>Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 00:45:45 -0500 >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >From: mob@mindspring.com (Michael O'Bannon) >Subject: Chapter IX summary Summary of Science and Sanity, Chapter IX In this chapter, K. asserts that colloids are "the medium in which life is found." He reviews some of the empirical knowledge about colloidal behavior and finds that the observed responses of colloids to applied energy may provide the link between mental events and physical reactions. K. suggests that a solution to the "body -mind" problem (which he leaves undefined) is found in the colloidal nature of life. The term colloid is used to describe a material made up of fine particles dispersed in another medium. The particles are of a size ranging from single molecules to those barely visible under a microscope. Emulsions, suspensions, smokes, and mists all meet this definition. Most important to K.'s purposes in this chapter, living protoplasm meets the criteria for a colloid. According to K., "a colloid may be described as a 'system' consisting of two or more 'phases'". The surface energies of the many particles act to unite the particles, and the electrical charges of the particles act to separate the particles. This system of forces produces an equilibrium of the process of coagulation (uniting the particles) and the process of dispersion (separation of particles). When energy is applied to a colloidal system, the equilibrium between the two phases may shift. K. reviews a variety of research findings which demonstrate the sensitivity of colloids, particularly living protoplasm, to physical (including electrical), mechanical, chemical, and biological energy. This provides a "brief account of the structural peculiarities of the domain in which life is found." The reader is left to experience directly the pleasure of this romp through the scientific literature. Finally, K. asserts that living organisms demonstrate a colloidal sensitivity to semantic reactions as well. Here is the argument in a far leaner form than he chose to present it: 1. Life has a colloidal structure. 2. Colloids, particularly living tissues, demonstrate structural phase shifts in response to energy impinging on the system. 3. Mental process and nervous system activity is accompanied by electrical currents and perhaps other types of energy generation. 4. Semantic reactions as nervous system activities have the potential for generating structural changes in living tissue. Today we have access a great deal more data demonstrating that mental events exert a direct effect on many aspects of the organism. A good historian of science might quibble with K.'s choice of research. I am not a good historian of science, but I am fairly certain that much more appropriate research in neurophysiology was already available in the 20's and 30's than the findings cited by K. Nonetheless, his basic conclusions can be supported by current findings. Regards, Michael Michael O'Bannon, Ph.D. Corporate Psychologist 42 Lenox Pointe Atlanta, GA 30324 404-237-3883 mob@mindspring.com ============================================================================= >From: ceclark@students.wisc.edu >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 00:34:42 -0600 >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >Subject: Re: Chapter IX summary Jeez, Michael, I hope--to save face--you live in *West* Atlanta. :) Sorry about placing you around the Rockies somewhere! Thanks for the excellent comments. You wrote: >According to K., "a colloid may be described as a 'system' consisting of >two or more 'phases'". The surface energies of the many particles act to >unite the particles, and the electrical charges of the particles act to >separate the particles. This system of forces produces an equilibrium of >the process of coagulation (uniting the particles) and the process of >dispersion (separation of particles). When energy is applied to a >colloidal system, the equilibrium between the two phases may shift. As I read your summary I got sort of a pulsing picture of what he describes. Did you? What's the point of that? Sounds like the isolation of the energy force or something. Interesting too the pairing of opposites, the coagulation and dispersion. Now some have told me K was all wet in this theory . But I think it sounds kind of fun. Where does 'fun' end and 'what's going on' begin, here? I am quite seriously asking. You may have wondered over the months if I really want to know something or just joke around and chat. No. I really want to understand. Any help appreciated. Here is my specific question: How does the pulsing sort of function K describes function within the organism? Is he saying that people's thoughts get deranged and the pulsing gets off beat, thus disturbing the brain structure and changing their homeostasis or something? Obviously we've established the link between thoughts an physical processes, I'm not after that. But I think he is addressing something more, kind of a process and energy flow. Thanks, Carmen ============================================================================= >From: Hjmoore@cris.com >Subject: Mordkowitz on Colloids >To: ssread-l@newciv.org (S&S reading-list) >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 03:41:26 -0500 (EST) >Cc: 73374.662@compuserve.com (Marjorie Zelner) The following article, by Jeffry A. Mordkowitz, appeared in _General Semantics Bulletin_ No. 55. The paper, entitled "Korzybski, Colloids and Molecular Biology", was presented originally at the Tenth International Conference on General Semantics: Building Bridges to Mutual Understanding, San Diego, California, August 15-18, 1985. The following material is copyrighted. I am posting it here with the kind permission of Mr. Mordkowitz and the Institute of General Semantics. Please 'honor' the copyright, and do not distribute this article