General semantics

The general semantic , system of thought presented by its author like “non-aristotelician”, was based by Alfred Korzybski following his observations on the errors of evaluation which can possibly have dramatic consequences. Korzybski exposes the principles of them, mainly in its major work Science and Sanity, year introduction to not aristotelian systems and general semantics , whose first edition appears in 1933.

The term semantic general ready with confusion and could make think that this “Théorie” is only attached to the Sémantique. I.e. with the study of the “direction” of the symbols and expressions. The ambition of Korzybski exceeds this framework symbolic system: it is a question here of considering the “direction” operationally, by the way in which our organization reacts to its environment (including itself). General semantics includes certainly the Sémantique like particular case, but is directed as much and more towards the Neurophysiologie, the Psychiatrie or the theories of the Communication.

The following article tries to define in a extensionnelle way (cf will infra ) general semantics.

__TOC

History

As of the years 1920, Korzybski wondered how the human beings made erroneous evaluations.

It started by formulating the faculty, which it baptized Time-binding , of being able, thanks to the use them symbols, to transmit the asset of one generation to the following one. This made, roughly speaking, the object of its first work, Manhood off humanity (available in version pdf here: ).

Neurological assumptions of general semantics

“ What can be shown cannot be known as. ” Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus logico-philosophicus .

Calling upon progress of the Neurology and Psychiatry in 1933, Korzybski recalled that our representation of the world is carried out by perceptions - or interactions - having:

their limits (for example, the invisible infra-red close relation with the eye),

their losses (a sound masked by another),

their elements not-conscious (oxygen rate in blood, proprioception),

and others finally can be without relationship with the perceived object (hallucinations, optical illusions, acouphenes…).

In any event, our perception of “real” remains partial and personal.

almost daily Example: a traveller puts “without realizing it” his feet on a bench or throws a paper with ground. That can cause the irritation of another traveller who will point out it to him; but like the first “did not notice anything” of its own behavior, it will be able to perceive this intervention on the contrary like a free aggression, to which it will seek motivations without relationship with reality (the more so as a process of Déni of the element of origin will be with work).

In opposite direction, the “objects” which surround us could also be described by sets of molecules, atoms, etc in perpetual evolution, without our total comprehension gaining anything there (see the article Émergence).

Our Esprit is thus brought to build internal “representations” of the outside world (charts) using filtered information . These charts , symbolic systems (verbal designation, for example) or not, by no means claim to duplicate the real, dynamic and single object exactly; it is about the principle of not-identity , summarized in the famous apophtègme: “ No matter what you say that a thing is , it is not to it not! ”.

Of these observations, Korzybski recalls three essential things:

a chart n'" est" not the territory which it represents: the words " sont" not the “real objects”, the word “dog” does not bite, etc; that can appear commonplace , but which for example did not name one day or the other “mouse” the pointer associated with this one which appears on its screen? Confusion between chart and territory constitutes a current phenomenon whose consequences appear when one does not expect it.

a chart does not recover all the territory which it represents: the symbol omits to represent certain “attributes” of the “object” which it represents; how old is this chair? Which mass has this car? Etc; however how to be certain “before leading its reasoning” that what was neglected in this process of Abstraction is not precisely essential?

Any chart (is) autoréflexive: “one” can build a chart of the chart (its legend), a chart “speaks” as much about his “object” that of the cartographer who created it, etc

Then imagining the advance of the nerve impulse during the normal functioning of the brain, Korzybski supposes the presence of a first treatment in the limbic and thalamic system, i.e. in antiquated centers encephalic responsible for the feelings, impressions - and not of the functions symbolic systems. It thus highlights the importance of what it calls the “ quiet levels”, first filters with through which our nervous system milked and answers information which comes from to him. After to have crossed the complex limbo-thalamic, the impulse (or rather impulses, being given the number of connection S neuronal activated) arrives in the cortical zones and néocorticales where it acquires a value symbolic system (name) by comparison and categorization with former experiments (“ verbal levels ”).

With each stage of this process, the entering data are processed, coloured, interpreted, a process that Korzybski names abstraction; he baptizes the whole of the abstractions which take place at the time of a stimulus evaluation, and the reaction of our nervous system, on all the levels, semantic reaction (r.s.) .

