The Atlas Society Forums

Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

05-30-2007, 1:21 PM tjohnson Joined on 05-30-2007 Posts 26 General Semantics vs. Objectivism One of the fundamental premises of GS is that there is no such thing as an object in complete isolation - there needs to be at least an observer. Korzybski goes on to say that in order to disprove this statement one would have to produce an object by itself, which is impossible. Comments?    Report

05-30-2007, 2:25 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism This is kind'a like asking us to prove the light goes out when we close the refridgerator door. And, it is not a line of thought that originated with Korzybski. Bishop Berkeley said the same thing and used it to prove that God is always an observer, to allow objects to exist. Limerick: “God in the Quad”—a précis of Berkeley Limerick attributed to Monsignor Ronald Knox -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There once was a man who said, “God Must think it exceedingly odd If He finds that this tree Continues to be When there’s no one about in the Quad.” “Dear Sir: Your astonishment’s odd: I am always about in the Quad And that’s why the tree Will continue to be, Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.” bis bald, Nick    Report

05-30-2007, 4:41 PM tjohnson Joined on 05-30-2007 Posts 26 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism Yes, well I don't know who stated it first I only know that Korzybski used it in GS, but not with respect to God. He also claimed that posing a premise in a negative fashion, like his other basic premise, 'the word is not the thing it represents', puts the burden of proof on anyone who denies it. So again, one would have to produce a word which WAS the thing it represented. I am not a person who believes that the moon does not exist, in an absolute sense, when I turn away etc. and I don't think that was Korzybski's intent. I think he meant it doesn't exist FOR ME, at that moment, when I turn away.    Report

05-30-2007, 5:07 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism Yes, DQ already mentioned this in the thread on Abelard, that a word is like a map. It represents a territory, but it is not the same as the territory. But this also supports the contention that the territory exists independent of words and conscious beings observing it, doesn't it? If there is independent matter, we might be able to prove the existence of a mind to observe it. However, if no matter, then never mind. Get it? Of course, Objectivists never get into this. They declare it self-evident that consciousness and existence exists. To deny it, one must first affirm it, and that's incoherent. Existentialists talk about how we have to exist first before we have knowledge of Ceaser. So, we exist prior to Ceaser. In a way, perhaps the way you mean that Korzybski means it, we bring reality into existence. We put meaning into the world. Yes, there is the sense that the world would exist without us, but there is also a sense that it wouldn't exist without us. At least we wouldn't be able to prove its existence if we didn't exist. Right? bis bald, Nick    Report

05-30-2007, 7:35 PM tjohnson Joined on 05-30-2007 Posts 26 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism In many GS circles, the acronym WIGO (What Is Going On) is used to represent what exists independent of  our consciousness. What we perceive, or abstract from that, are called lower order abstractions.  Then, when we speak about these they are called higher order abstractions. So yes, I agree "we bring reality into existence" during our various abstracting processes.    Report

05-30-2007, 10:57 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism And then when we talk about talking about talking about things, we call it philosophy. I really like S. I. Hayakawa and how he explains levels of abstraction. I talk about it a little in my post about perception, logic, and language. I also get into semantics and linguistics in my post about how language affects thinking. bis bald, Nick    Report

05-31-2007, 8:38 AM tjohnson Joined on 05-30-2007 Posts 26 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism I admit I know very little about Objectivism and have read nothing by Rand - only a few essays and posts on the internet. On the other hand I have been using general semantics daily as a theory of sanity for about 25 yrs. now and I was influenced tremendously by the writings of Alfred Korzybski  (AK) . From what I have read about objectivism I can't help thinking the goals of both disciplines seem quite similar, hence my presence here is to investigate the potential effectiveness of each approach.    Report

05-31-2007, 6:40 PM tjohnson Joined on 05-30-2007 Posts 26 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism Got the following quote from here; http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv "In Objectivist terms, this means a single fundamental issue: in the human realm, one must distinguish the rational from the irrational, the thinkers from the evaders. Such judgment tells one whether a man, in principle, is committed to reality—or to escaping from and fighting it. In the one case, he is an ally and potential benefactor of the living; in the other, an enemy and potential destroyer. Thus the mandate of justice: identify the good (the rational) and the evil (the irrational) in men and their works—then, first, deal with, support and/or reward the good; and, second, boycott, condemn and/or punish the evil. (One aspect of this second policy is the principle of not granting to evil one's moral sanction.)" No wonder there are 'schisms' in the objectivist society, these seem like fightin' words. :-) In GS we try to stay away from 2-valued logic (except in mathematics where it actually works) but look at the example above, it's full of 2-valued orientations. This is just asking for trouble, IMO.    Report

05-31-2007, 7:49 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism Yes, Rand would not approve of using non-Aristotlian logic. She would call AK irrational and immoral. I tried to point this out in Alice in Objectivist Land. bis bald, Nick      Report

