Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics

Rating:
Summary: The most comprehensive book on social economics.
Review: Science & Sanity is an effort to describe the nature of man in a developing evolving world. His ability to create a greater understanding of self in relation to a world system surpasses all efforts to dissect this environment.

THE DREAM

THE GOLDEN SHOWER

S.E.R.V.E.

Social Environmental Rehabilitation Vocational Education

S.E.R.V.I.C.E.

Social Environmental Rehabilitation Vocational Institutional Corporate Economics

C.E.N.T.E.R.

Cultural Ethnic Naturalization Transient Evoluntionary Research

Rating:
Summary: What happened?
Review: So, I read the selections from Science and Sanity, and I realize, damn this book is amazing. One would be wise to ask, What is the importance of generalities, or in other words, how important is a general understanding of the position mankind is in at this-very-moment(1933). Of the information and knowledge, the engineering, history, and science, which influences every moment of our day, from when we wake till when we sleep. Korzybski accumulated a large amount of information for the developement of a system, which not only gives a general outline of the evolution of science and math, up to 1933, but still holds weight to this very day.
General semantics, does not refer to the semantics of words, but of our thoughts, and the nature of the logic which we adhere to today, mostly of Aristotlian propositions. He outlines and differentiates from his system the older, outdated Aristotlian system. This of course, he acknowledges as being a loose generalization of his system. His system takes the revolutionary ideas of great mathemeticians, scientists, philosophers, psychiatrists, and anthropologists, to name a few, and accumulates the knowledge to form a concept he refered to as 'time-binding' or the function of passing information learned in ones lifetime to one's kin, more efficiently. My understanding of the system at this point is still amateur at best, but the potential is damn near infinite. Criticism of the system comes mainly from those who haven't taken the time to apply the principles, and not just ponder them. The genius behind the system is in the application. He utilizes techniques I don't even think were fully understood at the time of writing the book. The use of visualization and non-identification alone in application creates an inner revolution of unspeakable precident, increasing memorization ability, organization of thought, temper reactions to words and memories, and numerous other benefits that can only be experienced.

Rating:
Summary: Arguably the greatest book of the 20th Century.
Review: The first edition of this book appeared in 1933, and the fifth and current edition in 1994. Russell Meyers, the noted neurologist, once described Science And Sanity as "The most profound, insightful, and globally significant book I have ever read." Personally, I can't think of anything that has affected me more than Korzybski's text, with the possible exception of the movie, "Swedish Fly Girls." A dazzling display of knowledge is Science & Sanity -- a great synthesis of learning -- an achievement comparable in some ways to that of Aristotle. Sorry, but it does involve some technicalities about chemistry, physics, and science in general. It's a book that affected Alvin Toffler for one, Margaret Mead, Buckminster Fuller, and so on. Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: TOP Review
Review: The students of Browne and Keeley would have a field day with Korzybski’s work. In fact, anyone attempting to read “Science and Sanity” would do well to have on hand a copy of “Asking the right questions: A guide to Critical Thinking” - to consult with frequently. (That textbook is in its sixth edition, and authored by scholars of no lesser standing than Korzybski.) Open Korzybski’s work at almost any page, and it’s easy to find examples of ad hominem argument, dichotomous thinking, begging the question, and even that notorious failing of novices, the “universal.” For example, Korzybski, with one great paternalistic stroke of his pen, asserts that, “many women are extremely infantile, being poorly developed as human beings.”

I am somewhat bemused here: As I understand it, Aristotle didn’t have a great opinion of women, yet Korzybski claims to have dispensed with Aristotelian thinking entirely. Korzybski adds that, not only are women “exhibitionist” (given to spurious ornament such as “shiny buttons”) they “foster” this failing in the helpless male of the species as well. (Military uniforms have shiny buttons too!) And so Eve takes the fall all over again. Of course, other social groups are not exempt: Korzybski similarly dismisses “primitives” and “mental patients.”

I am comforted to know that there are others (and male at that!) who are prepared to challenge Korzybski’s thinking. Martin Gardner put it very nicely indeed, as reported by the previous reviewer. Perhaps the greatest pity, however, is that Korzybski seems to have been so embittered by his experience of war - in marked contrast to men like Victor Frankl, whose post concentration camp philosophies I am much more inspired to live by.

There is no doubt that language informs behaviour. But, like Plato’s shadows at the back of the cave, semantics have no substance without their source. In my view, Korzybski spends too much time focussing on the shadows.

Rating:
Summary: Substance or Shadow?
Review: The students of Browne and Keeley would have a field day with Korzybski’s work. In fact, anyone attempting to read “Science and Sanity” would do well to have on hand a copy of “Asking the right questions: A guide to Critical Thinking” - to consult with frequently. (That textbook is in its sixth edition, and authored by scholars of no lesser standing than Korzybski.) Open Korzybski’s work at almost any page, and it’s easy to find examples of ad hominem argument, dichotomous thinking, begging the question, and even that notorious failing of novices, the “universal.” For example, Korzybski, with one great paternalistic stroke of his pen, asserts that, “many women are extremely infantile, being poorly developed as human beings.”

I am somewhat bemused here: As I understand it, Aristotle didn’t have a great opinion of women, yet Korzybski claims to have dispensed with Aristotelian thinking entirely. Korzybski adds that, not only are women “exhibitionist” (given to spurious ornament such as “shiny buttons”) they “foster” this failing in the helpless male of the species as well. (Military uniforms have shiny buttons too!) And so Eve takes the fall all over again. Of course, other social groups are not exempt: Korzybski similarly dismisses “primitives” and “mental patients.”