At the man, the result of these successive abstractions, can be useful, by re-entry, to produce a new stimulus (p.ex.: through speech, writings…), which will produce at the same one or other individuals a news evaluation (comment in connection with a speech…), etc Jean-Pierre Changeux would nowadays express it by saying that the Concept S are consisted neuronal association of Percept S or percepts with other concepts, or even of concepts between them.

The chain of the levels of abstraction, at the man, is indefinite, but of this fact less and less meaning. However highest abstractions produced by the man at each time often corresponds to descriptions of the level low, thus forming a kind of loop. This reasoning is used as a basis for the design of the structural differential , a diagram which represents physically this process of abstraction.

These assumptions of Korzybski are checked in “modern” Neurophysiologie (2004) by the anatomical and functional study of brain, and the clinical description of certain pathologies, particularly the Prosopagnosie, the Aphasie, incapacities which has a patient to pass from the quiet levels (~ perception) at the verbal levels (impossibility of naming an object, continuation, for example with a lesion of the surface of Wernicke). The quiet levels themselves are divided into several under-levels, since certain patients reached of lesions of the V1 surface of the primary education visual cortex (surface 17 of Brodmann), though not having more “conscious” visual perceptions (chain breakage of abstractions), appear nevertheless able to locate and follow the movement of the objects which are presented to them (subcortical visual “perception”).

Importance of the structure

Continuing the analysis of our representations, Korzybski notices that we build relations (higher, low, larger, on the left, on the right…) who lead to charts of charts, and so on, in accordance with the third principle stated above. But these charts are useful only insofar as the system of relations which bind them ( structure ) corresponds exactly to the system of relations which connects the “objects” that they represent, to the image of a chart to the traditional direction of the cartography.

As we know “reality” only by the means of its action (relations) on our nervous system, we can include/understand it only by inventing whole of symbols and relations of which we try to make coincide the structure with that of the “objects” that we study: such is the goal of “mathematics”, inter alia. Korzybski written:

“As the words is not the objects which they represent, the structure and the structure alone becomes our connection between the verbal processes and the empirical facts. we must initially study the characteristics structural of the world and only after building languages of similar structure, and not applying to the world our primitive linguistic structures. All our doctrines, institutions, etc depend on verbal principles. If the latter are expressed in a language having an unsuited structure, our doctrines and our institutions will have the same maladjustment, which will lead us straight towards a disaster. ” Science & Sanity , p. 59.

An analysis of the language

Intensionnality and extensionnality

Provided with these axioms frameworks, Korzybski continues its analysis in the field of the language. Elementary mathematics, it “imports” the concepts of intensionnality and extensionnality . To define a whole in intension consists in formulating a property common to the objects of the unit (ex: “the whole of the blue cars”); the extension consists in enumerating all the elements of this unit (“car of Guy, Pierre, Monique… ”).

Sometimes, it is necessary to enumerate a series of similar objects, without being able to differentiate them a priori by a particular attribute. Korzybski then suggests using, with the image of mathematics, a numerical indexing: count (1), table (2), etc This indexing can be also based on temporal distinctions (the Petit Robert (1999), the Petit Robert (2002), etc) or space (the Atlantic Ocean in Biarritz, Baule, Brest…).

If the units are finished, it is possible to enumerate them in a finished time. When the unit is infinite, that is not possible (e.g. the whole of the prime numbers); it is besides about a “advantage” of the intensionnelle definition : it makes it possible “to specify” in a concise way a collection of important size, even infinite. To benefit from this advantage, while preserving the extensionnelle orientation , Korzybski recommends the use of the signs etc or…: it is a question here of closing an enumeration for lack of place/time, while keeping in mind “”, and by informing the reader/interlocutor, that this one continues, even is not completed. One will be able to thus enumerate the whole of the prime numbers by {2, 3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23, etc }.

To index spatio-temporellement constitutes one of the first means of avoiding incomprehension or of dismounting quibbles: to speak about the science in general does not have precise significance, contrary to science (here, now) or of science at the papous 200 years ago. This remark mainly draws the attention to the fact that there exists a category of words, abstract (science, philosophy, life, environment, economy…), which represents functions (according to the mathematical direction): unless specifying them by a space-time index, or, more generally, by a particular context, they do not have clearly definite meaning.

