by Alfred O.
Korzybski
An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and Evolution of
Consciousness
Published by
Institute of General Semantics
Fifth Printing,
Hardback $18� 3/12/2003
Reviewed by Bobby
Matherne �
"The map is not the territory."
That was my first introduction to the work of Count Alfred O. Korzybski. I
heard those words in a Bandler and Grinder1 Seminar in 1977 and borrowed a copy
of this landmark book, his major opus, first published in 1933 from my friend
Brian Kelley. He had been directed to it by our mutual metaphysics teacher,
Alex Keller, some years earlier. I dug into the text of this 806 page book
which had 657 references and 90 pages of Preface and Introductions. Suddenly
the basis for the works of Samuel Bois, Kenneth S. Keyes, and S. I. Hayakawa
began to make new sense for me - all these writers had studied under Korzybski.
They were enriching his fundamental work and making it palatable to the general
public.
Korzybski's work created the field of
General Semantics, which became known as a science and was taught in colleges and
universities. Somehow I had missed it, up until then. I was determined to work
my way through this book to make up for lost time and work I did: it took me an
entire year of study to get through this dense book -- dense in the compression
of ideas in it. So dense that many days I was only able to read three or four
pages and then had to stop because my brain was so full of ideas that I had to
pause for 24 hours for them to be assimilated fully before I could proceed. And
each day I applied those ideas and processes to as many situations as came up
in my life during that day. It was, rightly understood, a year long seminar in
General Semantics for me. In this review I hope to give you, my dear Readers, a
taste of that seminar so that the flavor of this important science can remain
with you and bring some sanity into the science that abounds all around and
inside of you from now on.
One of the rare occasions we get to read
an author talking about the book we are reading is in Prefaces to Second and
Third Editions. After reading this book, I read the precursor to it, a smaller
book he wrote in 1921 entitled, "Manhood of Humanity," in which
Korzybski talked about the process of "time binding." Time binding
was to Korzybski like a single string on a guitar -- he used it as the basis of
the music he made in all of his works. "Science and Sanity" was a
symphony he composed for his one-string guitar. In his Preface to the Third
Edition (1948), he talks about this book from the perspective of 15 years after
its publication:
[page xx] The origin of this work
was a new functional definition of 'man', as formulated in 1921, based on an
analysis of uniquely human potentialities; namely, that each generation
may begin where the former left off. This characteristic I called the
'time-binding' capacity. Here the reactions of humans are not split verbally
and elementalistically into separate 'body', 'mind', 'emotions', 'intellect',
'intuitions', etc., but are treated from an
organism-as-a-whole-in-an-environment (external and internal) point of view. This parallels the
Einstein-Minkowski space-time integration in physics, and both are necessitated
by the modern evolution of sciences.
His new definition of what it means to be
a human being pinpointed an aspect of humanity that the evolutionists, who were
apt to call us "higher apes", had completely glossed over in their
intense concern with the bones and flesh aspect of evolution, i.e., our
posture, our brain size, our skull shapes, etc. What Korzybski stressed in his
1921 work was a process that humans had and that animals did not possess, time
binding. It is the process of time binding that allows each
generation to see further because they "stand on the shoulders" of
the previous generation.
With this present book, Korzybski sought
to create the foundation for a "science of man" by linking science
and sanity in a "structurally non-aristotelian methodology." To
achieve that he added to the process of time-binding, the "general
consciousness of abstracting", which he calls on page xxi,
"the thesis of this book". He quotes Whitehead to support his claim
of the importance of understanding the process of abstracting:
[page xxi] 'A civilisation that
cannot burst through its current abstractions is doomed to sterility after a
very limited period of progress.'
This is a remarkable statement. If one
applies it to the field of art, one can see representations of art's current
abstractions embodied in the visual arts of painting and sculpture. These
abstractions show themselves in the way current paintings are made based upon
the original works of Rembrandt, Picasso, Monet, or Van Gogh. When an innovator
in art comes along to create a new abstraction, such as Mondrian, Pollock, or
Warhol, a period of exciting innovation proceeds for a limited period of time.
I have described this process in the field of art in my essay, Art is the Process of Destruction, which essay would likely have been
impossible but for the year I spent working through this book which first made
me aware of the process of abstraction.
