything or do they merely operate to keep the rabble out? In the case of quantum physics (as an example), it seems that some of the arcane terminology operates quite well at convincing the 'rabble' that they don't have a clue about what's going on. Given the amount of study necessary to begin to have a clue about quantum physics, I suggest that the arcane terminology operates effectively -- more 'comprehensible' terminology would only operate to convince those who don't have a clue that they *do* have a clue, and would operate to encourage a compounding of ignorance with arrogance. In the case of g.s., particularly with regard to unfamiliar (albeit simple) formulations such as "multi-ordinality" or "semantic reaction" or "elemental" it might even help to use the 'incomprehensible' abbreviations as a way of enforcing, "you don't understand what this means -- yet." Observation: when we deal with an unfamiliar theory expressed in familiar words, we have two choices. We can accept that we don't know what the theory says, and learn, or we can twist the meanings of the words to fit what we've already learned. In my experience, science (when it works towards discovery rather than towards getting government grants) uses the first approach, and insists on a specific locally- defined 'meaning' for each word-symbol used, while polite conversation (often dedicated to a 'warm-cuddly' agreeability) seems quite tolerant of incredible levels of equivocation, so long as that equivocation leads to everybody having a good time. What's the consensus here? When push comes to shove, do we shoot for the 'agreeable' or do we shoot for the 'precise?' Votes? (I vote for the precise -- keep the g.s.-specific abbreviations coming.) -R -- Richard Plourde (rplourde@scoot.netis.com) From jhs@newciv.org Thu Oct 5 09:55:18 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA08967; Thu, 5 Oct 95 09:55:18 -0700 Received: from ix-lap-ca1-01.ix.netcom.com (jhs@ix-lap-ca1-01.ix.netcom.com [205.186.75.33]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA14833 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 09:51:09 -0700 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 09:51:09 -0700 Message-Id: <199510051651.JAA14833@newciv.org> X-Sender: jhs@newciv.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ssread-l@newciv.org From: JHS Subject: Pula's Antarctica, or: 'The exception confirms the rule' Status: RO After giving it some more thought, I arrived to the conclusion that there is a deeper reason for remarks like Pula's 'except, perhaps, Antarctica' note. Let me first say that I don't like to bash other authors or to be too picky. As many of you know, I was bringing up the question on gs a while agao whether the _intention_ overrides the (bad or manipulative) form, and I opted for a yes. In this case, I would undoubtely assume that Pula had the best intentions, and just tried to make his introduction digestable. I don't know the English form of the saying 'The exception confirms the rule'. Perhaps somebody can shed some light about its origin. However, the effect of the 'Antarctica' clause is aimed at demonstrating the ALLNESS of the argument. This is a dangerous path. Of course, as a past-war German I'm oversensitive (if that is possible) to minority bashing. It occurred to me, though, that above effect is one of the reasons that this strategy is applied, if not the major one. The minority confirms the majority. The more isolated the minority, the stronger the affirmation of ALLNESS. What are your thoughts on this? Joachim **************************************************************** ** Joachim H. Steingrubner, PhD TransMillennium, Inc. ** ** E-mail: jhs@newciv.org CompuServe: 71762,1757 ** **************************************************************** ** The New Civilization Network: A Community in Cyberspace ** ** Web: http://www.newciv.org/ Mailbot: listserv@newciv.org ** **************************************************************** From 102362.1465@compuserve.com Thu Oct 5 11:24:53 1995 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA08991; Thu, 5 Oct 95 11:24:53 -0700 Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id OAA11527; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 14:25:25 -0400 Date: 05 Oct 95 13:22:49 EDT From: "Milton L. Dawes" <102362.1465@compuserve.com> To: "(Nervous Systems)" Subject: Attacks on Pula Message-Id: <951005172249_102362.1465_EHR87-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: RO Hi Ladies and Gents: Steve beat me to the punch. I was also a little disturbed by what I categorized as complaints, fault-finding, dissatisfaction... not just with Bob's Preface, but with Korzybski's formulations. How easy it is to criticize. If we apply the non-allness principle to our reading and discussions, then we can to a certain degree, ignore and expect Bob, Korzybski, other humans to be imperfect - whatever we mean by this. But how useful is it to harp on the fact that we usually experience ice as cold? ( If I apply my expectations to what I just wrote and how I think-feel about what I classify as criticisms, then I have to remember that critics also will not be perfect). But "ignoring" is another matter.: A major difference from my perspective, at this time, is this: "If our goal in these discussions is to further our understanding of gs, so that we can improve our lives in the areas of better communication, less stress, avoiding unnecessary conflicts improved understanding of WIGO, creating more satisfying relationships etc. then how will this goal be pursued if a great deal of our critical skills and energies are directed at fault-finding?' I am not suggesting that we should not criticize. I am suggesting a balance. I am suggesting that we recognize that when we criticize someone or something, our criticism is based on some standard, ideal, frame of reference, expectation, etc. And that we make the effort to be conscious of our critical abstractings, so that we can evaluate its necessity and usefullness.. (My frame of reference here in my criticism is that I think it is more beneficial in terms of furthering understanding to look for what can be useful than to emphasize what "is" wrong") If those who criticize can state their ideal, standard, expectations, etc., I will be respectful. I am intimating that the kind of criticism I am noticing may not be useful in terms of furthering understanding. I also have read pieces in S&S that if Korzybski was around and given the opportunity, I would have asked for some elaboration. I have found through my own experience, that searching for what is useful to me, and using this from whatever source, someone, a book , a school of philosophy, etc. has been tremendously beneficial, more rewarding, and less bothersome than discovering what "is" wrong. ( Sure this can be labelled "preaching") As human, I do some of that from time to time. Don't you?.) If Steve had not written his piece, I would have waited a few more weeks to see how things were going. Buit then I thought-felt it could be useful to say my piece now, hoping to minimize the possibility that the discussion could shift to who can be the most skilled critic. Korzybski created a system. (This represents an appeal) "Can we read and discuss so as to at least find out what he had set out to tell us?" Eh? Just a little straight talking. Milton. From jhs@newciv.org Thu Oct 5 15:12:52 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA09265; Thu, 5 Oct 95 15:12:52 -0700 Received: from dell2 (jhs@netcom20.netcom.com [192.100.81.133]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA17695 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 15:13:02 -0700 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 15:13:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199510052213.PAA17695@newciv.org> X-Sender: jhs@newciv.