The use of the symbol etc also enables us to conform to the second principle, the non-toutity : if we cannot “all” say on an object, we can enumerate some properties, and supplement of them by etc to show that we know that the list is not closed. An apple round, green, jutueuse, ripe, etc (e.g.: véreuse!) ; this man is tall, etc; etc

Observations and inférences

When a listener listens to a sentence pronounced by a speaker, it adapts this speech, and the abstract : it associates its contents with various mémorielles experiments, practices, categories, attributes… often on the “quiet level”; it is about the evaluation of the speech. However, nothing ensures us that the evaluations of the speaker and the listener agree (we even know that they can only diverge in a more or less important measurement); fault of putting as a preliminary agreement on the exact significance of the terms used, there are chances of disagreement.

One of the most obvious demonstrations of this phenomenon resides in the distinction between observations and inférences . The observations derive from a direct perceptive experiment: I see an apple. Now, if I turn to my neighbor who asks me: “That do you see? ” and that I say to him: “I see an apple”, if him cannot see it, it undoubtedly will represent it (activation of the “quiet levels”) like having certain numbers of attributes (round, green? , sweetened, etc).

So now I ask him: “Which form has my apple? ”, he will undoubtedly answer: “Round”. However, the apple that I see was with crunched half and is not thus round any more. My interlocutor, while answering, confused a chart “interns” (object round, green, crunching, juicy, sweetened…) that it automatically associated with the word “apple” with a noted fact ( observation ). He allotted a significance to my observation which it did not have. One speaks in this case about inference . The latter arose so that one names confusion of order of abstractions, i.e. the confusion of my abstraction (my observation ) with another abstraction, which results not from a direct observation of this apple, but of my abstraction (thus of a higher nature). This distinction about the abstractions occupies a central place in general semantics. We will return there.

Another example: optical illusions. One can recall on this subject that 80% afférences of the side geniculate body, which constitutes the first relay thalamic of the vision, come from brain and not from the retina…). It is necessary to concentrate its attention or to be involved to notice the differences. Korzybski wrote an article entitled: “ the role of the language in the processes perceptuels ”, consultable here: .

Last example. If I say to you: “Jose returned at his place conveys some. ”, and that then I ask you: “Did Jose travel by her car to return at his place? ”, if you answer: “Yes. ”, you make a inference . Jose could travel by the car of someone else, rent one of them or be accompanied back by a third. The distinction observation inference thus takes a central role in the field of the police investigations.

We need, for our normal “operation”, to play on the observations and the inférences ; in the majority of the cases, our inférences appears right: a sheep will have well four legs, the package will contain well the object until we wait, etc They form pepper of the sentences with double direction, with insinuations. On the “quiet levels”, the inférences are used to us to anticipate behaviors, movements, to seize objects, sometimes to guess character traits ( intuition : “ I do not feel it ”, “ I believe in it hard like iron! ”, etc). However, not to make error of judgments, it is advisable to remain conscious of the difference between observation and inference , of kind not to take one for the other (and vice versa).

Generally, to confuse observations and inférences is not translated, in the worst case, than by transitory surprises and without major consequences. However, certain confusions are more prejudicial, especially when they reinforce false tautologies ( toutity : “all” the 'young people' are “wild stocks”…) ; the reader will seek itself which can be the inférences connected to certain names or adjectives like: “Arab”, “American”, “Corsica”, “Jewish”, etc

Some tests make it possible to evaluate the aptitude to differentiate observations and inférences . See here: .

One can notice that to confuse observation and inference often consists in allotting without base of the attributes to a particular “object” which one did not observe, or insufficiently, but who belongs to a “category” (“class”) known having “usual” characteristics. It thus acts, once again, of an orientation (abusive) towards the resemblance with the detriment of the difference.

Not-definite terms

If we traverse a dictionary while starting with an unspecified word, that we seek the definition of the words which are used to define it, and so on, we fatally manage to fall on a linguistic loop: the finished lexical corpus cannot give rise to a chain of infinite definition. Thus, the word B will define the word has, the word C will define B, and has will define C.

Korzybski notices that this characteristic meets in the majority of our symbolic systems activities. As, in science, we said we it very build mathematical, logical… of high level, inférentielles theories (in the direction where base we them on assumptions and which we seek to confirm them by observations), of which the structure seeks to reproduce that of the “real” phenomena that we observe. If the structure at time T is not appropriate, we modify it according to news observations . Etc There is thus, there too, a phenomenon of loop. Bertrand Russell noticed on this subject that: “ mathematics is the science in which one never knows what one speaks nor if what one says is true. ”

Korzybski named this generic characteristic of the human knowledge circularity .