without first contacting the Institute, and gaining permission. KORZYBSKI, COLLOIDS AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY In 1982, I spent a Washington's Birthday weekend listening to the tapes of Korzybski's 1948-49 Intensive Seminar lectures [1]. Among the many topics that aroused my interest was the subject of "colloids". Up to that point, my knowledge of the term was limited to what was contained in _Science and Sanity_ [2], which I had accepted at face value. On the tapes, however, Korzybski mixed his theoretical discussions of "colloids" with simple experiments that he chose to illustrate his major points. Some of those experiments (pouring alcohol onto egg-whites, electrically charging two pith-balls to exhibit attraction and repulsion) I've duplicated at an Institute seminar-workshop. After I listened to the seminar tapes, a few questions occurred to me concerning these "colloidal" lectures. One -- were they in accord with scientific data of the 1920's and 30's? Two -- what new knowledge have we gained over the years? Three -- and of most importance -- how does this new knowledge affect Korzybski's generalizations? To answer the first question, about the scientific foundations for Korzybski's colloidal formulations, I turned to Volume II of Jerome Alexander's Colloid Chemistry [3], a series which spanned many thousands of pages and which Alexander edited for over twenty years. Korzybski referenced this particular volume quite often, especially in his chapter on "Colloidal Behaviour". I read the cited articles in Alexander's book and was impressed by how consistently Korzybski stayed within the bounds of a given author's argument. For example, Korzybski stated that "All the main tubercular symptoms can be reproduced, experimentally, by means of colloidal disturbances without the intervention of a single bacterium." [4] The article cited for this remark, (written by Albert Mary, founder of the Institut de Biophysique de Paris), contains ample justification for such a statement, as evidenced by the following quotes: "Experimental tuberculosis has been obtained without the intervention of a single microbe." [5] And later in the article: "These ... pellicles [colloidal particles], emulsified ... and injected into a guinea-pig, caused a profound cachexia, and on autopsy pseudo- tubercles were found in the lungs and peritoneum."[6] Even Korzybski's broader pronouncements pertaining to the unique importance of "colloidal behaviour" or the "colloidal equilibrium" as a basis for life found numerous echoes among the authors in Alexander's volume [7]. Some additional material for evaluating Korzybski's work on "colloids" can be found in _General Semantics Bulletin_ Nos. 4 & 5, in an article written by Ernst Hauser, then Professor of Colloid Chemistry at M.I.T. Hauser went into great detail, quoting from several authors published both before and after Korzybski, to make his point that Korzybski had hit the mark. In Hauser's own words "... I am convinced that some statements made about colloid science and its implications nearly twenty years ago by Alfred Korzybski are as true and correct today [in 1950] as they were at that time. I am referring here specifically to ... his ideas on the working mechanism of the human nervous system." [8] That mechanism was described by Korzybski as follows: "There is much evidence that the mechanical work of the muscles, the secretory action of the glands, and the electrical work of the nerve cells are closely connected with the colloidal structure of these tissues. This would explain why *any* factor (semantic reactions included) capable of altering the colloidal structure of the living protoplasm must have a marked effect on the behaviour and welfare of the organism." [9] Well, enough about Korzybski's concordance with his contemporaries. As to what new knowledge we've gained since the publication of _S & S_, I'd like to mention a few noteworthy achievements. The invention of electron microscopy in the 1930's opened up a new world of cellular study. Increasing our resolving power in this way allowed the visualization of many sub-cellular membranes and organelles, greatly accelerating the differentiation of the once-amorphous "protoplasmic/colloidaI stuff-of- life". Even here, Korzybski was not out of touch with these revelations: That living organisms are film-bounded and partitioned accounts also for irritability,... sensitiveness to electrical currents. These currents seem to depend on polarizability or resistance to the passage of ions, owing to the presence of semipermeable boundary films or surfaces... complex *structures* which are intimately connected with the characteristics of life. [9] In the next decades, the discipline of molecular biology exploded on the scene with two major discoveries: one, the determination in 1944 by Avery, MacLeod and McCarty that DNA carries the hereditary material [10], and two, the unraveling of the double-helical structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953 [11]. The molecular 'revolution' continues today with the introduction of gene cloning, monoclonal antibodies, etc., research techniques in much use where I work at the Hospital for Joint Diseases in New York. We now come to the last and most important question: what modifications of Korzybski's discussions of "colloids" appear necessary in the light of so much new data? I have only one major suggestion: a change in terminology. The term "colloids" is now pretty much limited to inorganic physical chemistry and the newer sciences of surface and inter-facial chemistry. Biological uses of the term, in the style of the early investigators, stopped almost 35 years ago. I believe we'd perform a disservice to Korzybski and ourselves by continuing to use such a term in its archaic, biological sense. We can instead, in accord with "modern science", use such terms as "macromolecule" and "macromolecular", which for the most part convey many of the important life-implications that the term "colloids" did for Korzybski and others. For example, a statement Korzybski made describing his Silent Levels diagram [12] might now read: "From an electro-macro-molecular point of view, every part of the brain is connected with every other part, and with our nervous system as a whole." I'm not advocating a one-for-one, mechanical replacement of "colloidal" by "macromolecular" in every instance; only that we examine Korzybski's formulations, and make changes where appropriate. By the way, the term "protoplasm" also comes under the heading of "terms to eschew", and a detailed discussion of this can be found in Garrett Hardin's reprinted 1956 article in ETC. [13] Korzybski's main generalizations, which emphasize the importance of multi-ordinal structure for understanding the interactions between the so-called separate 'intellect' and 'emotions', for understanding 'life' and human behavior, require no major modifications in my opinion. After all, the new molecular biological disciplines of neuroendocrinology, neuropsychopharmacology, molecular immunology, etc., represent an out- growth of the colloidal chemistry of the 1920's and 30's, and *not* a denial of the data on which Korzybski based his formulations. I'd like to close with a quote from Sir Peter Medawar, a Nobel-prize winning biologist and epistemologist who sums up quite nicely the rela- tionships between the old and the new, and of the continuing importance of *structure* and *order*: [14] For many years the mystique of protoplasm lingered on in the belief that life might be a manifestation of the behaviour of some complex, exquisitely well-balanced colloidal system.... Today, however [in 1977], it is no longer believed that colloid chemistry is a special sort of chemistry -- that colloids have properties other than those to be expected of solutions of very large molecules that often bear electric charges. Indeed, the "basis of life" -- if such a phrase has any meaning -- is structural in an almost crudely anatomical sense: molecular trans- formations occur in a certain sequence and in a certain place because the agencies through which they are mediated (mainly enzymes) enjoy a certain orderly structural arrangement. Electron microscopic examination of cells reveals solid structures which have definite shapes... As theories of the protoplasmic genre have quietly disappeared from view, it is to the expert in high resolution electron microscopy... that we now look for an understanding of the way things are ordered in biological systems. REFERENCES [1] Korzybski, A. (1948) "Intensive Seminar,. December 27, 1948 - January 3,1949." Unedited. Thirtyseven hour-long cassettes. Distributed by the Institute of General Semantics, Englewood, NJ. (A Listener's Guide and Index to them, by J.A.M., was published in GSB # 52 51-75 (1985).) [2] Korzybski, A. (1933) _Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non- Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics_. Lakeville, CT: The International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Co. (now part of the I.G.S., Englewood, NJ). 4th edition, 1958. [3] Alexander, J. (1928) _Colloid Chemistry: Theoretical and Applied_. Collected and edited by Jerome Alexander. _Volume II. Biology and Medicine_. New York: the Chemical Catalog Company. [4] Korzybski, A. (1933) Op. cit., p 119. [5] Mary, A. (1928) "Colloid Chemistry and Tuberculosis." In Alexander, J., op. cit. p 869. [6] Ibid., p 873. [7] (a) Alexander, J., op. cit., Preface, p 1. (b) Pauli, W. "Proteins as Colloids", ibid. p. 223. (c) Heilbrunn, L "Protoplasm", ibid., pp 451-459. (d) Lillie, R. "The Colloidal Structure of Protoplasm and Protoplasmic Action", ibid. pp 461-466. (e) Schade, H. "Colloid Chemistry and Internal Medicine", ibid. pp 629-649. [8] Hauser, E. (1950) "Korzybski's Relation to Colloid Chemistry", General Semantics Bulletin, Nos. 4 & 5, p 6. [9] Korzybski, A. (1933) op. cit., P 115. [10] Avery, O.T., MacLeod, C.M., and McCarty, M. (1944) "Studies on the chemical nature of the substance inducing transformation of pneumococcal types. Induction of transformation by a deoxyribo-nucleic acid fraction isolated from Pheumococcus Type III", _Journal of Experimental Medicine_ 791 137-158. [11] Watson, J.D. and Crick, F.H.C. (1953) "Molecular structure of nucleic acid. A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid." _Nature_ 171: 737-738. [12] Korzybski, A. (1950) "Silent and Verbal Levels Diagram", _General Semantics Bulletin_ Nos. 4 & 5, p 9. [13] Hardin, G. (1956) "Meaninglessness of the Word 'Protoplasm'", _ETC: A Review of General Semantics_ 13 #3: 193-208. Reprinted from The Scientific Monthly 82 #3, March 1956. [14] Medawar, P.B. and Medawar, J.S. (1977) _The Life Science: Current Ideas of Biology_. New York: Harper and Row, pp 10-11. BIOGRAPHY Jeff Mordkowitz, a graduate of SUNY at Stony Brook, is a Computer Coordinator for the Hospital for Joint Diseases, in New York. The '79 Summer Seminar began his being dragooned into the posts of a Bulletin Editor, an Institute Trustee, and the computerizer of our records - too much! Now, having wed Martha Santer and fathered Rachel and Arielle, he cautiously resumes some G-S activity. [Poster's Note: Since the printing of this issue of the Bulletin, Jeff has been elected to the position of President of the Board of Trustees.] ============================================================================= >From: ThomasM451@aol.com >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:22:52 -0500 >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >cc: ThomasM451@aol.com >Subject: Re: Mordkowitz on Colloids In a message dated 96-01-03 03:44:58 EST, Mordkowitz writes: >We now come to the last and most important question: what modifications >of Korzybski's discussions of "colloids" appear