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: gs From: JHS Subject: GS in Antarctica Status: RO Hjmoore@cris.com wrote: >Friends, > >Of all of the possible areas to complain about Pula's intro, the >Antartica sentence seems to be the silliest. I can't detect a complain in what I wrote. What I find interesting that you talk to the audience instead of me, the author of the alleged. Hmmm, obviously, I didn't make my observation clear enough: The sentence reflects a semantic strategy that attempts to strengthen the validity of an ALL-NESS assertion. This is related to the 'proof by exclusion' method. It's an interesting construct. If there are gs'ers in the Antarctica has nothing to do with the structure of the sentence. (the sentence attracted my attention, though, because of that word)/ And I do think, it's meant in a humorous way. But arguing about humour is quite humourless ;-) Peace! Joachim From dvds@eden.com Thu Oct 5 20:35:14 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA09519; Thu, 5 Oct 95 20:35:14 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com (root@matrix.eden.com [199.171.21.1]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA19788 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 20:29:34 -0700 Received: from net-2-100.austin.eden.com (net-2-100.austin.eden.com [204.177.170.100]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id WAA04311 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 22:29:44 -0500 Received: by localhost (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.13B/1.0um) id AA0685; Thu, 05 Oct 95 19:55:39 -0500 Message-Id: <9510060055.AA0685@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 05 Oct 95 19:31:50 -0500 From: DvdS@eden.com To: ssread-l@newciv.org Reply-To: DvdS@eden.com Subject: Re: Practicing GS - Was: Re: Some comments on Pula's prefac X-Mailer: Ultimedia Mail/2 Lite, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Id: <512_80_1_812935912> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Description: Status: RO Greetings folks, I'm one of those 'newbies' Carmen mentioned. Perhaps my sig will come out right this time. ;-) Richard Plourde wrote: > Dan'l DanehyOakes wrote: > > > (By the way, since we're all *reading* S&S, we're all comfortable with > > using abbreviations like m.o, s.r, el, ., aren't we?) ... > In the case of quantum physics (as an example), it seems that some of > the arcane terminology operates quite well at convincing the 'rabble' > that they don't have a clue about what's going on. There are lots of folks who seem to believe that this done deliberately. I am a mathematician and also have a good background in physics. When you get into very complex problems, you really do need to create specific 'jargon' in order to be precise and make sure that everyone (with whom you intend to communicate) knows exactly what you mean. I have myself created a lot of jargon by creating and naming concepts relevant to the implementation of software systems. Unfortunately, there are fields that really do not need such jargon, but the practitioners apparently think it is 'cool' and do it to no end but obfuscation. This is especially prevalent in the social and political sciences. > What's the consensus here? When push comes to shove, do we shoot for > the 'agreeable' or do we shoot for the 'precise?' Votes? I vote to use AK's abbreviations, but that we do so only when we are confident that we are using them in precisely the sense that AK defined. Ie., if you want a different 'spin', use a different word. As you may have already guessed, I am not opposed to making up totally new terms when there seems to be a need; but make sure the reader has access to the definition. Regards, David V. PS - After reading the rest of my inbox, I find that there is sentiment for maintaining a glossary. I approve! --_/_/_/-----------------_/---_/_/_/--------------------------------------- --_/----_/---------------_/--_/-----_/- On certain issues, -- David --_/-----_/-_/----_/-_/_/_/----_/_/---- I could be wrong; -- van der Schel --_/----_/---_/-_/--_/---_/-_/-----_/-- but this is not -- DvdS@eden.com --_/_/_/------_/-----_/_/_/---_/_/_/--- one of them. -- Austin, Texas From PacBell.COM!pbhyc!djdaneh Fri Oct 6 09:44:10 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA09718; Fri, 6 Oct 95 09:44:10 -0700 Received: from relay3.UU.NET (relay3.UU.NET [192.48.96.8]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA25671 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:41:32 -0700 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP id QQzkhm12277; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 12:41:41 -0400 Received: from gw3.pacbell.com by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id LAA50880; 8.6.9W/42; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 11:24:31 -0500 Received: from gw.PacBell.COM by gw3.pacbell.com (5.x/PacBell-9/14/95) id AA00409; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:24:30 -0700 Received: from pbhyc.UUCP by gw.PacBell.COM (4.1/PacBell-8/16/95) id AA21857; Fri, 6 Oct 95 09:24:29 PDT Message-Id: <9510061624.AA21857@gw.PacBell.COM> Subject: Re: A Pula bribe! To: PacBell.COM!students.wisc.edu!ceclark Date: Fri, 6 Oct 95 9:23:47 PDT From: "Dan'l DanehyOakes" Cc: PacBell.COM!students.wisc.edu!newciv.org!ssread-l In-Reply-To: ; from "students.wisc.edu!ceclark" at Oct 4, 95 8:46 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL16] Status: RO Heh. I might volunteer to post a summary if you promise *NOT* to send me a photo of Dr P. . . . --dan'l From PacBell.COM!pbhyc!djdaneh Fri Oct 6 11:10:56 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA09753; Fri, 6 Oct 95 11:10:56 -0700 Received: from gw3.pacbell.com (gw3.PacBell.COM [129.245.2.24]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA26414 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 11:06:36 -0700 Received: from gw.PacBell.COM by gw3.pacbell.com (5.x/PacBell-9/14/95) id AA11467; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 11:06:45 -0700 Received: from pbhyc.UUCP by gw.PacBell.COM (4.1/PacBell-8/16/95) id AA25143; Fri, 6 Oct 95 11:06:43 PDT Message-Id: <9510061806.AA25143@gw.PacBell.COM> Subject: Re: Pula's Antarctica, or: 'The exception confirms the rule' To: PacBell.COM!newciv.org!jhs (JHS) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 95 11:05:48 PDT From: "Dan'l DanehyOakes" Cc: PacBell.COM!newciv.org!ssread-l In-Reply-To: <199510051651.JAA14833@newciv.org>; from "JHS" at Oct 5, 95 9:51 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL16] Status: RO Joachim, > I don't know the English form of the saying > > 'The exception confirms the rule'. > > Perhaps somebody can shed some light about its origin. Okay. I guess I'm somebody. The correct English phrase is The exception proves the rule. This is significant, because the phrase comes from a time when "to prove" meant "to test," as still found in phrases like "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" and "proving ground." What the phrase actually meant, then, was that the exception put the rule to the test. In the terms of scientific method, it might be phrased like this: "The discovery of an exception to a 'rule' which previously appeared general requires the re-examination of both the data and the 'rule,' to determine, first, whether