{"id":1079,"date":"2011-01-15T16:46:51","date_gmt":"2011-01-15T21:46:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/?p=1079"},"modified":"2011-01-15T17:12:24","modified_gmt":"2011-01-15T22:12:24","slug":"an-introduction-to-non-aristotelian-systems-oh-yeah-and-general-semantics-too","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/2011\/01\/15\/an-introduction-to-non-aristotelian-systems-oh-yeah-and-general-semantics-too\/","title":{"rendered":"An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems (Oh Yeah, and General Semantics, Too!)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The field of general semantics is strangely named, and it’s been my quest for some time to “make sense” of it.\u00a0 Not having had the privilege of studying under Alfred Korzybski, I couldn’t ask him what was in his head when he coined the term.\u00a0 I’ve long\u00a0heard that it was a regrettable coinage, but I’ve never been one to regret much.\u00a0 I\u00a0prefer<\/em> to use\u00a0the term “general semantics,” especially since it’s been around for so long and that’s how the field had been identified.\u00a0 But that doesn’t stop my continued effort to understand what Korzybski meant when he used the term.<\/p>\n

A few minutes ago I was working on the new online store for the Institute of General Semantics (I’m their webmaster).\u00a0 I was looking at a copy of Edward MacNeal’s book Mathsemantics<\/em>, typing up its book flaps for copy for the item in the new store.\u00a0 The flap (from the 1994 hardcover)\u00a0had an innocuous passage in it that suddenly got me thinking.\u00a0 First, the passage:<\/p>\n

‘<\/span><\/div>

Mathsemantics<\/em> takes off from a quiz that was given to job applicants for the author’s consulting firm who described themselves as “good at numbers.”\u00a0 Most of them, it turned out, weren’t in fact good at numbers, because they couldn’t draw conclusions about what the numbers meant<\/strong>.\u00a0 The good news is that many people who think they’re terrible at numbers will find after reading this book that they aren’t so bad after all.\u00a0 They’ll learn how to one-up the number crunchers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The boldface was mine.\u00a0 That part got me thinking: Is semantics to be construed as “the study of what things mean”?\u00a0 Would mathsemantics be “the study of what numbers<\/em> mean”?<\/p>\n

Quickly I thought of general semantics.\u00a0 I also thought of the title of Alfred Korzybski’s major work, which introduced the field: Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics<\/em>.<\/p>\n

That made me wonder if the term “general semantics” in the title is less the name of a field, but\u00a0more a generic term relating to non-aristotelian systems.\u00a0 (Huh?)\u00a0 Let me rephrase:<\/p>\n

Maybe general semantics is the study of what non-aristotelian systems mean?<\/p>\n

That is, generally mean<\/em>.\u00a0 General<\/em> semantics: the study of what non-aristotelian systems generally mean<\/em> . . .<\/p>\n

I really like that.\u00a0 Especially that general semantics is the study of what non-aristotelian systems mean.\u00a0 The term “general semantics” is just a generic term, a simple phrase\u00a0(nothing special) … that took on the name of the important field that I dedicate a lot of my time and energy to.\u00a0\u00a0Being named with a generic term would be like biology being instead named “Study,” or engineering instead being named “Making,” or my being born and named “Man”: Generic terms standing for very specific fields and things.<\/p>\n

That’s what happened to general semantics, I’m believing here … it got stuck with the generic name “General Semantics” when it was something more specific: that is,\u00a0non-aristotelianism<\/em>, i.e., non-aristotelian thinking.\u00a0 It might as well have been named “General Implications”–such a name would have been as equally empty and vague as the name “General Semantics.”<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

What does that say, “the study of what non-aristotelian systems mean”?\u00a0 Well, it says that the field, at its core, is first an elaboration of non-aristotelian systems<\/em>.\u00a0 In layspeak, it’s an elaboration of modern scientific thinking that rivals the old non- and pseudoscientific thinking, say,\u00a0pre-Francis Bacon, Galileo, et al.\u00a0 Non-aristotelian systems are pretty much The Scientific Method and all of its related thinking.\u00a0 The field first outlines that kind of thinking–that particular “system of thinking.”<\/p>\n