However, each one of us believes to include/understand the speech of the others, which means, that we allot a value common to certain aspects of our vocabulary. Taking into account the circularity , that implies that each person has a formed basic lexical subset of primary education terms, not-definite , with the help of which it builds or interprets the direction of the other terms that it knows. This unit results from certain categorizations that we carry out according to our memory, experiment… It is about a fluctuating, dynamic unit.

If, in 1933, the Neurologie did not have enough elements yet to support this thesis (of which the validity cannot dispute itself), the recent discoveries encourage to think that the various cortical surfaces categorize our “perceptions” (separation of a “object” and its “environment”, “ego” and “non-ego ', etc) and establish automatic correlations between the various “categories” to form complex scenes. Practically, that means that the “relation”, the space-time “order” would be innate. Other feelings, like “cold”, “heat”, “sweetened”, “clearly”, “pleasant”, “painful”… also result from the direct evaluation of stimuli by the system limbothalamic (even reflex).

Multiordinality

- “ I am not certain of nothing. ”
- “ are you sure? ”

If we become aware that a sentence and a sentence by the way of this sentence constitute two levels of different abstraction, we can elegantly avoid falling into the trap from some paradoxes from language, like that of Épiménide: “ I lie ”. I lie is interpreted like: “I pronounce a sentence P, of which I affirm falseness. ”. But P applied to P, i.e.: “I pronounce the sentence: “ I pronounce the sentence P, of which I affirm the falseness ”, of which I affirm falseness”, is not not P, but a métaproposition P', of order of abstraction higher, independent of P, even if it is expressed in the same terms. There is thus no contradiction so that P is true, and P' distorts, and so on. Korzybski thus joined on this point the Theory of the types, formalized by Russell and Whitehead.

It also realized that a class of word had a particular “property”:

“ the words “yes”, “not”, “truth”, “forgery”, “function”, “property”, “relation”, “number”, “difference”, “name”, “definition”, “abstraction”, “proposal”, “made”, “reality”, “structure”, “characteristic”, “problem”, “knowledge”, “to think”, “to speak”, “to hate”, “to like”, “to doubt”, “causes”, “effect”, “direction”, “evaluation” and so on, a very significant number of the words of our vocabulary must be regarded as multiordinaux (m.o.). These terms have a very important semantic characteristic, namely that they are in general ambiguous, or $\ infty$ -valués, and that each one of between-them does not acquire a defined significance, or specifies, that inside a fixed context, when the order of abstraction can be known. Tester the multiordinality of a term is easy: made a sentence to which the term applies (“true”, “false”, “yes”, “made”, “reality”, “to think”, “to like”, etc); made now another sentence by the way of the first and look at if the same term can apply to it: the échant case, you hold a term multiordinal. ”

Science & Sanity , p. 433.

For example, for the “made” word:

“I see the train which leaves”: a fact;
“I say: I see the train which leaves”: another fact.

“To believe”:

“it makes beautiful”; I believe it.
I said: “the weather is nice. ”; I believe (that I said it).

In mathematical terms: $P (a) \ \ wedge \ (a)$ : there exists a proposal “P” having the property “has” and a “métaproposition” Q which, when one applies P like variable to him, has also the property “has”. the terms m.o thus apply to sentences of some level of abstraction that it is.

It is however advisable to notice that, to test the multiordinality of a term, it is necessary to build one second sentence by the way first, not in connection with the direction of the first.

The terms multiordinaux do not have a direction in “general”. To try to define them in the absolute does not lead to nothing, except with confusion: the Existence? which? ; Conscience? Of what? ; the unit? Of what? ; freedom? Of? ; the Idea? Which, of which, what? ; the Thought? To which purpose? ; etc

In fact, explains Korzybski, much of ink and of time were spent in vain “philosophical” controversies in connection with these terms since it was a question above all of agreeing on the level of abstraction of their use before speaking about it, which was not made. On the other hand, these words give much flexibility to the language, when one takes the precaution to use them correctly.

The el- terms, the objectification

In the normal order of evaluation, we leave the sensory phenomenon (the interaction) to assemble towards the quiet “object” then the verbal levels, where we employ a symbol. In theory thus, do not should employ symbols to us which do not refer to nothing; a symbol without meant does not represent anything, its use creates only noise. The bankers, notices Korzybski, appear particularly likely towards you when you made an improper use of a symbol, for example a check, whereas you do not have any more the “object” to which this check refers. The same rule should apply in the discursive context.

