Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
General Semantics
In the 1930s a Polish Count, Alfred Korzybski, wrote a book called "Science
and Sanity" which has had a tremendous influence on the Self Development
movement ever since. It has been said that if Korzybski had had the
communication skills of some of the great names of this century, such as
Hubbard of Scientology, or Bandler and Grinder of NLP, then he would have
been the great guru. Rather sad, in one way, is that few would pick up
Science and Sanity to read, but would pick up many copies of his ideas.
Contents
1. Abstraction
2. Structural differential
3. Non-identity
4. Knowledge
5. Time Binding
6. Non-allness
7. Non-elementalistic
8. The problem
9. Confusing levels of abstraction
10. Confusing the object with the event
11. Confusing the word (or our mental representation of something) with
the thing-event itself.
12. Intension
13. Extension
14. Multi-ordinality
15. Projection
16. Non-identity2
17. Objectification
18. Consciousness of Abstracting
19. The Solution
20. Indexes
21. Chain-indexes
22. Dates
23. Et cetera
24. Hyphens
25. Quotes
Whorf-Sapier Hypothesis
Korzybski was influenced by the work of Whorf who maintained that the
language of a culture determines how speakers of that language think and
experience the world. This influenced Korzybski who believed that if our
language was improved then we would improve ourselves and our society. He
believed that the language of science and mathematics was a model for us to
emulate.
Abstraction
He saw the structure of experience as follows, as the structural differential:
Level of
Abstraction Experience
(Arbitrary)
0 The thing-event
The Perceivable Object -
1 What it is possible to
perceive.
The Perceived Object -
2 What is actually
perceived
3 Description The
Description of description language -
4 becoming
(Label).
more and
Description of description more
5
of description, Etc. abstract.
Even at the object level we do not perceive everything. Some people are better
or worse at perceiving colours, or hearing sounds. So some of us cannot
perceive as much of the object as others. Even when our perception is not
limited by our senses, we can fail to notice things about the object, which if
we actually pay more attention, we would have noticed. For example, when
looking at a new car we might fail to notice the scratch on the wing, until
someone else points it out to us.
Further more, we might not notice parts of the object because of our position
when we look at it. The top of a cup can appear as a line, an oval or a circle
depending on our angle of view. We can never view in 3 dimensions, and
because we see a cup as a 3 dimensional object, we must clearly be distorting
our experience of it because the retina of the eye is flat, and can only take flat
images! This point reminds us that there is nothing wrong with abstraction -
seeing objects as 3 dimensional is very valuable, especially when driving - we
are here pointing out that abstraction occurs. The image below illustrates this
point well.
We cannot perceive the whole thing-event, and we abstract from the object to
create our own response to the object, even before we use words!
When we describe the object at this level we use sensory based terms. We
describe its shape, colour, texture, sound, smell, etc. Using sensory based
language we use words at the most basic level to try to capture the experience
of the object. We try to say what we have perceived rather than what we
thought about the object. So we report a roughly circular red thing floating in
the air.
Level of
Abstraction Statement
(Arbitrary)
I saw a red child's balloon floating in the air
1
in the park last summer
2 I saw a balloon.
3 I saw something.
4 I had a sensory experience
Each level tells us less and less about the thing-event. It becomes more
abstract.
Non-identity
The world is continually in a state of flux and change. Nothing remains the
same. There aren't two truly identical thing-events in the world. At the thing-
event level, electrons are continually leaving atoms in the thing-event and
others are replacing them. Our brain cells are continually being replaced at the
atomic level. Our bodies are not the same as they were even five minutes ago
and they are probably totally different from what they were 7 years ago. We
are not the same person we were as babies or even exactly the same person we
were 5 minutes ago. Even two mass produced objects are not identical when
examined scientifically.
Yet we tend to act and believe in identity. We say, 'She is a criminal' and
assume that the person in themselves are identical with our meaning of the
word criminal. If we say, 'He has AIDS', we tend to evaluate him in terms of
everything we know and believe about AIDS. Korzybski believed that the
verb 'to be' was the root cause of our tendency to identify instead of noting
similarities and differences. Some have suggested that the verb to be and all
its forms should not be used and they have invented a new language called E-
prime which has rules to avoid the use of 'to be'.
Knowledge
According to Korzybski, knowledge consists structure. A structure is an
organisation in which each part relates to other parts, and sequences occur in
some order. Really to do anything we need to do things in the right order.