To understand the non-Aristotelian systems
that Korzybski develops in this work, we first need a priming on the
Aristotelian system that pervades our current level of thinking, teaching, and
abstracting. Simply put the Aristotelian system is two-valued:
either-or, yes-no, day-night, life-death, black-white, etc. The prevalence of
the two-valued system of thinking puzzled Korzybski for many years, he says,
until he "made the obvious 'discovery' that our relations to the world
outside and inside our skins often happen to be, on the gross level,
two-valued." But he added something more to the
Aristotelian two-valued system, and that something more makes all the
difference in the world to what it means to be a living human being:
[page xxi] In living, many issues
are not so sharp, and therefore a system which posits
the general sharpness of 'either-or' , and so objectifies 'kind', is unduly limited; it must be
revised and made more flexible in terms of 'degree'. This requires a
physico-mathematical 'way of thinking' which a non-aristotelian system supplies.
While Korzybski developed his work
independently of semantics or semiotics, he admits that, as his work
progressed, it became obvious to him that "a theory of meaning" was
impossible. As such, he thought it necessary to explain the derivation of the
name "General Semantics" for his corpus of work.
[page xxii] The original manuscript
did not contain the word 'semantics' or 'semantic', but when I had to select
some terms, from a time-binding point of view and in consideration of the
efforts of others, I introduced the term 'General Semantics' for the modus operandi of this first non-aristotelian
system. This seemed appropriate for historical continuity. A theory of
evaluation appeared to follow naturally in an evolutionary sense from 1)
'meaning to' to 2) 'significance' to 3) evaluation. General
Semantics
turned out to be an empirical natural science of non-elementalistic evaluation,
which takes into account the living individual, not divorcing him from his
reactions altogether, nor from his neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic
environments, but allocating him a plenum of some values, no matter what.
From this passage in his Introduction to the
Second Edition (1941) one can understand the paradox faced by an author who
develops a truly unique science -- to communicate to the average intelligent
reader, and also to the specialists in the very fields that are impacted by the
new science. The paradox is this: those specialists, who ought to be better
able to understand it, are less able to
understand it than the average reader. Philosophers, who ought to be able to
understand any new field of science, are often the last ones to grasp it, so
stuffed full of their own verbalizations as to be unable to
comprehend the thoughts of anyone with a truly new idea, as Korzybski presented
them with.
[page xxviii] Most 'philosophers'
who reviewed this book made particularly shocking performances. Average intelligent
readers can understand this book, as they usually have some contact with life.
It is not so with those who indulge in mere verbalism.
Korzybski gives a salient example of one
of those philosopher-penned reviews and shows how error-prone it is and how it
completely misses the point of his work. For those of you who are still not
sure what his point is, here is an excellent summary of it:
[page xxix] Most 'philosophers',
'logicians', and even mathematicians look at this non-aristotelian system of evaluation as some system of formal
non-aristotelian 'logic', which is not the case. They are somehow not able to
take the natural science point of view that all science, mathematics, 'logic',
'philosophy', etc., are the product of the functioning of the human nervous
system, involving some sort of internal orientations, or evaluations, which are
not necessarily formalized. The analysis of such living reactions is the sole object of general
semantics as a natural empirical science.
Not only do these philosophers miss the
point entirely, but by doing so, they will continue to heap untold damage upon
future generations of our youth by teaching them about "identity" --
something which Korzybski clearly demonstrates within the covers of this book
-- is non-existent in the world, except in the minds and processes of
philosophers and mentally deranged human beings.
[page xxix] These 'philosophers',
etc., seem unaware, to give a single example, that by teaching and preaching
'identity', which is empirically non-existent in this actual world, they are neurologically training future generations in the
pathological identifications found in the 'mentally' ill or maladjusted. As
explained on page 409, and also Chapter XXVI, whatever we may say an object 'is', it is not, because the statement is verbal, and
the facts are not.
Words are like maps. If a map is
not the territory it represents, a word is
not the object it represents. Also a map cannot contain all of
the territory -- it can only hope to represent the structure of the territory.
[page 38] Two important
characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but,
if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts
for its usefulness. If the map could be ideally correct, it would include, in a
reduced scale, the map of the map; the map of the map of the map; and so on,
endlessly, a fact first noticed by Royce.
