Why is General Semantics not discussed more here?Its genuinely one of the more intriguing ideas that more people should understand.A core idea is that our language and mental models (the map) are not the same as reality itself (the territory). We need to remain aware of this distinction to avoid mistaking our words and perceptions for the things they represent.General semantics challenges the rigid, either/or logic of traditional Aristotelian thought. It promotes thinking in terms of degrees, probabilities, and recognizing that situations and knowledge are always in flux.If you find your self looking for a new person to challenge you mentally, you should definitely look into more Korzybski
werd
>>25041236>intriguing ideas
>>25041236>A core idea is that our language and mental models (the map) are not the same as reality itself (the territory).whatever
>>25041236I was going to get his selections book but other things got in the way.
Sounds like somebody who just read Wittgenstein and aped his ideas.My only problem with Wittgenstein, is that his conclusion essentially leaves us with no avenue for meaning, especially since meaning and "truth" are just language use. (I dont think WITT explicitly says this, but this is what I take from him)Does Korzybski say anything interesting that tries to expand on Wittgenstein? Thats all im looking for. A way beyond Wittgenstein, like people did when Kant shook the philosophical world.
>>25041236I read Manhood of Humanity and it's peak low IQ. Imagine black science guy lecturing a bunch of humanists about topics he has no idea about, because muh science and progress. I haven't read Science and Sanity but if it's the same Korzybski then I don't have much hopes for it, this guy is a glorified Pinkerton
>>25043071I think it's very Wittgensteinian too - Wittgenstein (in OC e.g.) is radically doubting whether you can ever make certain, dogmatic statements with finality, but he doesn't therefore want you to go around like a Korzybski-ite never using the word "is," to remind yourself constantly that you can never REALLY say "I know this is the case" or simply "This is the case" with finality. By all means go around being dogmatic, just be ready to break it up at any time. Although I don't necessarily like the "asymptotic" idea of knowledge which Whitehead mentions, that the dialectic goes on forever ("bad infinity").
>>25041236I read the first few hundred pages of the book. Basically it's carrying Bertrand Russell's idea that all knowledge is merely structural to its extreme conclusion. It's interesting but it doesn't satisfyingly solve philosophical problems for me. It just wants to brainwash you into being silent about those problems because they're asking questions that maybe aren't purely structural.
>>25043087also like this guy is perhaps picking up on >>25043080 there is a massive amount of pseudery in Science and Sanity. He repeats himself constantly and says really basic things as if they are extremely profound and important. The way he talked about Oswald Spengler just reeked of pseud to me. and it's also all very cult-y.
>>25043083>but he doesn't therefore want you to go around like a Korzybski-ite never using the word "is," to remind yourself constantly that you can never REALLY say "I know this is the case" or simply "This is the case" with finality.I know thats the frustrating thing about Wittgenstein, he doesnt remotely prescribe, just says "This is how language is, and this is only how language can be".My "solution" isnt to abandon language, because its almost fundamental. Its just to be more aware of its use, and to try and hijack its use for my own use, in a directed way that can serve a meaningful purpose.What does Korzybsi say exactly? Is he trying to abandon language entirely? How can he acknowledge the "fluidity" of knowledge that is inherently linked to the fluidity of language, yet insist on such "dogma"?>Although I don't necessarily like the "asymptotic" idea of knowledge which Whitehead mentionsHave never read Whitehead but have been recommended him, as one of the guys that goes beyond Kant, and points out his flaws to propose something better. But idk, every tangential thing I've heard about Whiteheads philosophy doesnt seem like itd sing to me.Could you elaborate on what Whitehead means here?
>>25043091also despite this, one more thing I should say is that since some of the ideas in science and sanity were rather new to me, and because of his hypnotic way of communicating about it, as I was reading it I felt my mind already begin to change as if I was seeing the world differently and suddenly seeing the ways in which language structurally resembles the world. so maybe if you really got into it you could actually alter your 'semantic reaction' like he claims. but as far as I am concerned that's more like just brainwashing yourself into only seeing things as structural.