this is really an exception, and second, if it is, how the rule must be modified or replaced to make it more general." > Of course, as a past-war German I'm oversensitive (if that is > possible) to minority bashing. It occurred to me, though, > that above effect is one of the reasons that this strategy > is applied, if not the major one. > > The minority confirms the majority. The more isolated the minority, > the stronger the affirmation of ALLNESS. My thought: it is indeed possible to be oversensitive to minority-bashing, if one's sensitivity is such as to perceive it when it is neither intended, nor likely to actually cause harm to any minority. What minority might feel itself to be "bashed" by this formulation? There are no native Antarctic peoples (unless Lovecraft was right, and the Tcho-Tcho are still lurking somewhere upon the hideous Plateau of Leng) to be "bashed" by this "exception." --dan'l From doherty@meol.mass.edu Fri Oct 6 17:10:13 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA10189; Fri, 6 Oct 95 17:10:13 -0700 Received: from meol.mass.edu (meol.mass.edu [134.241.27.23]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA29124; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 17:06:36 -0700 Received: by meol.mass.edu; id AA08695; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 20:10:59 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 20:07:36 -0400 To: JHS From: doherty@meol.mass.edu (William Doherty) Subject: Re: Pula's Antarctica, or: 'The exception confirms the rule' Cc: ssread-l@newciv.org Status: RO >I don't know the English form of the saying > > 'The exception confirms the rule'. > >Perhaps somebody can shed some light about its origin. Joachim, I once read the original English saying was "the exception proves the rule" this became transliterated to "every rule has its exceptions" (a silly statement on its face but perhaps reinforced by English spelling "rules" which are notable for their exceptions). The problem with this "truism" is that the word "prove" has shifted meaning in English. Most people today accept "demonstrate" for its meaning, while originally it carried the meaning of "test"--that meaning remains today in the English phrase: "proving grounds" where the army tests its weapons or car manufacturers test their products. Thus, the exception tests the rule (and finds it wanting). I am not sure this is accurate, but it makes a nice story. regards, Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Doherty (doherty@meol.mass.edu) D's and D Lobster Company Hingham, Massachusetts Weymouth High School/Vocational Technical High School Weymouth, Massachusetts "We see the world as 'we' are, not as 'it' is; because it is the 'I' behind the 'eye' that does the seeing." (Anais Nin and an unknown source) please visit one of the general semantics home pages: ftp://lumina.ucsd.edu/pub/.../gs_dir/000_gs.html or, http://www.traveller.com/~fcp/gs.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rplourde@scoot.netis.com Sat Oct 7 04:58:15 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA10840; Sat, 7 Oct 95 04:58:15 -0700 Received: from scoot.netis.com (root@scoot.netis.com [198.186.186.7]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id EAA00946 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 04:56:44 -0700 Received: from rplourde.scoot.netis.com (scoot.netis.com [198.186.186.7]) by scoot.netis.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA00526; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 07:27:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199510071127.HAA00526@scoot.netis.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard Plourde" Organization: Electronics Consultant To: DvdS@eden.com, ssread-l@newciv.org Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 15:01:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Practicing GS - Was: Re: Some comments on Pula's prefac Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Status: RO DvdS@eden.com wrote: > When you get into very complex > problems, you really do need to create specific 'jargon' > in order to be precise and make sure that everyone (with > whom you intend to communicate) knows exactly what you > mean. Emphatic agreement, based on experience. > > What's the consensus here? When push comes to shove, do we shoot for > > the 'agreeable' or do we shoot for the 'precise?' Votes? > > I vote to use AK's abbreviations, but that we do so only when we are > confident that we are using them in precisely the sense that > AK defined. Ie., if you want a different 'spin', use a different > word. As you may have already guessed, I am not opposed to making > up totally new terms when there seems to be a need; but make sure > the reader has access to the definition. The publication policy of Spectrum Magazine (the general-subscription magazine of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers [IEEE]) requires that acronyms and jargon-words must be defined either in the text (the way I defined 'IEEE' above) the first time used in each article, or that a side-bar glossary had to be included with the article. They struggled with the policy for awhile, since they recognized that jargon-words and acronyms both add precision to the text *and* tend to 'exclude' those who are not already closely familiar with what's under discussion. Articles in Spectrum have, in my opinion, become more readable with the application of that policy. -R -- Richard Plourde (rplourde@scoot.netis.com) From Slingr@aol.com Sat Oct 7 10:59:37 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA10959; Sat, 7 Oct 95 10:59:37 -0700 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA02714 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 10:53:07 -0700 From: Slingr@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA26385; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 13:48:53 -0400 Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 13:48:53 -0400 Message-Id: <951007134852_118442457@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: ssread-l@newciv.org Cc: Nybbor@aol.com, SPKodish@aol.com, 73374.662@compuserve.com Subject: Another Demand; More 'Fun' with Pula... Status: RO Richard Plourde warned: The second paragraph ("Those who have been attracted. . . ") uses the finest >manipulative techniques of modern advertising to give the affective message: "If you >study this book, you will join an elite." Without the book to refer to, the wording and punctuation could, without careful reading, entrap a reader to infer that *Mr. Pula* wrote "If you study this book, you will join an elite.". Sure enough, then along comes Dr. Steingrubner to step into the trap. He comments: >>Regarding Pula's assertion "Practicing GS will make you one of the elite", >>I would want to comment that the _elite_ is not interested in practicing >>GS to begin with because it's the _major_ gimmick of their 'black magic' >>in controlling the masses. This directly attributes a *quote* (well, half of a quote, combined with Dr. Steingrubner's own interpretation) to Mr. Pula which *does not* appear in his written Preface. This attribution is *false to facts*. For those of you too lazy or disinterested to look it up, *Mr. Pula* wrote: "Those who have been attacted to and worked with Kozybski's formulations have largely come from the evaluationally energetic and self-selecting segment of our populations. They have tended to be leaders or those training to be leaders in a broad range of interests and disciplines. Through their efforts as teachers, managers, researchers, etc., Korzybski's