necessary in the light >of so much new data? I have only one major suggestion: a change in >terminology. The term "colloids" is now pretty much limited to inorganic >physical chemistry and the newer sciences of surface and inter-facial >chemistry. Biological uses of the term, in the style of the early >investigators, stopped almost 35 years ago. I believe we'd perform a >disservice to Korzybski and ourselves by continuing to use such a term >in its archaic, biological sense. We can instead, in accord with "modern >science", use such terms as "macromolecule" and "macromolecular", which >for the most part convey many of the important life-implications that >the term "colloids" did for Korzybski and others. For example, a >statement Korzybski made describing his Silent Levels diagram [12] might >now read: > "From an electro-macro-molecular point of view, every part of >the brain is connected with every other part, and with our nervous >system as a whole." >Korzybski's main generalizations, which emphasize the importance of >multi-ordinal structure for understanding the interactions between the >so-called separate 'intellect' and 'emotions', for understanding 'life' >and human behavior, require no major modifications in my opinion. My comments: As I understand it, biology was still in the elementalistic stage when Medwar made these comments. If one were to follow the threads to the front of the leading edge of biological research today, macromolecular (actually an elementalistic term) has become systems. (I have recent paper on physiological integration if anyone interested) Thus, in all fairness to science as a whole, I propose the following -- > "From a systemic point of view, every part of >the brain is connected with every other part, and with our nervous >system as a whole." This is called "interpenetration" and is possible because relationships are common to all things. It is the relationships in which common knowledge, and structure, is found. The above statement, if generalized, is often used to describe systemic behavior >Korzybski's main generalizations, which emphasize the importance of >multi-ordinal structure for understanding the interactions between the >so-called separate 'intellect' and 'emotions', (As an aside: Notice that Korzybski thinks of multiordinality as an important aid to understanding. He calls for knowing about multiordinality and tells us by knowing about multiordinality, how rich a language it has created. I can supply quotes) But what I would like call our attention to is the dichotomy of intellect/emotion. I don't think that anyone in modern science follows this dualism anymore. If anything, emotion seems to be a sub-system of the intellect in a relationship with rational. As a complementary to this intellect-emotion/rational relational-element, I propose the term - intuition, although there are many others that will serve just as well. Frankly, I simplify the problem, for me, by thinking of the intellect as the outside of our minds, the other side, the inside, is our unconscious, and all that it entails, and many call this intuition. At any rate, Intellect is only part of the colliodal structure, there is more that can only be experienced metaintellectually, tom ============================================================================= >From: ceclark@students.wisc.edu >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:17:17 -0600 >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >Subject: Re: Mordkowitz on Colloids I sent Tom a separate message, including some of the text below, asking about gss connections to this topic. But for this list I hope to return to what K says: I am still trying to relate to the part about colloids that might demonstrate some usefulness to me today. I think energy flow within the body/nervous system might be a useful event to build awareness of in several specific ways: responses to people, responses to weather, diet, exercise, responses to challenge or disagreement, whatever. Anybody care to share falsifying information? Or comment on potential usefulness of my viewing K's comments on colloid as 'energy flow? Remember, I'm coming from the land of denseville sometimes. Tom wrote: >But what I would like call our attention to is the dichotomy of >intellect/emotion. I don't think that anyone in modern science follows this >dualism anymore. I think when K said: >It follows from these >considerations that any psycho-logical occurance has a number of aspects, an >'effective'. and and 'intellectual', a physiological, a COLLOIDAL he was talking about aspects of a whole event/system. So I don't think it elementalizes to recognize aspects of an event/system if it helps sort out consciousness of other abstracting I do with the idea. I think the part of the point of analysis is to be able to understand the aspects of wholes consciously. Wendell Johnson says many fights occur needlessly between people who each think their definition of a word, event or situation is the 'right' one, without recognizing that it involves their construct alone from their experience, fact gathering, emotions, etc. Although the inference might seem relatively right for me, my inferences may or may not be founded in facts or consistent with what has been demonstrated. Carmen ============================================================================= >From: ceclark@students.wisc.edu >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 09:29:41 -0600 >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >Subject: structures? **Just a reminder to anyone who entertains any doubts about this: I host this list but do not speak as the host unless I say I am speaking as the host. Left to my own resources I just say what I think about from the reading. My ideas may seem ignorant or wild to some of you but that's really what I think. I will be happy to work to remove my ignorance, but I have to learn where it lies. Not a joke. One thought seems to lead to another. :) And I appreciate hearing new, sensible thoughts.