>Words are not just wind. Words have something to say. But if what they have to say is not fixed, then do they really say something? Or do they say nothing? People suppose that words are different from the peeps of baby birds, but is there any difference, or isn't there? What does the Way rely upon, that we have true and false? What do words rely upon, that we have right and wrong? How can the Way go away and not exist? How can words exist and not be acceptable? When the Way relies on little accomplishments and words reply on vain show, then we have rights and wrongs of the Confucians and the Mo-ists. What one calls right the other calls wrong; what one calls wrong the other calls right. But if we want to right their wrongs and wrong their rights, then the best to use is clarity.All this semantic Wittgenstein crap was already known to ancient eastern philosophers. It's old hat.
>>25043080>glorified Pinkertonhow? genuinely curious what you mean by this. I’ve seen people saying korz is like something an fbi agent would read to convince himself he’s being ethica, but I’ve only briefly looked into him and can’t see exactly why this is the case
GS was really influential and then it died when AK died. successful promoters of GS:-William S Burroughs-Frank Herbert, Dune in particular-Robert Anton Wilson-S I Hayakawa (became a senator in a huge upset)-Most of the foundation for Neuro Linquistic Programing-Lron Hubart ripped off GS mercilessly. -A. E. Van Vogt
My red pilled Structural Differential (patent pending) would kill you traveler.
>>25043114Cant think of anything more indicative of a brainlet, as not understanding Wittgenstein.
>>25043114>then the best to use is clarity.>quoting an appeal to clarity and claiming to understand Wittgensteinlmao, genuinely going to start thinking of Wittgenstein as a filter from now on
>>25043116>-Frank Herbert, Dune in particularIn what way? Literally asked some days ago if Dune is philosophical and most said no. Unless youre just thinking the Benne Gesserit influence with words is some philosophical statement.
general semantics was important when i unfucked my brain from thinking structure or philosophy or science are "objective" and that i needed to submit to everyone "smarter" than me. i think it is great as an exit ticket from giving a shit about what other people think and getting away from academic people. but you are asking a board full of humanities majors about why a guy who says "all your ideas are actually just an abstraction on top of reality so Y'KNOW" isnt discussed. like duh. you are going to rustle some jimmies because people are happier believing that their hyperspecific philosophy is the best and that arguing about it accomplishes anything
>>25043141>>25043142seethe, but no argument
>>25043145From what I see, >The Mentats: human computers avoid rigid categories and use probabilistic, non-Aristotelian thinking.>The Bene Gesserit sisterhood like you mentioned extensively trains in linguistic precision, voice control (the "Voice"command), and subtle manipulation through words. They influence reality / perception>Maps vs territory: human constructs, myths, prophecies VS the hard desert reality of Arrakis. >Abstraction level fuckups with the "messianic prophecies" leading to terrible consequences>Thematic level: language shapes human thought structures and societal control. I could almost go as far as to claim that there's almost no free will in the story, they are all slaves to language via prophecies, sisterhood class manipulations, etc
>>25043157>who says "all your ideas are actually just an abstraction on top of reality so Y'KNOW" isnt discussed. like duh. you are going to rustle some jimmies because people are happier believing that their hyperspecific philosophy is the best and that arguing about it accomplishes anythingYoure a fucking retard, this is a board that literally worshups Nietzsche, Kant, and Schopenhauer. Even if theyre not framing it through "language" all 3 of those retards for far and ahead, the first to propose that "reality" and the way we understand it are just representations. Nietzsche is even more radical in his insistence that there is barely a true "self". And Wittgenstein is the one who first actually breaks down what language actually is, then theres Derrida who breaks down how language actually is. To be fair, the two latter names I mentioned are truly unpopular here. But stop pretending as if your retarded exit philosophy is "beyond the mere mortal /lit/ mortal"Thats not the problem with this place. The problem with this place is retards like this: >>25043114