formulations have explicitly and implicitly reached many thousands more." >From the above words, Mr. DanehyOakes nervous-system-organism-as-a-whole abstracted the meaning as "If you study this book, you will join an elite.". You can evaluate the appropriateness of Mr. DanehyOakes' evaluation on your own. My nervous-system-organism-as-a-whole evaluates his evaluation as highly inappropriate. My evaluation concludes that Mr. Pula's statement reflects his own personal evaluation and observation, which seems to me an appropriately limited ("largely", "tended") comment. To be clear: we must each be diligent to ensure that we clearly and properly attribute quotes to the rightful speaker/writer in our own writings, particularly when we choose to repeat a quote. ========================================== Now, more 'fun' with Mr. Pula, and with his 'evaluationally-challenged' detractors: To preface, you should 'know' that I, as well as about 25% of this list (to my knowledge) actually 'know' Bob Pula and have, to varying degrees, studied under him, argued with him, drank Vodka with him, eaten with him, corrected him, been grossed out by his choice of apparel, etc. We have 'experienced' Bob Pula, moreso than simply reading a few of his *many* published words on general-semantics. Not to say we all agree with Bob on every one of his formulations. D. David Bourland, Jr., the "inventor" of E-Prime, and for whom I also have a great deal of respect, has written critically of some of Bob's writing. (Aside: I should mention, however, that in applying his 'clarity index' to a variety of authors, David concedes that Bob's writing rates high in avoiding "is of identity and predication" violations, even though Bob doesn't embrace E-Prime as such.) So I don't defend Bob's writing categorically, but I do respect it such that I would tend to disregard criticism of him unless the criticizer holds a comparable level of credibility. As this, to me, appears to be not the case in this instance, I would respond thusly to some of the 'criticisms' of Bob's Preface. -------------------------------------------------------- X-Sender: jhs@200.42.42.66 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ssread-l@newciv.org From: JHS Subject: Re: Another Demand; More 'Fun' with Pula... Cc: Nybbor@aol.com, SPKodish@aol.com, 73374.662@compuserve.com Status: RO As Steve pointed out: I wrote: >>>Regarding Pula's assertion "Practicing GS will make you one of the elite", I hereby plead guilty to the charge of practicing what I criticize most vehemently in others, namely the incorrect attribution of a commentary to a source. Joachim From Hjmoore@cris.com Sat Oct 7 13:16:51 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA11000; Sat, 7 Oct 95 13:16:51 -0700 Received: from deathstar.cris.com (deathstar-fddi.cris.com [199.3.12.171]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA03901 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 13:13:04 -0700 From: Hjmoore@cris.com Received: from voyager.cris.com by deathstar.cris.com [1-800-745-CRIS (voice)] Errors-To: Hjmoore@cris.com Received: by voyager.cris.com (4.1) id AA24124; Sat, 7 Oct 95 16:13:14 EDT Message-Id: <9510072013.AA24124@voyager.cris.com> Subject: Re: Another Demand; More 'Fun' with Pula... To: Slingr@aol.com Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 16:13:13 -0400 (EDT) Cc: ssread-l@newciv.org, Nybbor@aol.com, SPKodish@aol.com, 73374.662@compuserve.com In-Reply-To: <951007134852_118442457@emout04.mail.aol.com> from "Slingr@aol.com" at Oct 7, 95 01:48:53 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 4391 Status: RO Friends, Since it is Saturday, I had planned to answer the questions raised in Dan'l's post. Having seen Steve's (IMO somewhat overdone) response, I feel the urge to write now, without the benefit of the orriginal. Excuse me while I wing it, any errors that occur owe their existance to my incomplete preparation, and are not malicous or intentional. Let me start by saying that I, too, was disappointed when I first read Bob's intro. I had expected much 'more' from him. However, the error was on my part, a classic manifestation of Wendle Johnson's IFD disease. Had I held my expectations in abeyance, I would have appreciated it for what it was, as I did in not too long of a time. As for as the question of "Why did he write it?", I can offer these comments and surmises. I know some of the factors involved, but certainly not all of them. Not only do I deem that it was time for a new edition, and surmise that others did also, there were some legle issues involved which made it important to publish a new edition. Since most of what Bob wrote was a paraphrasing of other writing, I suspect that he wrote the intro as he did as a matter of expiedency. That the intro was written in such a way as to get it out as quickly and simply as possible (my supposition), does not detract from the value of what is there. When I posted the initial discussion of this topic, I suggested that each of the members evaluate the list of formulations for their personal "favorites" (in their perception of the items' importance) and post that list. I felt that that would give a good understanding of our respective viewpoints, and help us to note what to look for as we get to the "meat" of the "matter". I missed those postings which followed up on my suggestion. I was going to respond to the issue of Bob's residence, and "the wagging of fingers", but Steve has said everything (and more) that I was going to. In reply to the part about how he has staked out his claim as the current successor to AK, let me offer the following dis-jointed rambelings. I have known Bob since the summer of 1979, when we shared a suite for 15 days. We are friends, though neither of us hesitates to point out the failings of the other. In fact, to a certain degree, we both rather enjoy it, and it "keeps us on our toes". I am currently starting on a large project with him, and hope to have several smaller ones, which will yield results in a more timely fasion, in the near future. I state these "things" as background for your evaluations of my evaluations. Bob has been the lead trainer for the IGS for many years. I am sure that he had some title, but I have no idea what it was. [He also served as Director of the IGS for a while.] He has stepped down from the position as lead trainer, and has already resigned from all teaching, though that will not take effect for a while. He wants to be able to concentrate his time on writing, painting, and music. I hope that he will continue to be a speaker at g-s events after he quits his teaching. He certainly has no major self-esteem problems which are appearent. I (as his friend and fellow prankster) would go so far as to say that he has "a puffed-up ego". Although he points out the "short fallings" of some of AK's opinions, he steadfastly holds that noone has understood the system of g-s as well as AK did. He emphatically states, repeatedly, that he (as good as he considers himself to be, g-swise) does not approach AK. He makes no bones about the fact that AK "had feet of clay", nor does he claim any different for himself. He has *no* use for people who are looking for a guru, or who are not willing to evaluate for themselves. This most emphatically includes evaluations about himself. This is the whole basis for Puism, and my self-appointed title. It gets his goat. Based on the above "facts" and opinions, I can not agree that Bob is staking out a claim to be the current day hier-appearant to AK. If he were doing so, would he be shedding