**** -c ************************** Well, little value in arguing with K's apparently definite orientation toward structure in this 'colloidal' matter. I just finished Jeff's article and enjoyed it very much. I guess this thought might raise some backs: sometimes people don't know exactly what they're talking about but the function of what they mean can come from the space that what they say seems to occupy and the mental image I get when I talk to them. Yes--awareness of perception selectivity, projection, etc. becomes important, but even so, I think people's awareness that the word is not the thing can lead them to a meaning construction beyond the word--and often does. So I think K might have been talking about the structures but the work the structures did was convey the energy flow. I think the "energy flow" is the issue in this colloidal outlook. Whether it is supported by a structure of one kind or another, to me, exists as immaterial. I think the energy force approach fits with the rest of what K said better than getting all hunkered down about whether we are dealing with submolecules. Maybe somebody deals in this, but I wonder why people don't pay more attention to the 'charge' in people's bodies and energy systems. It seems like that's pretty much ignored, yet, like AC current or something, the pulsing thing, couldn't it get kind of 'off'? I know they send electricity through people's brains in shock treatments (I don't like that idea), but I don't think much of anything else in medicine I can think of has to do with addressing the energy flow within people's bodies. But when they want to check our brainwaves, they use electrodes. When they want to check our hearts, they use electrodes. What exists as the connection, if anything? Passive ok but not active? Carmen ============================================================================= >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 16:31:13 -0600 >Subject: Re: explanation for posts **this is Richard Plourde's response to my request that he offer some response to Mike's summary and Jeff's paper, particlarly in relation to my current interest in 'energy flow.' ***Begin RP commentary [...] The Mordkowitz article seemed very much in line with what little I know of regarding physiology. But I'm not sure that it matters. Korzybski presented a theory of intelligence, but did not concentrate on competition-of-theories; I think that we need to 'fill in' the missing holes in order to get some sense of *where* this colloidal stuff fits into the context of Korzybski's time. I think that Korzybski was presenting his colloidal-theories in opposition to elementistic-theories -- such as 'soul' or 'homunculus' theories. (Homunculus theories postulate an inner-being, a "person inside our skull" -- and run into infinite-regress problems when we look for the meta-homunculus inside the skull of the homunculus.) He was presenting *a* mechanism that would work as an explanatory mechanism for evaluating intelligence as an emergent property and not as an entity. An emergent-property description de-mystifies intelligence, and plunks intelligence back into a strict materialistic world. (Demystification is not tantamount to understanding; it represents only the first step towards understanding -- in many ways, mystification operates to create a pseudo-understanding.) An emergent-property explanation or description does not require detailed knowledge of the underlying structure; I think that Korzybski jumped the gun by over-explaining. Students of strong-artificial-intelligence (where 'strong' represents an attempt to create consciousness -- as opposed to 'weak' which represents an attempt to emulate, in a machine, many of the useful properties of consciousness) now hypothesize that the neural-structure of the brain partially accounts for the emergent property of intelligence, and that the physiological mechanisms themselves have less importance than what the mechanisms do. (That signal transmission uses both chemical and electrical behaviors seems of less significance than the facts of firing-thresholds, relaxation-times, and interconnections. But -- this is *still* a topic in its infancy.) I don't comprehend your energy-flow construct. Energy 'flow' strikes me as a necessity for any mechanistic description of thinking, but it seems that you see something more to it than that. Oh -- feel free to post this to your list if you think it would add anything to the discussion. -Dick --R ----Richard Plourde --rplourde@scoot.netis.com ============================================================================= >From: ceclark@students.wisc.edu >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 16:38:38 -0600 >To: rplourde@scoot.netis.com >Subject: Re: explanation for posts >Cc: ssread-l@newciv.org Richard, Thanks for the comments. They help me very much, in pointing to a perspective from which to address this topic. Your observation that he was looking for a material alternative from which to address intelligence and possible process-relationship within neural function and cognition/afect/etc., makes sense to me. I hope I am 'getting' what you had to say. More thought required. My interest in energy flow focuses on the coordination process or driving function involved in the human organism operationalized, if that makes any sense. Maybe an electrical system makes a metaphor. If an electrical system runs at a certain flow rate, it might experience surges or lapses of steady impulse, varying from its standard operating setting. [colloid energy flow?] Maybe parts of the system, from overload or bad circuitry or something don't get the main operational surges or pulses, maybe throwing the system 'off' in its operation as-a-whole. Maybe the weater or 'startling' the system or maybe