However, such symbols without meant at the quiet levels exist; modern science showed that “times” and “space” did not correspond to “reality”, not more than “wave” and “particle” or “body” and “spirit”. Korzybski calls objectification the attribution of one meant fictitious with symbol not-referent. This behavior reverses the natural order of evaluation , projects “realities” verbal towards quiet “reality”: it thus forms part of pathology.

The terms “spaces”, “times”, “wave”, “particle”, etc which separate verbally what cannot be separate at the quiet levels are called elementalists , or el. .

Identification, and the use of the verb “being”

We approach here one of the key points of general Semantics.

Korzybski starts by detailing the mechanism of conditioned reflex , studied in the dogs by Pavlov. He advances that the nervous system functions by associations, and that these associations, when they are often requested, become almost automatic. In the same way, during its studies in psychiatric medium, it notes that certain patients react systematically in the same way to certain stimuli, in some context that it is; it also quotes the case of this patient, reached allergy to the pollen of pink, which began a crisis when a paper pink was presented to him. This last identified the “real” pink with its copy seersucker.

Korzybski thus highlights the pathological character of certain behaviors, founded on unconditional associations (precisely!), of the identifications . In all the cases, it continues, these reactions result from what it names a confusion of order of abstraction: the subject does not perceive the difference between levels of different abstractions; it confuses the symbol and the “object”, the observation and the inference , the current location with a memory, etc

The objectification , which psychiatry calls the projection , the anthropomorphism, the magic or even confusion between a inference and a observation belong to the confusions of orders of abstraction, of the identifications . These identifications constitutes the base of the conditioned reflexes of the animals. Applied such as they are to the man, they can only give place to unsuited behaviors. An assertion which one finds, in a hidden form, in the saying: “ the fear does not avoid the danger. ”

However, our structure of language, inherited the Indo-European primitive tribes, uses mainly the standard relation subject-predicate and makes a full use of the verb “be” (“ What it EAST? It IS an apple! ”, “ I AM a liar ”), which, when it is used as into this example introduces invariably this confusion of order of abstractions in identifier two terms nonequivalent of a proposal. Thus, in the first sentence, there is confusion between the “object”, which belongs at the quiet levels, and its symbol, and in the second sentence, between a name of anybody “I” and a name representing a class “liar”. But then, how to answer the question “ Which is what it EAST? ”; answer of Korzybski: “ We must point our finger towards the object and conceal to us, because, though we can say object, that will remain forever at the level verbal, unable to reach the quiet levels to which the object belongs. ”

When a baby starting to speak watch his table covered about a blue tablecloth by asking for What it is? , which is the relative who will not hesitate between the answers:

It is a table
It is a tablecloth
It is fabric
It is blue

Like, continues Korzybski, our verbal abstractions are primarily static (our categories, except accident, change, but slowly), to identify also amounts allotting a kind of immutable nature to a “object”: “the man is an animal” gives the impression of an irrefutable fact eternal; “it is an apple”, but if the apple rots, when does the apple finish and when starts “something rotted”? ; “the apple is green”, but if it matures, when will cease “being green”? Etc

Spanish introduces here an additional precision by having recourse to two verbs " être" , ser and estar , one indicating permanent qualities and the other accidental attributes. That being, there does not exist inevitably much of permanent attributes: " I am espagnol" , " I am grand" , " I am a homme" do not have the volatility of " I am enrhumé" , but are not therefore the permanent characteristics necessarily in the life of an individual, even if they are of strong chances to be it.

Only the Passive voice makes a really inoffensive use of the verb “be” (and not easily retractable): “ the apple is eaten by Jerome ”. It will be noticed that it is then used only like simple auxiliary of conjugation and not for its own significance. Any other marker would make the deal as well.

The tools extensionnels

As we saw, more we “go up” in the high levels of abstraction, more we tend to use categories general, less and less individualized, static, inférentielles, increasingly far away from “reality”, suitable for identification. If we wish to agree, it is necessary for us contrary employing abstractions of low level (to go down again!) . For that, we must support the use of processes extensionnels. There is a certain number, which we already saw:

To index: the chair (1), the chair (2), etc;