What does all this mean? you ask. Is this
important? The answer is yes, because the presence of aristotelian systems has
kept civilization itself at the level of a dumb animal, up until now. If you
will read the first 62 pages of this book, no doubt you will agree with this
next statement, as I did:
[page 62] The present analysis
shows that, under the all-pervading aristotelianism in daily life, asymmetrical
relations, and thus structure and order, have been impossible, and so we have
been linguistically prevented from supplying the
potentially 'rational' being with the means for rationality. This has resulted
in a semi-human so-called 'civilization', based on our copying animals in our
nervous process, which, by necessity, involves us in arrested development or
regression, and, in general, disturbances of some sort.
Once upon a time, the geometry
of Euclid was the geometry of space, the universe
of Newton was the Universe. With the advent of Lobatchevski and
Einstein the geometry of Euclid proved to be only a geometry
of space and the universe of Newton proved to be a way
of looking at the Universe.
[page 86] It is not difficult to
see that in all these advances there is a common characteristic, which can be
put simply in that it consists in a little change from a 'the' into an 'a'.
Some people insist upon sentences in one-syllable words; here we could indeed
satisfy them! The change, no doubt, can be expressed by the exchange of one
syllable for another. But the problems, in spite of this apparent simplicity,
are quite important; and the rest of this volume will be devoted to the
examination of this change and of what it structurally involves.
For any readers who are still not clear on
the distinction between Plato and Aristotle's approach to philosophy, Korzybski
gives us an excellent thumbnail. Since he claims to have created
non-Aristotelian systems, it is necessary to understand the tenets of an
Aristotelian system.
[page 87] Psychologically,
Aristotle was a typical extrovert, who projects all his internal processes on
the outside world and objectifies them: so his reaction against Plato, the
typical introvert, for whom 'reality' was all inside, was a natural and rather
an inevitable consequence. The struggle between these two giants was typical of
the two extreme tendencies which we find in practically all
of us, as they represent two most diverse, and yet fundamental psychological
tendencies.
In his explanation below of how these two
extreme tendencies show up in our lives, Korzybski uses several words which one
must come to terms with in order to make full use of the contents of this book.
He uses them so often in the book that he adopted shorthand abbreviations for
them. When these appear in the passage below I will enclose the full word in
[brackets] the first time they appear.
[page 87] In 1933 we know that
either of these extremes in our make-up is undesirable and un-sound, in science
as well as in life. In science, the extreme extroverts have introduced what
might be called gross empiricism, which, as such, is a mere el [elementalistic] fiction --
practically a delusion. For no 'facts' are ever free from 'doctrines': so
whoever fancies he can free himself from 'doctrines', as expressed in the
structure of the language he uses ., [etc. ,] simply cherishes a delusion,
usually with strong affective components. The extreme introverts, on the other
hand, originated what might be called the 'idealistic philosophies', which in
their turn become el delusions. We should not overlook
the fact that both these tendencies are el and structurally fallacious. Belief
in the separate existence of el, and, therefore, fictitious,
entities must be considered as a structurally un-sound s.r [semantic reaction] and accounts in
a large degree for many bitter fights in science and life.
The exact meaning of terms such as el,
m.o, s.r require a close reading of the first chapters of the
book, but I will hazard a simple explanation of these three important and often
used terms. An elementalistic [el]
term is one in which in our semantic reactions [s.r]
we ignore the multiordinal [m.o] aspects of it. This
makes it possible for us to understand the triad if we can get our hands around
what a multiordinal term is. Luckily he provides a concise
definition of his discovery of multiordinality in this next
passage:
[page 14] Terms like 'yes', 'no',
'true', 'false', fact', 'reality', 'cause', 'effect', 'agreement',
'disagreement', 'proposition', 'number', 'relation', 'order', 'structure',
'abstraction', 'characteristic', 'love', 'hate', 'doubt', etc., are such that
if they can be applied to a statement they can also be applied to a statement
about the first statement, and so, ultimately, to all statements, no matter
what their order of abstraction is. Terms of such a character I call multiordinal terms.
If it makes your head ache trying to keep
all these terms like balls juggling in the air at the same time, you will
understand why I found it difficult to work through more than a couple of pages
at a time when I first read this book. And you may be wondering how any of this
could ever be useful to the average person who can not or will not take the
immense effort it takes to understand the work of this phenomenal thinker, and
you would be right. Luckily he taught some brilliant people like Samuel Bois,
S. I. Hayakawa, and Kenneth Keyes who were able to bring his work down to a
practical and easy to understand level. For beginners I suggest Keyes's book,
"How to Develop Your Thinking Ability" which is available currently
under the title, "Taming Your Mind". This book covers
the important bases of "Science and Sanity" in simple everyday words
using cartoons2, to illustrate the various points.