some other neuro-psycho-logical factor alters the system as-a-whole. This is what I'm looking at, to see how colloid function 'fits' within the system. I don't intend to spend my life investigating this aspect, but there's something important to me about his proposition that colloidal function contributes a substantial part of nervous system function and integration with other cognitive activity. Does this make more sense? I'm not trying to make mountains of molehills or to elementalize the process, but I think awareness of neuro-psycho-logical processing helps people function better. And that addresses my main response to Tom, too, that 'intuition' may 'work', but that consciousness of parts of the system offers unique opportunities to make better use of it, to communicate or 'time bind' with others more effectively, and to minimize culturally-based inferences that might not be grounded in fact or demonstrated by observed function and thus lead to less usable function in me, overall, both conscious and subconsious. I hope this doesn't come across as a bunch of abstracted words. :) I will go ahead and post your comments. Thanks again. Carmen ============================================================================= >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 18:12:21 -0500 >From: mob@mindspring.com (Michael O'Bannon) >Subject: Re: Chapter IX summary >Jeez, Michael, > >I hope--to save face--you live in *West* Atlanta. :) Sorry about placing >you around the Rockies somewhere! Well, Carmen, I live in North-West Atanta, so I suppose that will do. Actually, I once looked more like someone from California than Georgia, but that was 1967 :-). >As I read your summary I got sort of a pulsing picture of what he >describes. Did you? What's the point of that? Sounds like the isolation of >the energy force or something. Interesting too the pairing of opposites, >the coagulation and dispersion. This idea of two phases (dispersion and coagulation) was important to K. because it described the instability of colloids. Instability also implies sensitivity. The unstable/sensitive colloid easily changes state when exposed to a source of energy. >>Now some have told me K was all wet in this theory . But I think it >sounds kind of fun. Where does 'fun' end and 'what's going on' begin, here? IMHO, K. was using the science of the times. Out models have grown more complex and differentiated since the 30's. BUT, his point that humans are sensitive in many ways to enery flows (in fact they may be described primarily as energy exchanges) is sound. Also, he uses this mechanism to establish greater confidence in the notion of the ability to mental events to have profound physical impact, which we now know to be the case. >Here is my specific question: How does the pulsing sort of function K >describes function within the organism? Is he saying that people's thoughts >get deranged and the pulsing gets off beat, thus disturbing the brain >structure and changing their homeostasis or something? Obviously we've >established the link between thoughts an physical processes, I'm not after >that. But I think he is addressing something more, kind of a process and >energy flow. He begins to address this idea of cycling between phases, then drops it without a satisfying conclusion (p114). We know that organisms demonstrate many cyclic phenomena and K's mechanism certainly suggests that thoughts could influence these rhythms, tho he never says this explicitly. After reading the chapter, I concluded that K left several fruitful threads incomplete (films, partitioning, membrane permeability, irritability, learned behavior of simple cell complexes). I believe he intended to assert that semantic reactions could have profound, large scale, direct effects on human tissue via this thought/electrical current/colloid connection. Today we have a much more detailed set of steps, structures, and connections which describe these kinds of effects. K's mechanism was rather simple and global. Regards, Michael ============================================================================= >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 18:12:27 -0500 >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >From: mob@mindspring.com (Michael O'Bannon) >Subject: Re: Mordkowitz on Colloids >But what I would like call our attention to is the dichotomy of >intellect/emotion. I don't think that anyone in modern science follows this >dualism anymore. If anything, emotion seems to be a sub-system of the >intellect in a relationship with rational. Tom, Perhaps you could expand on this idea. Certainly some psychophysiologists continue to study emotion "as if" it could be differentiated from the intellect. I would have to say that many psychotherapists make a practical differentiation of emotion and intellect. And we treat emotion medically as if it were separate from intellect and could be modified by direct chemiical intervention (treatment of depression with Prozac). I'm not suggesting that any of these are always appropriate models, but I believe many who associate themselves with modern science do functionally behave as if a dichotomy exists. Regards, Michael ============================================================================= >From: ceclark@students.wisc.edu >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 20:10:52 -0600 >To: ssread-l@newciv.org Dear Pals, Colloid bodies may not represent your cup of tea, but you have many opportunities to fly within your frame of reference. Why not discover? Carmen ============================================================================= >To: gs >From: viking@cpcnet.com (George Kurien) >Subject: colloids..... >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 22:20:33 -0500 Time binders, Somewhere along the line, colloids are refered to as the 'twilight zone' of