The field, second, is an elaboration of what those non-aristotelian systems mean<\/em>.\u00a0 That is, the field of general semantics is secondarily an elaboration of what it means if, say, Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy is true.\u00a0 (“Well, all of our knowledge is uncertain then!”)\u00a0 It’s an elaboration of what it means if, say, Aristotle’s law of identity is rejected.\u00a0 (“Well, no two things are ever identical with themselves, so change is always happening!”)<\/p>\n

Tertiarily, perhaps, the field is a\u00a0threat to aristotelian systems and aristotelian ways of thinking.<\/em>\u00a0 In layspeak, all those unscientific, pseudoscientific, and related overly simplistic and flat-out incorrect ways of thinking, particularly about empirical reality,\u00a0are invalidated in light of non-aristotelian systems.\u00a0 The system of thinking peculiar to non-aristotelianism spells conflict with those who think like aristotelians.\u00a0 “It ain’t gonna be safe anymo’ to\u00a0employ aristotelian thinking.”<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

In light of the above, it would seem to me that general semantics as a field should be\u00a0clarified as\u00a0“general semantics of non-aristotelian systems<\/em>,” where “general semantics” just means “general implications (i.e., meanings).”\u00a0 The field’s name just means “the study of the general implications\u00a0of non-aristotelian thinking.”\u00a0 That is, it refers to “the study of what non-aristotelian thinking implies (in general).”<\/p>\n

Or even more succintly, general semantics could be renamed.\u00a0 What about\u00a0“non-aristotelian thinking” or just “non-aristotelianism” in order to cut\u00a0to the core of the field?\u00a0 The “general semantics” parts of the field are just later explorations of what happens if and when we take a non-aristotelian frame of mind.\u00a0 First, we teach what non-aristotelianism is, and second, we teach you the potential implications of thinking that way.<\/p>\n

Remember: From the perspective herein, semantics, generically worded,\u00a0is the study of what something means<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0Lexical semantics would be the study of what words mean.\u00a0 Gestural semantics would be the study of what gestures mean.\u00a0 General semantics?\u00a0 Not the study of what generalities mean, but more like a study of what something generally means.\u00a0 The word “mean” in this context refers to implications<\/em> rather than denotations (what something stands for)\u00a0and rather than emotional significance (“That has a lot of meaning to me”).\u00a0 “Means” means “implies.”<\/em>\u00a0 So, generically speaking, general semantics\u00a0are just a study of what something generally implies, and thinking of Korzybski’s work specifically, general semantics specifically<\/em> is the study of what non-aristotelian thinking implies.<\/p>\n

And implication connects with logics.\u00a0 I refer you to Alfred Koryzbksi’s pal, the mathematical cognoscente and philosopher Cassius Keyser, for explorations in logics.\u00a0 Keyser is especially great when it comes to teaching implication.\u00a0 He’s my mind porn.\u00a0 His book Mathematical Philosophy<\/em> is beautiful, as is his coverage of Korzybski’s early ideas with respect to time-binding.\u00a0 In Mathematical Philosophy<\/em> Keyser expertly teaches the reader about implication.<\/p>\n

So I feel as if I solved a mystery today.\u00a0 The field seems to have taken on the name “general semantics” (a generic term) when maybe it should have been called “non-aristotelianism” (the specific term the generic term relates to).\u00a0 And that formula has been spelled out in the title of the field’s foundational book since practically the beginning.<\/p>\n

“Duh, Ben!”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The field of general semantics is strangely named, and it’s been my quest for some time to “make sense” of it.\u00a0 Not having had the privilege of studying under Alfred Korzybski, I couldn’t ask him what was in his head when he coined the term.\u00a0 I’ve long\u00a0heard that it was a regrettable coinage, but I’ve […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[94,152,36,274,276,272,273,128,277,236,37,275,10,153,181],"class_list":["post-1079","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general-semantics","tag-alfred-korzybski","tag-aristotelianism","tag-cassius-keyser","tag-definitions","tag-edward-macneal","tag-francis-bacon","tag-galileo","tag-generic-terms","tag-implication","tag-language-as-generic","tag-mathematical-philosophy","tag-mathsemantics","tag-meaning","tag-non-aristotelianism","tag-semantics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1079","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1079"}],"version-history":[{"count":42,"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1079\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1121,"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1079\/revisions\/1121"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}