To index in chain: chair (1, 1), chair (1, 2), etc to express that “the same” “object” is in different contexts;
To use the dates (particular case of index): Jose (2000), Jose (1999), Jose (2003), etc;

the symbol etc ;
apostrophes '': to go up that one is “conscious” that one uses a term el. or m.o wrongly for the needs for the speech - including by moving the indices with the oral examination;
the hyphen: to connect words expressing of inseparable quiet realities: space time, wave-particle, psychology, etc
To define a “object” or “together” in extension rather than in intension; {Pierre, Paul, Jacques, etc} rather than: “People whom I do not love. ”;
To use “I” rather than “one” or of impersonal turnings;
the pause thalamocorticale : to give a time, even unperceivable, before reacting to a situation to leave a chance to the whole of the nerve centres, including néo-cortical, to take part in the answer;
etc

The use of these processes helps to avoid abusive identifications (Jean “is” “always” “equal to” itself, situation X “is” “the same one as” the situation Y that I lived ten years ago…), introduced a stratification and an order, and the accent puts on the differences between “objects” (dynamic) rather than on the resemblances between categories. It also helps us to remain “conscious” that we “abstrayons”: the acquisition of the “conscience to abstract” constitutes one of the objectives of general semantics.

(Not completed, to follow)

A theory non-aristotelician

“ the words always and never , it would always be necessary to remember never to employ them! ” Mr. Kendig.

Korzybski reference mark then, in the traditional buildings (Gravitation of Newton, Euclidean Geometry) the presence of a priori , assumptions confused with reality (addition of speeds, " postulat" parallels) which appear sometimes not-in conformity with the experiments (false to facts) or valid only within the framework of approximations given.

He also notices that these inférences were based on words el. : absolute “space” and “times” (opposite the space time), “observer” and “observed”, “bodies” and “spirit”, (opposite the psychological ), “wave” and “particle”, etc which form “whole” at the quiet levels.

Korzybski baptizes the modern scientific theories then (1933: general relativity, quantum physics, psychiatry…), built on the rejection of these presupposed, theories not : nun , not-Euclidean; not , non-Newtonian. For the remainder, he writes:

“I reject the structure aristotelician, which one generally calls metaphysical (350 av JC) and I substitute modern science (1933) to him. I reject the aspects structural and semantic following system has, that I call postulates , and who found the system aristotelician:

the unicity of the assertion subject-predicate;
binary logic, like expressed in the postulate of the third-excluded : all must be or not be ;
semantic confusion caused by the similarity between the “being” of identity, that I deny completely, the “being” of preaching, the “being” of existence and the auxiliary “being”;
the elementalism which is expressed in the clear difference between body and spirit, emotions and intellect , etc;
the theory el. of the “significances”;
the postulate el. rigid of the cause and the effect;
the theory el. of the definition, which is unaware of the existence of the not-definite terms;
the three-dimensional theory (static) of the proposals and the language;
the assumption of the general validity of grammar;
the preference for the intensionnelles orientations;
the definition el. and additive of the man.

I base my system non-aristotelician on negative premises is not , which cannot be refuted, except bringing an impossible counterexample, and thus I accept difference , differentiation , etc like fundamental.

I postulate the fundamental character of the relations, the order, the structure;
I accept the fuzzy logic of Łukasiewicz and Tarski, which becomes, in my system, a semantics $\ infty$ -valuée;
I accept functional description as far as possible;
I postulate the principle of non-elementalism and applies everywhere it, which leads me to:
* a theory non-el of the “significances”;
* a theory non-el of the “definitions” based on the not-definite terms;
* a psychophysiological theory of the semantic reactions.
I postulate the absolute individuality of each event at the quiet levels, which means that no predicate can never be certain, from where necessary a principle of uncertainty in each proposal;
I accept the “logical existence” like fundamental;
I use differential and four-dimensional methods (dynamic);
I use the prepositional functions of Russell;
I accept the doctrinal functions of Keyser, and generalizes the functional systems of Sheffer;
I found the four-dimensional theory of the proposals and the language;
I establish the multiordinality certain terms;
I discover and apply psychophysiologic considerations to the levels of abstractions ( non-el. );
I generalize the cause-effect binary report/ratio with a $\ infty$ -causality;
I rather postulate the validity of the theory $\ infty$ -valuée of the maximum of probability than of the simple binary choice;
I base my system non-A on processes extensionnels, which require the general use of the symbol etc ;
I offer a functional definition and non-el. of the man. ”

Science & Sanity , p. 93-94.
In fact, Korzybski refuses mainly the essentialism inherited the medieval Scolastique, and which was still very present in the spirits of its time. However, there remains itself impregnated and founds about it its own building in way scholastic also. It does not mention there for example the Inférence bayésienne however known at its time and which makes it possible each one to rationally revise its a priori , nor is not delayed on work of Hume, Locke or Russell.
Terminologies of " non-A" , " non-E" , " non-N" are not stripped of a mystifying potential of which several training companies with lucrative goal will be able to misuse later.