life....... GK. (960103) ============================================================================= >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 20:54:58 -0800 (PST) >From: Emory Menefee >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >Subject: Re: Mordkowitz on Colloids Steven Lewis and I had a discussion about the meaning of the term "colloid" some months ago, and I don't want to repeat our stand-off argument. However, for the record, let me say that as a physical chemist I feel Korzybski's terminology is somewhat misleading in terms of current usage, and that if a revision of S&S occurs the term might be replaced by more appropriate words just to update matters. K. did not write as the discoverer of colloids, so his words have little or no value in the history of science; hence, we should not feel reluctant to change them. I have recently hacked through some fairly intense study of the biophysics and biochemistry of ligand-receptor behavior, in preparation for a lecture. This sort of thing gets to the fundamentals of what K. considered the "electrical" basis of living systems. During this reading, I have yet to come across any usage whatever of the term "colloid," much less any occurrence in the way Korzybski used it. In current science, this term seems to be reserved for a state of subdivision that differs from that of a macromolecule. Like every other definition, boundaries can get hazy, but I suspect that "colloid" will most often describe a condition of matter in which clumps of molecules (mostly solid, occasionally liquid) are dispersed in a liquid or occasionally a gas. The properties of these clumps become remarkable because of surface energies that soar due to the small size (e.g., clay particles with high surface to volume ratios) or such things as optical behavior (colloidal gold suspensions). K. himself gives more or less the same definition on p. 112. Such conditions rarely have much importance in biological systems (though they're not totally absent). Little, if any, of this definition applies to synthetic polymers, natural proteins, or other macromolecules, where conventional "surface energy" effects don't usually apply. These terms should probably replace (at least in our thought) what K. blithely calls "colloids" if we want to find the book more understandable and "believable." I suspect a host of little things like this might mitigate against the popularity of general semantics, if an otherwise interested reader becomes "turned off." On the other hand, life will go on as usual even if we don't do anything about it. Does anybody care? Emory ============================================================================= >From: ceclark@students.wisc.edu >Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 00:32:52 -0600 >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >Subject: colloids passe Well, friends, I think you have demonstrated in many interesting ways that colloid bodies don't put out. :) You have saved me much consternation. Thanks. Carmen ============================================================================= >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 23:06:45 -0800 (PST) >From: Earl Hautala >To: ssread-l >Subject: Colloidal Behavior Chapter IX: Colloidal Behavior Korzybski tried to relate the electrical behavior of chemical colloids to brain state changes. He creates an analogy, but one which (in my opinion) tends to mislead his readers. Today we define colloids as finely divided solids in between "solutions" and "suspensions." We put arbitrary size limits on the particulates dispersed in the non-colloidal or dipersing "medium." We operationally define a solution as one in which a dispersed solid no longer shows the path of a light beam shown through it. Colloids will show and disperse a beam of light. Tyndall studied the effect of colloidal light dipersion in 1869 (after whom we named the phenomenon, the Tyndall effect). Korzybski either didn't know or failed to inform his readers of this property which we can use as a defining characteristic. For the purposes of the study of g.s. we would come closer to a 1995 understanding of "life" by eliminating references to the electro-colloidal states of matter. Life refers to the continuous material processes of energetic physical, chemical and electrical interaction. Having written that, I still need to reflect on K's assessment: Whatever you say a thing is, it is not. We might make any number of maps about the process-events engaged in by living things, but no map will replace or become a living thing. At best, our maps will allow us to determine how we affect living things and how we want to affect them (as a matter of prediction and valuing, etc.). Emory asks: "Does anyone care?" For some reason, I think that updating S&S makes a difference. In 1933 g.s. applied up-to-date science to epistemological questions. I would like to see the up-to-date idea updated. We don't attempt to "up date" Shakespeare, but he didn't write science. He wrote poetry and drama. Korzybski wrote about using scientific discoveries to continuously re-evaluate our understanding of experience, abstracting, inference and assumption. I can understand that writing an up-to-date commentary on S&S amounts to a huge, never ending task. As Richard Plourde pointed out scientific discovery and interpretation continue. I'd like to maintain the relationship between g.s. and reasonably up-to-date science. I agree with Emory's assessment. Life will go on even if we do nothing. On the other hand, with a better understanding of whatever-goes-on, we might get some ideas about how to soften or avoid the "shocks to the nervous system" which experience often inflicts on the ignorant. --Earl ============================================================================= >Date: 04 Jan 96 08:09:44 EST >From: "Milton L. Dawes" <102362.1465@compuserve.com> >To: "(Abstractors)" >Subject: Re: Colloidal Behavior Hi