When baking a cake, we wouldn't put the flour in the tin and bake it and then
add the eggs and milk. The order would be wrong. Similarly, when building
something, we have to do things in the right order and connect things to the
right parts. In such examples it is easy to see the absurdity, but in life it is not
so easy. In order to learn or know, we need to do things in the right sequence
and relate things together appropriately. When we have the right relationships
and the right order, then we have a mental structure which is knowledge.
I can say you unlock a door by putting this key in the keyhole and turning it
anti-clockwise. This piece of knowledge covers the structure of unlocking the
door, but it is a map and not an exact description, and even less the actual
task. It is different from the actual task, but it maps it and covers its structure.
It does not say anything about how far to put the key in or whether to wriggle
it sometimes, etc. It covers the structure, but not the actual thing-event or
object or process. However I might try to explain words how to unlock the
door, I would not cover everything, and at a certain size of explanation, you
might have to study for years to learn the whole process!
Time Binding
Time binding is the uniquely human method of transmitting experience and
knowledge over time. We are influenced by the past and the future at the
present time because we are related to these through time binding. Our own
personal history affects us now and in the future because of time binding.
Non-allness
Because we never experience all of the thing-event or the object, and our
words do not capture the whole of the object, the concept of non-allness
reminds us that there is always more than we know.
Non-elementalistic
Elementalistic expressions are ones that are taken out of context and their
relationship with other thing-events has been omitted. If we cannot think of
any real representation of a word, then we might consider this word as
elementalistic, and it may not have any meaning. Non-elementalistic is related
to non-identity. Whereas we have the concept of identity, where two things
are made equal when they are merely similar, so we have the concept of
elementalism wherein two things are separated when the should be kept
together. The mind and the body might be wrongly separated when we say the
one and the other are quite independent.
The problem
Confusing levels of abstraction
A friend might say or do something which makes us flip from believing them
to be good to our believing them to be bad. A loved one might say something
hurtful and we feel full of anger and hate towards that person. We might
experience several of these experiences which make us view the other as an
enemy. We are confusing the thing-event, the person as they really are with
the object (or part of the object) which we are perceiving as bad. Similarly, a
person who is not our friend can do something which causes us great pleasure
and we can confuse this with the person as they really are. A shop assistant
does something we don't like and we perceive her as unkind. Our pet rabbit
bites us and we start to dislike it! We are confusing the object with the thing-
event, or our perception of the object with the actual object.
Confusing the word (or our mental representation of something) with the
thing-event itself.
We take the word intension to refer to our total evaluative response to the
word or image that comes from its definitions and associations. For example a
dog can be defined as 'a four legged domestic pet which barks.' This can be
considered the objective intension because most people in a given culture
might accept it. One person's subjective intension might be 'a loyal friend.'
Another's might be 'a frightening biting thing.' So when we say dog, for some
people warm feelings are aroused, and for others fearful feelings. These
feelings are aroused by the personal meaning of the word and not from an
actual dog.
The extension here is taken to be the our perception of the object. So the
object referred to as dog might be a small object that licks us and rubs against
us, or a large object that is barking at us as it tries to bite us. The extensional
meaning is what we get from our senses and the intensional meaning is what
we get from the word itself and its meanings. Whether we should be looking
to escape or to stroke should depend on the extensional meaning rather than
the intensional one!
There are two errors here. One is that we continue with a general intensional
meaning even when it does not work. For example, we want to be rich and
famous, but we aren't but we do not review and re-evaluate our thoughts,
feelings, attitudes and behaviours We just continue on as before and hope or
think the world is unfair. On the other hand, we get very angry with a loved
one because we perceive something we don't like, and we do not perceive the
whole situation such as they are unwell, tired, worried, or something. We can
do this time and time again! We do not look and re-evaluate.
Multi-ordinality
Level of
Statement
Abstraction
1 I like to sing
2 I like my 'liking to sing' because it makes me happy.
I dislike my 'liking my liking to sing because it makes
3
me happy' because it seems rather selfish to me.
I like my 'dislike of "my liking "'my liking to sing
4 because it makes me happy"' because it seems rather
selfish to me", because it makes me laugh.'
I like extremely liking my 'dislike of "my liking "'my
liking to sing because it makes me happy"' because it
5
seems rather selfish to me", because it makes me
laugh', because it shows how crazy we are as humans!
Person B
Level
Person A (Answers the questions.) (Asks the
(Arbitrary)
questions.)
What is it
about
5 I like singing
singing that
you like?
What is it
about
singing that
4 Singing shows how crazy we are as human beings. shows we
are crazy
human
beings?
What is it
(Looks down and appears sad.) I don't like singing. about
3
It's selfish. singing that
is selfish?
What is it
about
2 Singing makes me happy. (Big smile.) singing that
makes you
happy?