what 'authority' and 'positions' that he has? I believe that anyone who has had a chance to experience, and get to know him, will most likely come to the same conclusions. Of course, I could be wrong about any or (legitimate)all of the above. Formulate independantly, Homer Sole Acolyte to, and Chief Detractor of, The Big Pu (Self-appointed) From ceclark@students.wisc.edu Fri Oct 6 20:15:29 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA10473; Fri, 6 Oct 95 20:15:29 -0700 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA30269 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 20:10:28 -0700 Received: from [144.92.182.33] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id WAA43565; 8.6.9W/42; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 22:10:45 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 21:29:08 +0300 To: ssread-l@newciv.org From: ceclark@students.wisc.edu (carmen clark) Subject: now for _my_ questions Status: RO Pals, My beloved warned me that I would get bound up in list matters and not have time for my own learning, if I weren't careful. Well, what's done is done. And I think the schedule is done and the rules are done for the moment (I hope). I think it's obvious that I'm a newbee (I think I said it in my bio post), so... Simple questions first: 1. I would like some background on the controversy around "Whatever you say a thing is, it is not." I think it means that by tying a thing or an event down with the formulation of language, one is limiting the scope of perception of that thing or event. But what if that limiting of scope were viewed on a continuum instead of as a negation, why not say, "Whatever you say a thing is, it can only be part of the thing or event now, as a whole, from where you view it, at best, and will necessarily be distorted by your own relationship to it." Well, it is a lot shorter to say "Whatever you say..." But is my sentence (1) accurate, and (2) distinguishing a continuum instead of a negation, for the greater good? (p.xvii) 2. Oh well, forget simple. In Pula's point #16, he refers to K's paper, "Fate and Freedom" (1923). I am struck by its correspondence in content to what I recall (from long ago) of Skinner's _Beyond Freedom and Dignity_. Do you think, or is it known, that Skinner's behavioristic approach intentionally attempted to deny K's view that underlying thinking 'determined' human behavior, as in 'logical fate'? You know, "Freedom" as in, "Fate and Freedom" ?? (p. xvii-xviii) 3. I know we'll get to the deep stuff later, but what, in a sentence or two, what does "electro-colloidial processes mean?" Is that the deal we learned in psych, that there is a biochemical and structural link between thought and 'brain/nervous system'? I don't get what the term encompasses. I gather he didn't mean a 'process' to be a little part of a physiological thingie, like a nerve extension. Rather, a verb sort of thing--'process' = 'to process.' So the electrical thought process dealing with 'extended matter'???? Doesn't compute. I don't need the technical explanation, just a functional one. (p.xviii) 4. Point #26 refers to limitations of subject-predicate languages without consciousness of abstracting. Does that suggest that a language like Chinese, with ideographs/pictographs would be a better language? My friend who speaks Chinese told me one character could have a bunch of entirely different meanings, depending on context and voice intonation. Is this, according to what Pula and presumably K is saying, a more 'honest' and less elemental approach to language? When Chinese people speak, do they have to revert to subject-verb structure, or how does that work out? (p. xix) 5. Point #27 on relative invariance under transformation. He says "invariance of relations" should not be confused with "invariance of process." Could someone put the distinction together for me? (p. xix) 6. And the big question: As a history student (historian?) I think it is very important to date and index when something was said in order to figure out what the statement (1993) about K (1933) says about how 1993 views 1933 as a function of society (or a societal grouping and its society) in 1993. Thus, Pula has picked out the 'most essential points of K's thinking.' But what he/we value in 1993/1995 must have a lot to do with what we _consider_ 'essential.' Unless we are to claim that there is an absolute K-ness that anyone can touch, taste, measure, etc., then we ought to know why we value what we value about those particular points today, and why we don't value other aspects of what K said originally, and throughout his career, over a number of years. So, my question for all you big thinkers out there is, what does Pula's 1993 introduction tell us about what we value about K (1933)? What are we leaving out and why? Why do we value what we do? And what would we add to those points today if we were 'rewriting' S&S. Carmen (Next on to Meyers.) From ceclark@students.wisc.edu Fri Oct 6 23:08:07 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA10758; Fri, 6 Oct 95 23:08:07 -0700 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA31202 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 23:03:12 -0700 Received: from [144.92.180.117] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id AAA35588; 8.6.9W/42; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 00:02:27 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 23:20:50 +0300 To: ssread-l@newciv.org From: ceclark@students.wisc.edu (carmen clark) Subject: errr, about Question 6 Status: RO Pals, I just realized that much of my Question 6, reprinted below, is really a reading question and probably not one best addressed at this time. The part I think worth addressing now is: "... what does Pula's 1993 introduction tell us about what we value about K (1933)?" I think that as I/we read through S&S, I/we should look for what we are leaving out today, and other things embedded in the rest of my question: 6. And the big question: As a history student (historian?) I think it is very important to date and index when something was said in order to figure out what the statement (1993) about K (1933) says about how 1993 views 1933 as a function of society (or a societal grouping and its society) in 1993. Thus, Pula has picked out the 'most essential points of K's thinking.' But what he/we value in 1993/1995 must have a lot to do with what we _consider_ 'essential.' Unless we are to claim that there is an absolute K-ness that anyone can touch, taste, measure, etc., then we ought to know why we value what we value about those particular points today, and why we don't value other aspects of what K said originally, and throughout his career, over a number of years. So, my question for all you big thinkers out there is, what does Pula's 1993 introduction tell us about what we value about K (1933)? What are we leaving out and why? Why do we value what we do? And what would we add to those points today if we were 'rewriting' S&S. Carmen From 102362.1465@compuserve.com Sat Oct 7 10:24:31 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA10952; Sat, 7 Oct 95 10:24:31 -0700 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA02554 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 10:22:01 -0700 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id NAA24746; Sat, 7 Oct 1995 13:22:24 -0400 Date: 07 Oct 95 13:17:16 EDT From: "Milton L. Dawes" <102362.1465@compuserve.com> To: "(unknown)" Subject: errr, about Question 6 Message-Id: <951007171716_102362.1465_EHR140-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: RO HI Abstractors It has been my practice to focus my attention not so much on what anyone says I should value, but more on the reasoning behind their suggestion. This I can check out, investigate, critique for my self. And then I can evaluate-decide if their suggestion is valuable for me. This has so far worked for me. Milton From PacBell.COM!pbhyc!djdaneh Mon Oct 9 11:05:36 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA11593; Mon, 9 Oct 95 11:05:36 -0700 Received: from relay3.UU.NET (relay3.UU.NET [192.48.96.8]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA10186 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 10:43:40 -0700 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP id QQzkss19471; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 13:44:28 -0400 Received: from gw3.pacbell.com by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id MAA33650; 8.6.9W/42; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 12:43:11 -0500 Received: from gw.PacBell.COM by gw3.pacbell.com (5.x/PacBell-9/14/95) id AA25944; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 10:43:10 -0700 Received: from pbhyc.UUCP by gw.PacBell.COM (4.1/PacBell-8/16/95) id AA13810; Mon, 9 Oct 95 10:43:09 PDT Message-Id: <9510091743.AA13810@gw.PacBell.COM> Subject: Re: now for _my_ questions To: PacBell.COM!students.wisc.edu!ceclark (carmen clark) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 95 10:42:15 PDT From: "Dan'l DanehyOakes" Cc: PacBell.COM!students.wisc.edu!newciv.org!ssread-l In-Reply-To: ; from "carmen clark" at Oct 6, 95 9:29 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL16] Status: RO Carmen asks a few questions. . . > 1. I would like some background on the controversy around "Whatever you say > a thing is, it is not." I think it means that by tying a thing or an event > down with the formulation of language, one is limiting the scope of > perception of that thing or event. Ummmm, this comes close but does not quite hit the mark. The way I understand this dictum, I would offer as an expansion (I'm sure those with more experience with K-style thinking will correct my errors): Whatever you say a thing is, it is not: I see three points that should be addressed in explaining this formulation. First, we must realize that no verbal formulation can adequately capture the full structure of any "object." Anything you can say about an object will "be" inadequate to the "reality" of the object at the "unspeakable objective level." Second, because all verbal formulations ("what you say about a thing") _necessarily_ select and emphasize some aspects of the object they describe, they, equally necessarily, de-emphasize and ignore other aspects. For example, I might hold up a copy of Alfred Korzybski's book SCIENCE AND SANITY, and ask a dozen people who have read it to write down a description. Some will praise it; some will call it pretentious. Some will call it a work in philosophy, others psycho-logics, others linguistics, others self-help; still others will say it "transcends category",. In the meanwhile, a dozen people who have *not* read it will say it is "a great thick book", "black", "black on the outside and black and white on the inside", "a large quantity of paper", "a hell of a flyswatter", "about six inches by eight, and weighing about four pounds",. Because the object I am holding up "is" all these things, it also "is not" any of them. (Note, btw, that those who have read it will tend to describe it on a different order of abstraction than those who have not: that is, those who have not, will tend to describe the physical object, while those who have, will tend to describe it through their own experiences of reading.) I wish to emphasize however, that though in this example I have used opposed points of view to illustrate the point, a second point-of-view is not necessary or even relevant. What matters is that each statement, by selecting and emphasizing some aspects of the object, symptomatically ignores or deemphasizes others. This fact in some way interacts with the psycho-logical processes of the person making the statement, though it is not immediately clear whether these processes create the type of statement the individual will make, are the result of the type of statement the individual habitually makes, or -- and this seems most likely to me -- some combination of the two, and probably other things. Thirdly, the formulation "whatever you say a thing is, it is not" indicates the GS bias toward "is not" statements rather than "is" statements, and specific-and-limited negative statements rather than general-and-universal ("allness") positive statements. > 2. Oh well, forget simple. In Pula's point #16, he refers to K's paper, > "Fate and Freedom" (1923). I am struck by its correspondence in content to > what I recall (from long ago) of Skinner's _Beyond Freedom and Dignity_. Do > you think, or is it known, that Skinner's behavioristic approach > intentionally attempted to deny K's view that underlying thinking > 'determined' human behavior, as in 'logical fate'? You know, "Freedom" as > in, "Fate and Freedom" ?? (p. xvii-xviii) I have not read much Skinner. Have you read any particular reason to believe that Skinner had ever read, or indeed even heard of, Korzybski's work? > 3. I know we'll get to the deep stuff later, but what, in a sentence or > two, what does "electro-colloidial processes mean?" This is covered in Chapter IX or so. The very brief idea: "colloid" refers to a particular kind of chemical suspension or emulsion with some very interesting properties. K., in my not-terribly-humble opinion, having read and understood the early-1930s work in colloidal chemistry, leapt to a number of conclusions about the implications of colloidal chemistry as regards the behavior of living organisms in general and humans in particular -- conclusions some of which seem rather silly in the light of mid-1990s biochemistry, and some of which seem to have been supported by later experiment. In rereading S&S, I find it easiest to regard his fixation on "colloidal behavior" as an aberration, as the general formulations and value of GS, it meseems, do not depend on the colloidal formulations at all. In fact, when you ask: > Is that the deal we > learned in psych, that there is a biochemical and structural link between > thought and 'brain/nervous system'? To a great degree, yes. (Though we have said it is something and therefore it is not. 8*) ) I think that the term "colloidal behavoir" in K. might most usefully be viewed as an ongoing reminder that "thought" is not merely a metaphysical process, but has a concrete, physiological foundation in the human organism, most concentrated in the nervous system. > 4. Point #26 refers to limitations of subject-predicate languages without > consciousness of abstracting. Does that suggest that a language like > Chinese, with ideographs/pictographs would be a better language? No. A subject-predicate statement like: All men are mortal. is at a very high level of abstraction, whereas a subject-predicate statement like: This object feels about as rough as #10 sandpaper. is at a very low level of abstraction. Though they have the same grammatical form, they are not the same kind of statement at all. But subject-predicate grammars and logics treat them as of equal value, subject to the same rules of interpretation and inference. > My friend > who speaks Chinese told me one character could have a bunch of entirely > different meanings, depending on context and voice intonation. Is this, > according to what Pula