Abstractors Some of my abstractings at this time-place. For me the importance of the notion of "colloidal behavior" ( Note the term "behavior") is based on the following considerations. Our organisms can be considered from the perspective of "physico-electro-chemical processes. Our thinking-feeling, worrying, joy, seeing, hearing, talking, walking, etc. involves electro-chemical activities. As there exists relationships between a structure and the functioning of that structure, we can expect that particular physico-electro-chemical processes will be related to certain types of behaviors. And certain behaviors and stimuli, activating electro-chemical impulses, will affect these processes. This has a great deal of importance for me in terms of the "organism-as-a-whole-in-environments'', and "semantic reaction" formulations. For example: I wonder how much attention is being given by researchers to the incidence of cancer and stress?. And in general, how much attention do we as individuals give, to the potential for harm we may do to ourselves and others structurally, by what we 'think' , 'feel', believe, say, etc.? Could the modifications to our physico-electro-chemical processes during our childhood years, resulting from somethings our parents, relatives, friends, teachers, etc, said, relate to any degree, the difficulties we experience getting rid of certain habits of 'thinking' - 'good' or 'bad'? For me, that "colloids" may have gone the way of "phlogiston" does not invalidate the above structural relationships, in terms of psycho-physiology and health. I give more value to the implied structural relationships suggested by the notion of "colloidal behavior" than the label. Milton ============================================================================= >Subject: Colloidal Behavior (fwd) >To: ssread-l@newciv.org >Date: Thu, 4 Jan 96 12:27:17 PST >From: "Dan'l DanehyOakes" Hi. Some formulations of my abstractions re: "Colloidal Behavior." I hyposthesize that this chapter, more than any other in S&S, seriously needs updating. Unfortunately, it also seems likely that a long "time" will pass before a stable version of this chapter could be written. I suggest, more than anything else, that the following, extremely high- level abstractions serve as a pretty good summary of what we(1995 -- no, it's 1996, dammit!) "need" from this chapter for understanding S&S as-a-whole: Intelligence proceeds in/on a substrate of electro-chemical/biological matter(-energy), and can be explained (reductionistically) as a higher- level activity of that matter(-energy). Korzybski uses the term "colloidal behavior" as a sort of codeword to remind us that when he talks about "intelligence", "semantic reactions," etc., he refers to the activity of matter(-energy), not of a "soul" or "psyche" that exists independent of matter(-energy). Finally, this activity ("behavior") can be "trained." Very little else in this chapter, it seems to me, has much importance for the as-a-whole argument of S&S. Why, then, does K. take an entire chapter to say this? I summarize the answer in one word -- actually, a number: 1933. In 1933, materialism was _not_ "intellectually fashionable." In fact, to declare oneself a materialist came within inches of branding oneself a Communist and, in those dark days of the deep Depression, Communism was almost as much a subject of (overwhelmingly negative) controversy as it would be again in the era of McCarthy and the HUAC. (I apologize to non-Americans for references to provincial historical matters. But since Korzybski _did_ write in the United States, it seems reasonable to suppose that the current state-of-affairs in the United States may have been of some concern to him.) In 1933, it was _not_ safe to assume that an intelligent reader took for granted that "intelligence", etc. -- or even that biological life -- could be explained by materialistic reductionism. (Or reductionistic materialism, for that matter.) Korzybski probably "felt" a need to persuade his readers to accept this viewpoint. Actually, in 1996, it is _not_ safe to make such an assumption -- unless you wish to define all soulists as not-intelligent by edict. --dan'l ============================================================================= >From: ThomasM451@aol.com >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 00:22:04 -0500 >To: Hjmoore@cris.com, ssread-l@newciv.org >cc: ThomasM451@aol.com >Subject: Re: Yoo-Hoo In a message dated 96-01-02 23:18:57 EST, you write: >Hey Guys, > >Do we still exist as a working group? My schedule shows that we should be >on Chapter IX "Colloidal Behaviour". However, the list has had no posts >for several weeks now. > >Should we upload the words to _Taps_, and disconnect the life-support system? > >Question assumptions, >Homer Well, I don't have chapter IX on colloidal Behavior, but I did find this much about it - "The above explains why, by the inherant structure of the world, life, and the human nervous system,, human relations are so enormously complex and difficult; and why we should leave no stone unturned to discover beneath the varying phenomenon more and more general and invarient foundations on which human understanding and agreement may be based...It follows from these considerations that any psycho-logical occurance has a number of aspects, an 'effective'. and and 'intellectual', a physiological, a COLLOIDAL, and what not. For the science of psychopsysiology, resuting in a theory of sanity, the above four aspects are of most importance. Well, I have no idea what it might mean. But take a look at this, I do think I know what this means... ".. we should leave no stone unturned to discover beneath the varying phenomenon more and more general and invarient foundations on which human understanding and agreement may be based." Taken from S&S page 23 =============================================================================