05-31-2007, 10:22 PM DonQuixote99 Joined on 04-28-2007 sw Ohio Posts 75 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism I agree, tjohnson.  Several things bother me about the passage you cite. 1. First, the 2-value logic, as you say.  I don't think people are necessairily all good or all evil.  Most people seem to have good and bad points. 2.  Second, implementing the policy described in an ethical way demands that one be unerringly accurate in distingusihing good and evil people.  I would have to know a lot more details on how this is to be done before I could have confidence in the procedure.  I't's obvious enough in Atlas Shrugged--the evil ones all have goofy names.  But in the real world I fear the matter would be more problematic.  My own view is that once one disposes of the obvious twits and villians, there will be a vast number of middling sorts.  One needs a middling policy, so as not to go to war with them unnecessairily, and so as to enjoy the benefits of their potential for good while avoiding tempting them to error.    Report

06-05-2007, 7:41 AM tjohnson Joined on 05-30-2007 Posts 26 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism Yes, a "middling policy" is definitely what we need. Our prison's are already overcrowded, at what point do we stop and say "hmmm... perhaps we need to make some chnges to somehow  prevent the increasing criminal activity". Enter GS and a theory of sanity.    Report

06-06-2007, 7:10 AM DonQuixote99 Joined on 04-28-2007 sw Ohio Posts 75 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism Tjohnson, I can think of changes on the policy level that would alleviate the greatest single sources of prison overcrowding: drug and gun violations.  And I agree that GS training could help  people make better use of abstractions, and avoid muddled thinking that leads sometimes to poor decisions and bad policy.  But I think you meant more on the individual level, that GS could alleviate in some cases the lack of responsibility, lack of empathy, and lack of ethics seen in individual criminals, replacing all that with increased 'sanity.'  Is that what you meant, and if so, could you elaborate more on how that might work?    Report

06-06-2007, 8:31 AM tjohnson Joined on 05-30-2007 Posts 26 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism Well, I see that Objectivism and GS have similar goals - to get people to be more rational and survive and thrive as a human race. But Objectivism appears too rigid, and I realize there are different 'factions', if you will, and maybe some are more rigid than others. There are 'rigid' general semanticists as well - no discipline seems immune to that! I would describe OBJ  as an applied philosophy, in that it was meant to be used daily in 'real' life and not some academic pursuit. This corresponds with GS in that AK had a very dim view of academia in general and was much more impressed with the scientific, pragmatic approach. So therein lies the biggest difference between the two, I think. AK would never speak of 'ethics' per se, but rather would view criminal behaviour as pathological, leading to non-survival as a species. This removes it from moral, judgemental evaluations to a behaviour modification/prevention problem. From the very beginning GS has had it's goal as training in appropriate human reactions for the survival of the human race.    Report

06-09-2007, 10:23 AM DonQuixote99 Joined on 04-28-2007 sw Ohio Posts 75 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism I'm afraid I don't follow your second paragraph, TJ.  You seem to descibe a similar preference for pragmatic vs. academic, and then say 'therein lies the difference.' GS avoids judging people's morals, but it does judge their sanity, I gather?  Maybe we should start with a definition of what GS means by 'sanity.'  Also, 'insanity' defines a sometimes problematical exception to our general structure of rights and responsibilities.  We relieve those judged 'insane' of some responsibility for their actions, but they lose important rights.  At what point does GS feel coercion can be used in the case of individual insanity?    Report

06-10-2007, 8:40 AM tjohnson Joined on 05-30-2007 Posts 26 Re: General Semantics vs. Objectivism You're right, DQ, that 2nd paragraph 'is' confusing I think that AK had a dim view of philosophy in general, but he did respect the work of some philosophers of his time and borrowed from them. I am not well read in philosophy so I can't respond well about this. I believe Cassius J. Keyser was a philosopher of mathematics that AK respected deeply and also Russell and Whitehead. I think probably that AK , for the most part, only saw value in mathematics and science and felt that philosophy, religion, etc., in general,  represented confused, unsane thinking. I see many 'philosophical' premises and arguments of this type in objectivism and therein lies the difference. So both 'rationalist' movements ( as you put it) aim to help the human race but one is based on philosophy and the other is based on science. Is that any better? In GS, 'sanity' basically means systematically NOT confusing orders of abstraction, otherwise known as being 'conscious of abstracting'. So, in good GS form, we are not merely sane OR insane, but rather we need to constantly be conscious of our abstractions and it's possible to have 'insane' or 'unsane' moments (due to confusion of orders of abstraction) In GS there is not mention of how we are to deal with criminals, for example, it is just a general orientation that needs to be present in ALL evaluations that we come across.    Report

Page 1 of 2 (16 items) 1 2 >

The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » General Semantics vs. Objectivism

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Ayn Rand's Ideas |- General Discussion Ayn Rand's Novels |- Atlas Shrugged |- The Fountainhead |- We The Living |- Anthem |- Short Stories and Plays Ayn Rand's Films |- We The Living |- The Fountainhead |- Love Letters |- You Came Along |- Atlas Shrugged Special Interest |- Meet Members |- My Favorite Rand Character |- My Favorite Rand Passage |- If You Like Rand, You'll Like... Summer Seminars |- Summer Seminar 2007 |- Summer Seminar 2008 University Place and PSU