and presumably K is saying, a more 'honest' and less > elemental approach to language? When Chinese people speak, do they have to > revert to subject-verb structure, or how does that work out? (p. xix) Ummmmm, the written representation of a language has very little to do with how the language "works," and especially at the level of written characters. The same characters are used to write English, French, Spanish, German., and, with some modification, Norwegian, Polish,. Russian has a closer structural similarity to Polish than Polish does to any of the other languages I mentioned in my last sentence, but uses a very different character-system. Similarly, much of the written representation of Japanese -- the pictographic characters, as opposed to the two phonetic character sets also used (one of them borrowed from the west, _romanji_; the other of native creation) -- is nearly identical to, because borrowed from, Chinese pictographic writing. But this does not constrain the structure of Japanese to be tremendously similar to that of Chinese. I'm not at all clear how a language can work _without_ a subject-predicate structure. . . > 5. Point #27 on relative invariance under transformation. He says > "invariance of relations" should not be confused with "invariance of > process." Could someone put the distinction together for me? (p. xix) Invariance of relation: F=mA. As you increase one side of the relation, the other _must_ increase proportionally (I'm speaking "classical," Newtonian physics here. I don't care to try to express modern physics in the ASCII character set.) Invariance of process: I think someone else had better handle this one; I can't think of a good way to clarify it right now. I'll also leave Q6 to others. --dan'l From rplourde@scoot.netis.com Mon Oct 9 15:00:37 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA11811; Mon, 9 Oct 95 15:00:37 -0700 Received: from scoot.netis.com (root@scoot.netis.com [198.186.186.7]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA12420 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 14:53:39 -0700 Received: from rplourde.scoot.netis.com (scoot.netis.com [198.186.186.7]) by scoot.netis.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA09249 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 17:25:39 -0400 Message-Id: <199510092125.RAA09249@scoot.netis.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard Plourde" Organization: Electronics Consultant To: ssread-l@newciv.org Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 17:54:54 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: now for _my_ questions Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Status: RO Dan'l DanehyOakes wrote: > First, we must realize that no verbal formulation can adequately > capture the full structure of any "object." Anything you can say > about an object will "be" inadequate to the "reality" of the > object at the "unspeakable objective level." I'm jumping ahead, here, but I think that the juxtaposition of 'reality' with 'object' may relate to some widespread confusions about what certain words 'mean' in the specific context of general semantics. (I may only demonstrate my own confusion -- but, if so, then I hope for some correction.) One of the quotations at the beginning of chapter XXV points to the specific distinction between 'event' and 'object.' "You cannot recognize an event; because when it is gone, it is gone ... But a character of an event can be recognized. ... Things which we thus recognize I call objects." A.N. Whitehead (Note -- elipsis [...] provided by Korzybski.) Korzybski then goes on to say, "...I must explain briefly the use of the term 'event'. The introduction of new terms in a language always represents initial difficulties to the student. ... Einstein ... As the 'space-time' continuum is the closest to our daily experience, I accept the language of 'events' as fundamental ..." Unfortunately, Korzybski, while acknowledging that "I must explain" failed to explain, but he *did* provide an example: "...we find that the 'scientific object' represents an 'event', a mad dance of 'electrons', which is different every instant, which never repeats itself, ...inextricably connected with everything else and dependent on everything else." I think that the example did as much to obscure as to clarify, but that's just the way it struck me. Korzybski's use of the Whitehead quotation, without refutation, seems to indicate that Korzybski was applying the words 'event' and 'object' in much the way Whitehead was applying those words. Any 'dance-step' in the 'mad dance of electrons' (or any other event), is over before we can 'check it out.' We can only 'check out, verify' what continues -- the 'object' or 'the dance.' These are not meanings that we assign in every-day usage to 'event' and 'object.' It seems to me that we have a rather rigid boundary at the event/object level. We cannot recognize events (according to Whitehead and supported by Korzybski) but we *can* infer events by repeated observations of objects -- we can 'recognize' objects and infer events. The unspeakable-association of 'object' as used here becomes clear; that we *can* 'recognize' objects separates the act of recognition from the object itself. It seems that 'object' can refer both to physical things and continuing processes outside us (object[thing]), and to our neural-state prior to object-recognition (object[neural]). I'm not at all certain that this last distinction agrees with Korzybski's usage, so I tossed it out in the hopes of clarification. At any rate, the Korzybski usages of 'event' and 'object' seem quite clearly very, very different from common every-day usages. When we use these terms (which seem pivotal in achieving understanding of parts of g.s.) then we lay ourselves open to unconscious equivocation -- we may not know what we're talking about. I suggest that the g.s.-tool of subscripting will prove handy for us in untwisting these not obvious relationships, and that we'll do ourselves a big favor if we assume that 'object' and 'event' are seriously under-defined unless subscripted as object(general-usage), event(physics), object(physics-process), etc.. It may take a little longer to type things that way, and it may represent a few more bytes along the net, but at least then we'll have a better chance at grasping what's going on -- or perhaps of grasping that we don't know what's going on (what's being talked about) and that rather than assuming comprehension, it's time to ask questions. -R -- Richard Plourde (rplourde@scoot.netis.com) From 102362.1465@compuserve.com Mon Oct 9 15:43:19 1995 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA11883; Mon, 9 Oct 95 15:43:19 -0700 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id SAA08645; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 18:44:04 -0400 Date: 09 Oct 95 18:39:19 EDT From: "Milton L. Dawes" <102362.1465@compuserve.com> To: "(Nervous Systems)" Subject: Re: now for _my_ questions Message-Id: <951009223918_102362.1465_EHR129-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: RO Hi Abstractors Nice work by Dan. I'll just add my two bit. Re word not thing: The word as word exists in the domain of language. What the word refers to exists in the domain of processes, things, non word happenings. Of course if we are talking about words, as word, then the word can be the thing... but not the same thing as being talked about. In other words, if we take word 1 about word 2: word 1 then becomes the word, and word 2 the word-thing being talked about. For instance