>>25041236This is relevant to what has interested me recently. Kind of weird this thread popped up now. I think it's important to distinguish between percept and concept. You seem to be lumping them together. What I've been thinking is that there is a distinction between percept and thing-itself, and there is also a distinction between concept and thing-itself, and these two distinctions or relationships are very similar. I have actually connected it all to Aristotelian logic, but in a different way. The way I view it propositional logic works to make the distinction between concept and thing-itself clear to the mind, it enables holding pure ideas in the mind, rather than constantly making a very strong association between concept and thing-itself in the mind. Subject and predicate of a proposition have the either/or thing, yes, the copula in a proposition is either "is" or "is not", this is called composition and division. I'm interested in how this theory challenges this idea. Is it going into "modal propositions" territory? And how exactly does the distinction concept/percept vs thing-itself relate to the theory and the challenging of Aristotelian logic? You did not make that clear. There is nothing in Aristotelian thought that is against the distinction between concept and thing-itself. I'm getting deep into propositions right now with this book, specifically part II, which deals with propositions.https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watthttps://archive.org/details/logick_2507_librivoxPicrel is table of contents, but page numbers don't match the edition in the first link above.Part II, Of Judgement and Proposition, begins on page 113, this link goes directly to that page: https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt/page/113/mode/1upIn the audiobook that is file 10, which is titled "Of the Nature of a Proposition, and Its Several Parts", this link goes directly to that file: https://archive.org/details/logick_2507_librivox/logick_09_watts_128kb.mp3Here are some other good books on this subject:https://archive.org/details/easylessonsonrea00whathttps://archive.org/details/introductiontolo00josehttps://annas-archive.li/md5/6b9a69b25c0cf72850737c6a2b7e0ee3https://archive.org/details/artoflogicalthin00atkihttps://archive.org/details/anelementarytre00uffogooghttps://annas-archive.li/md5/7dd390a7784e5e7507669ea271466ff7https://archive.org/details/principlesgener00roemgooghttps://archive.org/details/principlesgener00sacygoog
>>25043210>There is nothing in Aristotelian thought that is against the distinction between concept and thing-itself. I'm getting deep into propositions right now with this book, specifically part II, which deals with propositions.Not OP and I dont mean to be rude. But you may genuinely never even see the limits of language and the limits of the world, because you can't even see the limits of Aristotelian logic. Again, no offense, because your genuine curioisity is commendable nonetheless.Its genuinely scary, the near insurmountable feeling amount of meaningless systems and frameworks we can conjure up to characterize our world, without ever understanding that world. And no im not even talking about a distinction between "things in themselves" and representations. The idea of a thing in itself is already likely flawed.
>>25043116Heinlein toofrom gizmodo:>In June 1939, Robert A. Heinlein, and his second wife Leslyn, attended a lecture by Korzybski at a local chapter of the Institute of General Semantics in Los Angeles. The young writer was already a fan of Korzybski’s ideas — and had first encountered General Semantics in Stuart Chase’s The Tyranny of Words (1938). In the system of General Semantics, Heinlein found not only a usable account of how language related to empirical reality, but also a personal methodology for self-improvement. He saw General Semantics as giving him, Heinlein’s biographer writes, “the fundamentals of a technology of language, which means a technology of how human beings think.”>In a 1941 Worldcon talk entitled “The Discovery of the Future,” Heinlein discussed his admiration for Korzybski at some length. In this talk, Heinlein suggested that the “strongest factor” in science fiction — that is, the reason SF fans love the genre — is because it allows readers to engage in “time-binding.” Heinlein subtly redefines Korzybski’s concept of time-binding to mean the human capacity to reconstruct the past and imagine the future via reading and writing. The very act of writing science fiction, he thought, was an example of future-oriented time-binding.
>>25043178>assblasted pseud seethe>no argumentWhat is it about midwittgenstein cultists that causes this phenomenon?
>>25043231You made literally zero arguments, and didn't address anything in my post which you replied to. The way you completely fail to address any propositions, and instead go straight into addressing your imagination of the psychology of the poster, shows your complete lack of knowledge of logic.