I am comforted to know that there are others (and male at that!) who are prepared to challenge Korzybski’s thinking. Martin Gardner put it very nicely indeed, as reported by the previous reviewer. Perhaps the greatest pity, however, is that Korzybski seems to have been so embittered by his experience of war - in marked contrast to men like Victor Frankl, whose post concentration camp philosophies I am much more inspired to live by.

There is no doubt that language informs behaviour. But, like Plato’s shadows at the back of the cave, semantics have no substance without their source. In my view, Korzybski spends too much time focussing on the shadows.

Rating:
Summary: A great book that one has to get of in order to get into
Review: This book should probably be on any short list of the century's most influential books but would, ironically, never make a list of most read books. A significant number of people did read and internalize the book's message and Korzibsky's thought thus found its way into a number of diverse fields. But despite the wide dissimination of the book's message, the book itself, because it is so dense and difficult, has never had a wide reading audience. In fact, early critics made the point that a book about language and meaning should not have such difficult language that its meaning is difficult to understand. Yet this is the problem that Korzibski faced - having to use language to demonstrate the inherent limitations and dangers of language.

I have read the book, having come to it from a number of popular treatments of Korzybski's work. These at least provided a framework for understanding what otherwise might have been lost to me in the author's stiff prose. The book's most basic message, that 'the map is not the territory' (the Word is not the Thing it represents), can seem trivial when stated simply. However, only a little analysis will suffice to show how easily even very bright people fall into the trap of the 'Is of identity' - the semantic error that is inherent in the syllogistic form of reasoning that makes use of statements of the form 'All A are B, C is A, therefore C is B'. Note that 'is' suggests, and indeed often is taken to be, a statement of identity - that category A is identical in some ways, to category B. This is false. As words, these simply stand for, or 'point to' certain things, which themselves are identical only on the verbal level - the level of conceptual thought - not on the non-verbal level of external reality. Because we must use language to think and communicate with others about that external reality, we always run the risk of confusing what we say about things with the reality that exits independently of our thought.

The full implications of this line of reasoning is vast and extremely important. From the easy to see fallacy of reification, where having a name for something lends it a reality which in fact might not exist, to more complex issues having to do with the levels of abstraction inherent in various forms of thinking/speaking, this book touches on such a multitude of important topics that it is impossible to sum up in a few words.

Those new to the concept of General Semantics might do well to start with one of the popular treatments of the subject such as Hiakawa's Language in Thought and Action. But if one moves on to the primary text the rewards will be many. It 'is' a difficult book, but deeply rewarding

Rating:
Summary: "Whatever you say something 'is' it 'is not'."
Review: We humans have a limited capacity for experiencing and sensing the electro-colloidal energy around and within us. What we "know" with five or fewer senses is not everything that is going on...our limited sensing potential disenables us from getting anything but the 'map' we are capable of drawing based on our bounded sensing capabilities of the electro-colloidal territory. These bounded capabilities are further `limited' by the way we meaning-make. Animals and the technology we have developed tell us more about the `territory' than we are able to perceive.

Korzybski goes on to inform us that all we "know" about anything is structure and therefore the way we "organise" our meaning-making informs the very structure we perceive. This forms part of his Structural Differential which identifies the various levels of abstraction we can operate from and how they can influence other abstractions.

When we introduce language (as a symbol-system) to our meaning-making processes we further abstract from the actual electro-colloidal `events' because "the word is not the thing it describes or represents" and therefore anything that you or I say or think about an object, a person, or an event cannot completely describe it due to our limited sensing and due to the limitations of our usage of words. For example, I can describe in words some of my conscious experiences of smelling a flower or listening to music or riding a bike yet, as Korzybski demonstrates to us, any description (abstraction) of those activities leaves out a considerable amount of detail of the actual experience. Therefore, whatever I say something is to me the words represent a very limited (low resolution) facsimile of the actual experience.

And there is more, much more...

I enjoy reading Science and Sanity and recommend it to anyone. I'm not sure what your experience will be but I am certain that you will have changed considerably after reading it.

Rating:
Summary: The Best of the Best
Review: What amazes me is how this simple book is so often misunderstood. Take Korzybski's theory of time-binding, for example. Time-binding is the actual and potential ability of a life form to transfer knowledge and information at an accelerating rate from generation to generation. Humans have this potential ability, but animals do not, except to a very limited extent. One critic remarked, "Korzybski says animals do not have the ability to "time-bind" (i.e., store information) yet in the same breath he speaks of how Pavlov obtained a conditioned response from his dogs(!)" Of course, I think you can see that a dog learning a conditioned response is not an example of time-binding as defined by Korzybski. In this case, it would only be time-binding if the dog had the capacity to pass on this conditioned response to its off-spring (and if the off-spring had the capacity to refine it and improve upon it, and in turn, pass it on to the next generation of dogs, and so on). Dogs do have a limited ability to pass information to the next generation, e.g., how to go about hunting, but the next generation of dogs does not hunt any better than the previous generation. Their ability to pass information is limited to a very few examples, and it does not accelerate over the generations. A human hunter today with a rifle is a much more powerful hunter than the hunters of 3000 B.C., and time-binding made it possible. Time-binding truly sets human beings apart from the animals.

Well, Korzybski has many mind-expanding formulations like this, and you have to read the book to get the information. If you do, then you will be able to take his ideas, and time-bind them for yourself. Don't let anyone talk you out of reading this book!