I can say "antidisestablishmentarianism", very long word. "Anti....." then becomes the word-thing, and "very long" the words about it. Obviously one is not the other. This applies similarly to "the map is not the territory". The map is not the territory it is a map of. We can make another map (2) of a map (1), but obviously we have two maps, and just as clearly one is not the other, although both are labelled maps. (an example here of "relative invariance under transformation", and also multiordinality : we have two different things but what remains relatively invariant is the label. And a map of a map ... well map 2 can be considered a mapping- abstraction of map 1. I wont go into self-reflexiveness here, I think-feel you can make the connection? By the way, the above is easier understood by actually drawing and manipulating maps and words (Silent levels). Attempting to follow by just the words - well they can get in the way of understanding. Milton From ceclark@students.wisc.edu Mon Oct 9 19:24:43 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA12206; Mon, 9 Oct 95 19:24:43 -0700 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA14624 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 19:18:30 -0700 Received: from [144.92.181.107] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id VAA53472; 8.6.9W/42; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 21:19:23 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 20:37:52 +0300 To: ssread-l@newciv.org From: ceclark@students.wisc.edu (carmen clark) Subject: is not!//is too!//is not! Status: RO And this remark on >... the controversy around "Whatever you say a thing is, it is not." You might want to consider something a bit more obvious. Matter does not consist of symbols. Words do. Symbolic content does not consist of matter (outside of a nervous system). The twain ne'er get together - unless we specifically recognize them as having only a correspondent relationship, etc. I would (very quietly) suggest that K wrote his dictum to make the point short, but difficult for the uninitiated to understand. ****end From rplourde@scoot.netis.com Mon Oct 9 21:09:49 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA12363; Mon, 9 Oct 95 21:09:49 -0700 Received: from scoot.netis.com (root@scoot.netis.com [198.186.186.7]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA15524 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 21:01:36 -0700 Received: from rplourde.scoot.netis.com (scoot.netis.com [198.186.186.7]) by scoot.netis.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA16108 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 23:34:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199510100334.XAA16108@scoot.netis.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard Plourde" Organization: Electronics Consultant To: ssread-l@newciv.org Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 00:03:02 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: now for _my_ questions Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Status: RO Dan'l DanehyOakes wrote: > I accept Mr Plourde's correction, and revise my previous statement: > > > > First, we must realize that no verbal formulation can adequately > > > capture the full structure of any object[general-usage]. Anything > > > you can say about an object[general-usage] will fail to capture the > > > full structure of the event[physics-process] at the unspeakable objective > > > level which we infer from this object[general-usage]. > > Does that work, Richard? I think that it better communicates what you were trying to say. > > And, for the rest of you -- is that horribly unreadable? I find it a > bit kludgy. Well, even though I wasn't invited into this response, I agree that the results appear horribly unreadable. For one thing, the usage of subscripting keeps us from simply sliding through the paragraph nodding our heads as if we understood. I suggest that *some* of the subscripting could go away, if we accepted as a convention that a word, once subscripted, retained the subscript until the occurrance of a different usage. I see a bunch of alternatives. One alternative would be to simply discuss g.s. without using it. (We're certainly capable of acting and believing that we understand what's going on, even if we do not understand what's going on.) Another alternative would be for each of us to recognize a term as it's used in the way the author intended, but without any hints from the author. (I don't think that works -- but if we could figure out how to *make* it work, then I'd say that we'd accomplished something pretty important.) And another way would be to use subscripting in our own formulations of what we write, and then modify the context of what we write to create a context that mitigates against ambiguity. A frequent use of examples (and particularly, counter-examples) can, I think, provide that clarity. And finally, we could operate using a convention where general-usages are assumed (along with the ambiguity and 'saying nothing' problems of general usage) *unless* we use subscripting (or something like subscripting.) I suspect that we'll find that we'll have tremendous difficulties discussing S&S in everyday terms. Too much of S&S comes out of not-everyday-theories, and too much of what Korzybski wrote uses not-everyday-referents for the words. By the way, Dan'l -- I certainly did *not* intend my comments as an attack against *you*; your posting merely confused me, and it suddenly occurred to me that it was *me* who was confused, not you. From that, I looked at *what* confused me, and wrote the note -- using your post as an example of a common way in which I become confused. Perhaps everybody else understood exactly what was going on. Perhaps some people *thought* they understood exactly what was going on, and are now puzzled by an assertion that perhaps they did not. So goes g.s.. -R -- Richard Plourde (rplourde@scoot.netis.com) From Slingr@aol.com Sun Oct 8 07:36:18 1995 Received: from newciv.org by lumina.ucsd.edu via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for mcpherso id AA11239; Sun, 8 Oct 95 07:36:18 -0700 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by newciv.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id HAA10788 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 1995 07:21:05 -0700 From: Slingr@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13915; Sun, 8 Oct 1995 10:21:50 -0400 Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 10:21:50 -0400 Message-Id: <951008102149_118863659@mail04.mail.aol.com> To: ssread-l@newciv.org Cc: Nybbor@aol.com, SPKodish@aol.com, 73374.662@compuserve.com Subject: Quickly, a correction... Status: RO In my previous post, "Another Demand; More 'Fun' with Pula", I stated: "I won't repeat the ridiculously silly, yet apparently sincere, comments and discussion on the "deeper reason" for Bob's comment "except, perhaps, Antarctica". I would surmise that Bob has personal knowledge of individuals of studying and applying g.s. in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. I would surmise that, based on his exclusion, he does not have personal knowledge of individuals studying and applying g.s. in Antarctica. Hence his comment. (I don't know how he considers Greenland - continent or island? Perhaps if there's a 6th Edition, he'll address this controversial issue head-on.)" The phrase attributed to Bob ("except, perhaps, Antarctica"), SHOULD HAVE BEEN quoted as: "save, perhaps, Antarctica" My apologies. Steve Stockdale The Sheepishly-Intrepid Abstractor