>I think, therefore I am.This is an argument, consisting of one premise and one conclusion, both of which are one proposition each.premise: I thinkconclusion: therefore, I amIf we look at the proposition that is the conclusion, it is divided into subject and predicate:>I amsubject: Ipredicate: amThis can be rephrased into a proposition with an explicit copula.>I am existing.subject: Icopula: ampredicate: existingNote that "am" can be a copula or a predicative verb, it's two different words spelled the same. In "I am" the word "am" is not a copula, in "I am existing" the word "am" is a copula.>X is Yor>X is not Yit's never both, never neither
>>25043249lol. ignorance abets us all
>>25043274No, some people have actually studied logic. Just because you know zero logic doesn't mean nobody does. Ironic that you talk about not knowing about the limits of Aristotelian logic, and yet you display an utter lack of knowledge of logic when you don't address propositions that are put forth but rather address your imagination of the psychology and motives of the person who put forth the propositions.
>>25043280I remember when I used to be equally as small minded. Its astonishing how much if the world we compress. How much we constantly dont know, because we are assured by our confidence in what we already know. The percieved "vastness" of our already contained made up knowledge. Knowledge created so we can feel like masters of the world. Not truly to understand it. Meet with it. Thats why there are so many conditions.I didnt bother offering any counterargument because your proposition is invalid from the get go, and the aggressive staunchness with which you hold onto your notions, is proof enough to me that it would be a waste of time to offer any perspective. You think Logic and Aristotle like the commandments. Huh, I just thought that up. Its interesting how apt that is. The commandments also convenient constrain the world and its complexities in a comfortable conditioned manner that allows us confidence in our beliefs.All I'll say from now on. Is that 90% of people in this thread are retarded. And that I genuinely and truly hope I never end up like any of you, I've already worried that my newfound perspective has become too all encompassing, and closed me off to other perspectives. Its why I've saught out MYSELF, not WAITED for, criticism of my beliefs, and other perspectives and interpretations of my understanding.We must all abide by rules, that's the nature of language. I just mine remain as fluid and open as language is, so that I am never lost in the limits of my world.
>>25041236>>25043210>This is relevant to what has interested me recently. Kind of weird this thread popped up now.That was already weird, but if that wasn't weird enough I posted this thread literally less than 3 minutes before you posted this thread. What I'm talking about there is very related to the topic of this thread:https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/526790519It got deleted, and got zero good replies, but I reposted the thread just now, here:>>25043228
>>25043307You're right that you know absolutely jack shit. Study logic. It's a very basic thing in logic that you address the propositions put forth, and not the person. You talk a fuckton about me as a person, and haven't said one fucking thing about anything I said. I just skimmed over your retarded irrelevant post. Study logic. Begin by listening to this:https://youtu.be/U3Jm8zF7bJ8?&t=2857
My idea was that just as a percept is not the thing-itself, a concept also is not the thing-itself. You can think of a percept as directly connected to the thing-itself, or you can mentally disconnect the two and hold only the percept itself in your mind. Likewise people often have a concept in their mind and are mentally making a direct connection to the thing-itself. My point is that just as you can break off the percept from the thing-itself in your mind you can also break off a concept from the thing-itself, and view it as a pure idea, rather than something being in direct connection to something external to the mind.
btfo's Alfred any dayhttps://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae
>>25041236you niggers have a homeostasis of arguing about whether perceptions are real. aquinas claimed that foreknowledge of things not yet experienced was possible so /lit/ niggers should read aquinas to learn magic
>>25043231You have no idea what you're talking about. Explain to me what the limits of Aristotelian logic are. I'm interested in having a good laugh at your expense.
>>25044304Not that anon, resolve this contradiction using only Aristotelian logic. Remember, “A cannot be non A">Person says: “Sam is honest” and later “Sam is dishonest.”General semantics resolves it in one move.
>>25044421>General semanticsWittgenstein*
>>25044466>mixing levels of abstractionAristotelian logic is a systemGeneral semantics is a systemWittgenstein was a person who rejected theory construction.
>>25044544Yeah, which is why hes not subject to any problems or flaws in a theory because he proposes none. Just explanations.
>>25044556That's right, GS resembles him less and less.
>>25044596I mean, it undoubtedly takes off where Wittgenstein left off, regardless, thats all im trying to say really, because Wittgenstein becomes more and more forgotten, and more and more misunderstood as the years go by.
>>25044598No doubt, Alfred K is mostly forgotten too, only "the map is not.." has survived, barely because it's meme-able.
