Off the Map

In the saga of evolving an easy, representative answer to the passing question a friend might ask, “What’s general semantics?,” I actually took a turn toward deemphasizing language totally in my answer.

My most recent definition of general semantics, mentioned in a recent post, was:

‘

General semantics is the study of thinking and its effects on language, behavior, and culture.

But!

Language can be thought of as behavior, and in fact, in general semantics, it often is.  Language can also be thought of as culture.  So is mentioning language in this definition TMI (“too much information”)?  Does its mention potentially throw the audience of this definition?  Does it make the blinking layperson say, “Why care about language?”

It struck me tonight that maybe making mention of language in a definition of general semantics overemphasizes what is more of an afterthought in general semantics.

While I’m not totally sure I’m behind the characterization that follows, I think there’s something to be said about it: An overemphasis on language came with the release of the Second Edition of Alfred Korzybski’s Science and Sanity, when he spoke in the introduction to that edition of the extensional devices.  Suddenly, with the extenional devices we were really, really paying attention to language.  I mean, presumably Korzybski’s readers were already paying attention to language before the second edition, especially considering some of his diagrams (labels in the Structural Differential) and terminology (“multiordinal terms,” e.g.).  But the target more, it seems to me of late, was thinking.  Changing our language was one way to effect thinking, and effecting thinking was the higher aim, but changing our language was just one weapon in the arsenal aimed at effecting thinking.

On another note with respect to the most recent definition of general semantics, the use of the word “culture” in the definition seemed to miss the mark a bit for me the more I thought about it.  I mean, Korzybski had an interest in influencing the culture, but he had a much greater ambition as seen in his book Manhood of Humanity.  He wanted to influence humanity.  The word “humanity” strikes me as something greater than what the word “culture” represents.  So why not add it into the definition while taking out the word “language”?

So I did.  And here’s today’s newly evolved definition for general semantics:

‘

General semantics is the study of thinking and its effects on behavior, culture, and humanity.

I like this a lot better.  By subtracting “language” from the equation, general semantics seems a bit less pedantic and fussy.   By adding “humanity” to the equation, general semantics has a highly ambitious and forever-motivating goal: impacting humanity, not just behavior or culture.

It’s a rather powerful definition, in my opinion.  It hits on the individual/personal level (behavior), the community level (culture), and the species level (humanity).  It fesses up that there is the belief that how humans think can have effects on each of these levels, and it implies that changing thinking to different kinds of thinking can have different effects on each of these levels.  And it’s nice in listing 3 different realms of interest (as opposed to 2 or 4 or more).  Language would be discussed under the topic of behavior, probably.  It’s not excluded from the discussion by not being in the definition.

I think I’m going to sleep on this definition and, if it sits well with me, see what I can do toward getting it on the front page for the Institute of General Semantics website.

And if you have feedback, please share it.

See also: definition, marketing