{"id":1122,"date":"2011-01-16T18:14:51","date_gmt":"2011-01-16T23:14:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/?p=1122"},"modified":"2011-01-16T18:14:51","modified_gmt":"2011-01-16T23:14:51","slug":"implicational-psycho-logics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/2011\/01\/16\/implicational-psycho-logics\/","title":{"rendered":"Implicational Psycho-Logics"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Don&#8217;t let the title daunt you.\u00a0 It should make sense in a bit.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/2011\/01\/15\/an-introduction-to-non-aristotelian-systems-oh-yeah-and-general-semantics-too\/\" target=\"_blank\">Yesterday I wrote<\/a> how typing up a passage by Edward MacNeal about &#8220;mathsemantics&#8221; led to the revelation that the name for my discipline, &#8220;general semantics,&#8221; is a generic term, one needing clarification.\u00a0 I proposed that maybe the name should be &#8220;general semantics of non-aristotelian thinking,&#8221; and I explained that that phrase meant &#8220;general implications of non-aristotelian thinking.&#8221;\u00a0 Calling my field &#8220;General Semantics&#8221; is a lot like calling it &#8220;General Implications.&#8221;\u00a0 It makes you go, &#8220;Of what?&#8221;\u00a0 Well, &#8220;general implications (semantics) <em>of non-aristotelian thinking<\/em>.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>That is, the field I&#8217;m in is really just the elaboration for the reader and practitioner what constitutes non-aristotelian thinking, what consistutes <em>aristotelian<\/em> thinking, and what is implied about the world we live in if we think more as a non-aristotelian\u00a0(&#8220;more like a scientist&#8221;)\u00a0than as an aristotelian (&#8220;more like what we commonly do&#8221;).<\/p>\n<p>Now, I do a lot of my thinking in the shower (or rather, thoughts come to me then), and I was just in the shower when it came to me a new potential, <em>imformative<\/em> name of the field known by the name &#8220;general semantics.&#8221;\u00a0 That name gelled with my exposition yesterday\u00a0on what the word &#8220;semantics&#8221; denotes (&#8220;the study of what something means&#8221;), as well as the role the behavior of implication has in the field, especially considering Cassius Keyser&#8217;s friendship with general-semantics founder Alfred Korzybski, and considering Keyser&#8217;s own exposition of implication found in his breathtaking book, <em>Mathematical Philosophy<\/em>.\u00a0 That name?<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Implicational psychology.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>That is, general semantics might better be named &#8220;implicational psychology.&#8221;\u00a0 Well, what would that name mean?\u00a0 It would mean, &#8220;the study of what things mean to us.&#8221;\u00a0 The word &#8220;psychology&#8221; suggests the field pays special attention to <em>thinking <\/em>and <em>thought processes<\/em> of people, and the word &#8220;implicational&#8221; suggests the field pays <em>especial <\/em>attention on what things <em>mean<\/em> to people.\u00a0 &#8220;What does 9\/11 mean to you?&#8221;\u00a0 &#8220;What does it mean to you when your husband forgets your anniversary?&#8221;\u00a0 &#8220;What does it mean if the world is actually round?&#8221;\u00a0 &#8220;What does it mean if the world is actually <em>flat<\/em>?&#8221;\u00a0 &#8220;What does it mean if light speed is not infinite?&#8221;\u00a0 And then: &#8220;What does <em>the rest of things mean<\/em> given those meanings to you?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Now, to take Korzybski&#8217;s advice, I wouldn&#8217;t name the field with the word\u00a0&#8220;psychology&#8221; but instead something more like &#8220;psycho-logics.&#8221;\u00a0 For Korzybski, this word is better at denoting the empirically indivisible interrelation in the human body of emotion and thought.\u00a0 Roughly speaking, the word &#8220;psychology&#8221; seems to imply &#8220;thinking&#8221; a bit more than it implies &#8220;emotion,&#8221; but &#8220;psycho-logics&#8221; (with its decided hyphen) seems to imply &#8220;emotion&#8221; (&#8220;psycho&#8221;) <em>and<\/em> &#8220;thinking&#8221; (&#8220;logics&#8221;) <em>and<\/em> their interrelationship much more clearly.\u00a0 I might have Korzybski a bit wrong there, or I might misunderstand his exact reasoning for including the hyphen and making the word an &#8220;-ics,&#8221; but I think it&#8217;s something like that.\u00a0 &#8220;Implicational psycho-logics,&#8221; at least as a name, better denotes the study of both what things mean <em>emotionally<\/em> to people, as well as what things mean <em>intellectually<\/em> to people.<\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;ll say: &#8220;Take your pick.&#8221;\u00a0 The term &#8220;implicational psychology&#8221; will probably mean more to a random person than &#8220;implicational psycho-logics.&#8221;\u00a0 That is, from the perspective of implicational psychology, which studies things like &#8220;what things mean to people&#8221; (!),\u00a0the field might recommend the former name over the latter.<\/p>\n<p>I smile when I say that.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Don&#8217;t let the title daunt you.\u00a0 It should make sense in a bit. Yesterday I wrote how typing up a passage by Edward MacNeal about &#8220;mathsemantics&#8221; led to the revelation that the name for my discipline, &#8220;general semantics,&#8221; is a generic term, one needing clarification.\u00a0 I proposed that maybe the name should be &#8220;general semantics [&hellip;]<\/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":[94,152,36,276,75,280,278,279,283,281,285,282,37,275,10,284,153,76,81,218,181,207],"class_list":["post-1122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general-semantics","tag-alfred-korzybski","tag-aristotelianism","tag-cassius-keyser","tag-edward-macneal","tag-elementalism","tag-emotion","tag-implicational-psycho-logics","tag-implicational-psychology","tag-implications","tag-intellect","tag-labels","tag-logics","tag-mathematical-philosophy","tag-mathsemantics","tag-meaning","tag-names","tag-non-aristotelianism","tag-non-elementalism","tag-science","tag-scientific-thinking","tag-semantics","tag-thinking"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1122","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=1122"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1122\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1128,"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1122\/revisions\/1128"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/benhauck.com\/offthemap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}