I utilized this book during a course in "Effective Communication" I
gave to hundreds of maintenance people at Waterford 3 Nuclear Power Station in
the 1980s.
Another essential phrase to come to terms
with is semantic reaction [s.r], which
refers to affective disturbances in persons related to their failure to
recognize the intention, goal, or meaning of the words they receive from
another. To Korzybski these disturbances were failures in the education system
which he systematically set about to correct.
[page 20] Disturbances of the
semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be
considered in 1933 as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions.
Note his use of the time index above by his specifying the date
during which his writing applies to the world.
Max Planck said in his autobiography,
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making
them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new
generation grows up that is familiar with it." [italics
added] One of the reasons for this paradoxical condition of
science is that scientists are human beings and subject to semantic
reactions and every new system involves the learning of new semantic
reactions which scientists have proven to be as slow at
learning as the average ditch-digger. Korzybski gives us a scientific way of
understanding what we mean by the expression which Planck used above, "familiar
with":
[page 27] Any fundamentally new
system involves new s.r; and this is the main difficulty
which besets us when we try to master a new system. We must re-educate, or
change, our older s.r. As a rule, the younger generation,
which began with the new s.r, has no such difficulties with the
new systems. Just the opposite -- the older s.r become as difficult or impossible
to them as the new were to the older generations.
Another great discovery of Korzybski is
the deleterious effects of identification. He says while identification may be
useful to babies and children, it proves harmful to adults. We can easily
notice when we are using identification because in English we will use the verb
"to be" to create the identity. Some have suggested a convention be
adopted in English in which we consciously avoid using the verb "to
be" for identification, which form of English is called "english
prime" or simply, e'. Try it sometime, and you
may find it a very useful process -- to write for a long time without using the
verb "to be" for identification. Why is this important? The good news
is that it's only important if you're an adult.
[page 202] The 'is' of identity
plays a great havoc with our s.r, as any 'identity' is structurally
false to fact. An infant does not know and cannot know that. In his life, the
'is' of identity plays an important semantic role, which, if not checked
intelligently, becomes a pernicious semantic factor in his grown-up reactions,
which preserve the infantile character and with which adult adjustment and semantic health is
impossible.
Perhaps the greatest discovery of all was
the process of abstracting. Korzybski talked about the world outside of us as
being the "What Is Going On" or WIGO for short. That is the world
before it is experienced by anyone. To have a non-verbal representation of the
process of abstraction, Korzybski created a diagram he called the "Structural Differential", of which a photograph is shown in
Figure 5, page 398 [or you can click on the name to see it on-line.] It is
definitely worthwhile to take some time to study this figure and its
description.
Here is my thumbnail of abstracting: the
parabola extending to infinity is the WIGO, from which a human perceives an
Object, shown by the circular plate, Oh, which is connected to WIGO.
The human creates the first level of abstraction by giving the Object a label,
shown by the rectangular plate L which has some connecting wires to Oh.
As higher levels of abstraction are created, new plates, L1, L2,
... Ln are shown, with Ln finally ending up back
connected to the WIGO parabola, because it is a part of the What Is Going On.
This is not the end of understanding
General Semantics, only the beginning. We have only inspected the foundations
of this mansion and a couple of its rooms. Only by living inside it for a few
years and learning all its hidden corners and useful appliances will you come
to appreciate the structure that Alfred O. Korzybski has built for humankind.
You have had the key to this house placed in your hand; it is up to you to open
the door and begin your personal adventure into science and sanity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ footnotes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1The subject
of their seminar, unnamed in 1977, later became known as neuro-linguistic
programming, and it's clear from the page xxii passage that Korzybski's work
had a hand in forming this field as well as its label. Return to text below footnote 1.
2The cartoons are available on-line
thanks to the International Society for General Semantics at: http://www.generalsemantics.org/Cartoons/CartoonTK1.htm I heartily recommend that readers
take the time now to view these cartoons.
�Return to text
below footnote 2.
See
Bobby Matherne's website for many
more movie and book reviews: www.doyletics.com;
Email: [email protected];
Monthly Newsletter