>>25044604Yeah, I really think about how many philosophers I've missed out because theyve been lost to time. How much of that is merited, and how much of that is simply the whims of our times. I dont trust our times and the people who dominate it, and some philosophers I come across Im just astonished and wonder "how did this not take off and influence things greatly? why are we still stuck in certain assumptions and paradigms" the thing that recently broke me, was taking a linguistic class in university. Im just contending with and disagreeing with every single assumption im forced to shove down my throat to pass the class. Ideas and notions that seek to classify language rather than...i cant even say "understand it" because the nature of language makes it so that it hard to use that word in any precise manner.In my linguistic class, they take such pride in classifying themselves as a "science of language". Theyre so desperate to feign "objectivity": "We dont make prescriptions about how language should be, just what it is". That framing, that arbitrary dichotomy between prescriptivism and descriptivism. The seemingly unawareness of how theyre making a prescriptive claim about how language should be approached, the conceit of science in never confronting the prescriptive basis' that underpins its entire method like...the Hypothesis part of the scientific method.Its just so frustrating. How does one engage with academia, with a genuine interest in learning, when it doesnt feel like learning. It feels like consuming and storing as much "sequences of words" to be memorized and applied for a purpose not of understanding, but something else.I had this problem with other classes, but I was far more ignorant about the history of those subjects. With Wittgenstein, I was given a forray into understanding language, and I could not reconcile that with what I was being taught to accept.
>>25041236>our language and mental models (the map) are not the same as reality itself (the territory)Which is a massive problem for followers of the correspondence theory of truth - the idea that words "subjective" tokens that are there to mirror "objective" reality. To all others this is a non-issue and a routine consideration.>General semantics challenges the rigid, either/or logic of traditional Aristotelian thoughtWhat's binary about Aristotelian thought? Granted, he focuses on the material and discrete more than his teacher did, but I would bet it's the secular academia that turned Aristotelianism into either/or thought, as it often seems to do.
>>25044662>What's binary about Aristotelian thought?Contradiction. Among other things that its honestly been too long to remember. I remember one analogy smart people always used. Something to do I think with how water makes things look bent
>>25044662>What's binary about Aristotelian thought? Granted, he focuses on the material and discrete more than his teacher did, but I would bet it's the secular academia that turned Aristotelianism into either/or thought, as it often seems to do.You nailed it. Alfred K had no problem with Plato/Aristotle works. His problem was how it had been mangled by those in charge. >The system by which the white race lives, suffers, ‘prospers’, starves, and dies today is not in a strict sense an aristotelian system. Aristotle had far too much of the sense of actualities for that. It represents, however, a system formulated by those who, for nearly two thousand years since Aristotle, have controlled our knowledge and methods of orientations, and who, for purposes of their own, selected what today appears as the worst from Aristotle and the worst from Plato and, with their own additions, imposed this composite system upon us. In this they were greatly aided by the structure of language and psycho-logical habits, which from the primitive down to this very day have affected all of us consciously or unconsciously, and have introduced serious difficulties even in science and in mathematics. -AK
>>25045007>>The system by which the white race lives, suffers, ‘prospers’, starves, and dies today...what? does this have to do with philosophy
>>25045090>"the study of the fundamental nature of.... existence...."
>>25045103what does "how the white race, lives, suffers, "prospers", starves, and dies today" have to do with philosophy? if youre just going to pull a "well philosophy is a study about everything in reality!" then philosophy is every subject and therefore no subject. This is exactly why philosophy is dead today, it studies something that nobody needs it to study because subjects have splintered and created themselves to study themselves. Its why philosophy should be about a unique process, not subjects of study.
>>25045090I don't think he was a racist, just using the term 'white race' here to mean western people. although he did have a weird obsession with the year 1933 (but probably just because that's when he wrote science and sanity)
>>25045121I gave a generally accepted definition of philosophy and showed how the quote fragment aligned with it. You have yet to prove your claim that the quote fragment has nothing to do with philosophy, based on the definition in your head.
poor thread, lack of knowledgeable people on the board to make a thread like this work