Conclusion

This article does not have obviously the ambition to make the turn of “all” general semantics. Korzybski insists on the unfinished side of its work, and on the necessary updating of the theory according to the projections of science. Remain that to date, separately the chapters devoted to colloids, theory fallen in disuse after the discovery from the DNA and the mechanism from proteinic synthesis, the structural conclusions outlined in 1933 do not have a raison d'être not blamed. Worse: sometimes “one” witnesses épidermiques buddings of objectification, like the famous question: “ That was there before Big Bang? ” (see however Gabriele Veneziano).
General semantics did not have - until now - enormously of success. Its principal ideas were often taken up that and there, including in recent scientific books, however without true credit with their author. The difficulty in positioning the system inside the hermetic category of the scientific theories, its difficult comprehension and its difficulty of “implementation” (to include/understand the system verbally is not enough to apply it at the quiet levels, application which takes “time” and patience to counterbalance the effects of the structure has majority of our languages) like its frequent confusion with or recovery by “dogmas” of “new-old” type (or the Scientologie), did not help with its generalization. Also let us note that Science & Sanity is written in rather heavy English, the native tongue of Korzybski not being English but Polish.
The writer A.E. van Vogt contributed to popularize a certain “idea” of general semantics in his three novels (cf the world of Ā, players of Ā, End of Ā), but it seems that the Canadian author was more attracted by the side “super-intelligence” than promised by places Korzybski with those which would embrace the S.G than by the real practice of this one. However, the S.G does not consist of a series of miraculous formulae to make people more intelligent. The goal of Korzybski seemed rather of going towards a “theory” of the “mental health” ( sanity ), to build “responsible” people, “human”, who reason better and more healthily.
It draws our attention to a certain number of phenomena, errors, abuse, etc and gives us means of locating them and of avoiding making them ourselves. The tools extensionnels insist on the differences, thus developing our critical spirit and our flexibility of adaptation. The corticothalamic pause also improves our adaptability. The multi-ordinal terms explain the vacuity of certain discussions, the three principles avoid the identifications and denounce the use of an excessive symbolism, where the symbols do not refer to “nothing”, which Korzybski describes as “noises of mouth” or with “all”, etc
The S.G also invites us to try to update our “premises”, i.e. our quiet postulates, reponsables of our inférences. Let us not forget that the modern scientific theories were constituted precisely by taking “conscience” of the superfluous character of a certain number of premises, like the postulate of the parallels in geometry. It thus opens the way with a general theory of the understanding and mutual comprehension whose actual position of the World shows more than ever the urgency.
“ Même if the system non-A succeeds in only drawing the attention of humanity to questions hitherto a41dernier $c-b1, e,10 $c-b26 ce $c-b16 $c-b43, bn,84 ignored; that it is satisfied to open the way, not towards the panacea, but towards a scientific program practices, constructive and unified thanks to which future disasters could be avoided or reduced - I of it will be extremely satisfied. ” Science & Sanity , p. 561
Etc!

Popularization - Artists and authors

The author of Science-fiction A.E. van Vogt popularized the theories of Korzybski by the means of the Cycle of Ā whose Boris Vian translated the first two novels into French. These theories were sometimes used to cram the simple naive ones when they were taught by certain not very scrupulous trainers.
General semantics was also popularized indirectly by the painter Magritte in his table " The treason of the images" (1929) where it paints the " object; pipe" (to be smoked) and where it is painted in legend “This is not a pipe” in the direction where the table constitutes only a representation of the object. He also questions the type of particular relation between represented and the original, while showing on the same level - i.e. within the physical framework out of wooden for example, of painting - a painted pipe and his model in " Both mystères" (1966).
Gaston Bachelard announces general semantics in its work the Philosophy of the non (1940). It in particular wrote there: " The world where one thinks is not the world where one vit." , illuminant under another day one of the principal axioms stated by Korzybski: " The chart is not the territoire."
The French biologist Henri Laborit worked out his theory of the inhibition of the action and his work on the structure of the living organisms on general semantics. See " The Grill" News;
Henri Laborit and Gaston Bachelard was both honorary members of Institute off General Semantics.
The American writer William Burroughs, which had followed the courses of Korzybski, tried out the functions non-aristotelicians of the writing (the function of time-binding, and that which consists in creating reality. See " Essais" , volume 1 and 2)

Remarks

the verb “being” is if not very used in Russian language that very happens there almost as if there did not exist. One did not note for as much at these people of vision specifically clearer than that of any other. One should not “identify” (m.o) the phenomenon of identification , structural, with the use of the verb “being”, linguistics. Not to use the verb “being” does not mean “not “to identify””.

