Off the Map

In light of my recent reading of Walter Polakov in Wallace Clark’s 1922 book The Gantt Chart, I’ve started to see general semantics from the productivity perspective, a perspective that seems historically appropriate given Polakov’s essay in this book.

And in seeing that perspective, I’ve again begun thinking about the topics of thinking and language in general semantics, and which might matter more when it comes to defining general semantics.

I wrote the definition of general semantics as seen in the title of this blog post before fully considering it.  I wrote “General semantics is the study of the effects of language on productivity,” and what motivated this is something that came to mind: “Thinking is what we tell ourselves.”  Putting thinking in this light, it seems to me that thinking could be considered a language.  In other words, language isn’t so much what we say, but it’s what we hear.  “Speech” might be a better word for what we say.  So, input is language, output is speech.

Not exactly sure how that sits with me, but this blog is essentially “notes” and not too formal so let’s just let that simmer a bit.

How does the definition of general semantics as “the study of the effects of language on productivity” measure up to what I know about general semantics?  This definition zeroes the student on two different subjects–language and productivity–and their presumed causal relationship.  It gets the student to consider the impact language may have on productivity, and to wonder whether different language may effect productivity for the better, for the worse, or in some other way.

When you consider that Alfred Korzybski aimed at improving the sanity of people who exhibited “mental illness,” it would seem in light of this definition that he aimed at making them more productive in their lives.  Specifically, his approach involved curing delusions, introducing scientific thinking, and revising speech (what-we-say) because it affects language (what-we-hear).  Very generally speaking, this is the methodology for someone trying to advance technology in order to make a more productive society.  In order to develop technology, scientific understandings of resources need to be adopted, else the technology may be dooming rather than helpful.

I have to let this sit a bit more in my brain, especially in considering how to market general semantics for a popular audience.  Perhaps you have something to say?  If so, please post a comment below.

See also: definition, gantt-chart, marketing, productivity, wallace-clark, walter-polakov