(Eyes move around searchingly) Oh I don't know.
1 ?
Singing is great. I love to sing. (Big smile.)
Of course, when we make a higher order multi-ordinal statement, we do not
(and perhaps cannot) express it in terms of all its levels. Person A say, 'I like
singing.' But this is not the simple statement at level 1. If multi-ordinal words
clearly indicated their level then they wouldn't be as insidious as they are!
Projection
Type 1 2 3
Habit Minimal Unawareness of Response to intensional
perception Intensional meaning
meaning
Projection Intensional Abstraction, Confirmation of false idea
Meaning organisation and
distortion of
perception to
accord with
intensional
meaning
Awareness of Careful Acceptance or rejection
Intentional observation with of intensional meaning.
Meaning awareness of
abstraction, Repetition of careful
distortion and observation and
Investigation organisation. clarification of
intensional meaning. and
this step of comparing the
intensional meaning with
the extensional meaning.
(This step)
Non-identity
Although there are no two thing-events which are identical we act as if thing-
events were identical. If we say John is a criminal and Mary is a criminal then
we can conclude that John and Mary are both criminals and we react to them
according to our intensional definition of criminal. Even though John might be
a serial killer and Mary broke the speed limit (which is a criminal offence in
the UK.) Quite clearly by assuming the identity of the word criminal and the
person without taking into account the extensional meaning can lead us well
astray!
Equally, a person is not the same person they were at a previous time. Saint
Paul, as Saul, persecuted the Christians but later became one of their greatest
saints. Clearly we would turn to Saint Paul for help and assistance in
Christianity rather than Pontious Pilate who never actively persecuted them
(Although he authorised the execution of Jesus, after symbolically washing
his hands!) If we always assumed that Saul the Persecutor was the same as
Paul, then we would be severely misled! Even in these extreme examples, we
illustrate that even people are not identical with their previous selves!
The words we use to describe the object, or our mental representation of it,
are not the same as the object
Being able to talk or write about a subject is not the same as being able to do
that subject.
The words a person utters are not the same as their actual feelings and
thoughts.
Objectification
We forget that these are not identical and we lose the ability to evaluate
properly. When we objectify we believe:
Consciousness of Abstracting
The Solution
According to Korzybski, by becoming conscious of abstracting we can begin
to create our own sanity. As one part of the solution Korzybski suggested
certain extensional devices, that is ways of helping us become conscious of
the abstraction process.
Wrong thinking not only brings about unhappiness, but also illness. He
mentions the case of people with hay fever who begin to sniffle when they see
paper roses. He says that this response is due to the meaning they give to the
roses and they respond with their body to this meaning. The paper rose evokes
the semantic or evaluative response which changes the body. The same
phenomenon is noted with asthmatics.
Indexes are used to identify the specific object. An object is indexed when it
is specifically identified. If we know two or more people called John and we
hear that John got promoted, then we need to find out which John in particular
the speaker is talking about. A rather academic way of doing this is to give
each occurrence of the same word with a different referent a different number
index. So we might refer to John1 and John2 to identify which one the
communicator is writing or talking about.
Chain-indexes
Dates
The fact that a bee stung me 10 years ago does not mean that this bee is going
to sting me now. This current bee is not the same bee as the one ten years ago,
and the discomfort of being stung 10 years ago is not appropriate at this
moment, it is in the past. If I were angry with you ten years ago, it doesn't
mean that I am angry with you now. By confusing thing-events in time we
experience major inappropriate present time meanings.
Et cetera
Quotes
Are used to indicate that elementalistic terms are used and that they should be
treated with caution.
Hyphens
• psycho-somatic
• neuro-physics
• bio-nutrition
• neuro-communication
• mind-body
• space-time
• matter-energy
• Non-elementalistic
• Non-allness
Present time
Links
• 1jsg.js
• index.html
• GeneralSemantics/Ken'sEPrime.htm
• index.html
• #Abstraction
• #structural differential
• #Non-identity
• #Knowledge
• #Time Binding
• #Non-allness
• #Non-elementalistic
• #The problem
• #Confusing levels of abstraction
• #Confusing the object with the event
• #Confusing the word (or our mental representation of
something) with the thing itself.
• #intension
• #extension
• #Multi-ordinality
• #Projection
• #Non-identity2
• #Objectification
• #Consciousness of Abstracting
• #The Solution
• #Indexes
• #Chain-indexes
• #Dates
• #Et cetera
• #Hyphens
• #Quotes
• #structural differential
• #Non-elementalistic
• #Non-identity
Images
Scripts
<!--//
//-->
Styles
<!--{ font-family: serif }
-->