“One” often notes that a sentence gains in clearness, as well at its receiver as at its transmitter, if one takes care to eliminate from them the verbs of state as “to be” (except if it is used as grammatical auxiliary) to replace them by operational verbs, which have - them - a clear and nonambiguous definition. To use, as far as possible, of the functional terms.

a “language” inspired of English and not authorizing the verb to be was named E-premium. In practice, it is just about English imposing rules making so that one can constantly define that about which one speaks while expressing oneself only in operational terms. That does not prohibit the conversations on the subjective one: one then describes simply the observable result of his states of heart. These conventions are completely usable - and used besides - in the daily newspaper, in English as in current French, by the careful speakers; they thus do not seem to require a name of language distinct and particular.

Related articles

Alfred Korzybski

the vintage and cooks it

Theory of relativity

Henri Laborit

Dénotation and connotation

External bonds

Institute off General Semantics

Institute of general Semantics, France

general semantics for all

Semantic general and social sciences

European Company of General Semantics (ESGS): See the bibliography

French-speaking List Company of general semantics

the Semantic blog General

the chart topics of General Semantics

Bibliography of the books in line of Alfred Korzybski:

French :

a Chart is not the Territory

Transcription of the Notes of the Conferences of General Semantics Given to Olivet College (1937)

the role of the language in the processes perceptuels

Extracts of “Science and Sanity”:

Introduction (CH. III)

Of symbolism (CH. VI)

Reactions conditioned at the higher levels and psychiatry (XXIII)

Of the concept of simultaneity (CH. XXXVII) (CH. VI)

English :

Science and Sanity: English full text

Manhood off Humanity

----

In connection with general semantics

Some opinions and comments on the theory are gathered here which preexisted to the recasting of the page:

The theory and the real-world

“The chart is not the world”. Assertion stripped of direction (Which chart? Which world?), since the verb " être" does not have any either. This abusive short cut puts however well ahead the differences which there can be between what one sees or believes of the world, of a Représentation and of what one can expect Réel lement.
One can reproach Alfred Korzybski for having sometimes yielded itself to a a little mystical approach: just as successes of Relativity came from its non-Newtonian nature , and of the not-Euclidean geometry of the Espace of Minkowski, it praised general semantics like a logic non-aristotelician . Without being completely false, this presentation of the things especially popularized the theory near exaltés.
In its book Science and sanity , Korzybski worries about the danger of a world where it becomes possible by the Médias to handle the spirits in their inculcating cut visions of the real-world (see Philip K. Dick). In the USSR, Italy and Germany, the events are then giving him reason sadly: the work appears in 1933!

dependant Work: Serge Tchakhotine, the rape of crowd by political propaganda , 1939.

Techniques of behavioral Psychology discussed PNL referent also with general semantics.
Korzybski was pinned by the book of Martin Gardner Fads and fallacies in the name off science like naive philosopher, little organized, repetitive and verbeux. The difficulty of translating it testifies to it, and can result in preferring the works of Bertrand Russell on the same topic of the relationship between reality and the concept that we build of it. It is probable that it is the media beating organized around Korzybski at one time which upset Gardner at least as much, if not more, that its insistence to separate the universe from the speech of the real universe, practice so last in manners today that we do not notice it even more. It separates us only more from the cultures which do not show this capacity. See Thought speculative.
Of course the fact should be also seen that general semantics did not have the chance to have of predecessor to rectify his work after its death. One can admit there only the wish by a man to establish a useful change in the intellectual practices of all. In the majority of the cases, the creation of a science requires cumulated work and compound of several men; beyond the intuition - even just - of only one.

Simple: General semantics
Random links: Jet (astrophysical) | Vanessa Beecroft | Zoran Vujović | Yongguang (43-39 av. J-C.) | Allophycocyanine | Miracle_sur_la_trente-quatrième_rue