A general semantics glossary.

semantic reaction (s.r.). In formulating his unique system, Korzybski discovered/decided that he had to coin many terms. When he did so, consciously, rigorously formulated those terms so that they would qualify as non-elementalistic; that is, they would not promote new confusions by splitting what we do not find split in the world outside our skulls. (See "Glossary Segment IV" in Et cetera, Spring, 1993, pp. 69-71.) He challenged himself to make his coinages structurally appropriate. He insisted to himself and his readers that his new words would fit what he presumed them to be about. Key among those terms, a formulation central to general-semantics, is what he called the semantic reaction.

Korzybski's initial definition of semantic reaction appears early on in Science and Sanity, (pp. 19-34: if you evaluate yourself as a student of general-semantics, do read those pages). His most succinct statement appears on p. 24:

The working tool of psychophysiology is found in the semantic reaction. This can be described as the psycho-logical reaction of a given individual to words and language and other symbols and events in connection with their meanings, and the psycho-logical reactions, which become meanings and relational configurations the moment the given individual begins to analyze them or somebody else does that for him. It is of great importance to realize that the term 'semantic' is non-elementalistic, as it involves conjointly the 'emotional' as well as the 'intellectual' factors.

Note Korzybski's insistence on avoiding the elementalistic split between 'emotional' and 'intellectual' factors.

A current (1993) TV commercial blatantly emphasizes the 'emotional-feeling' aspects of driving (do you lust for 'power'?) as opposed to the 'intellectual'. Well, the purpose of automobile commercials is to promote car sales, not sane evaluating. Acceleration (exhilaration?) seems the thing. We surely don't want to analyze current (context-driven) road circumstances, road conditions now as opposed to say, ten minutes ago. Yet, in 'real life', our requirements are otherwise.

In three decades of studying and teaching general-semantics, I have had to struggle on-goingly with misunderstandings (mis-evaluations) of this crucial and potentially most helpful term. Students persist in seeing 'having', a 'semantic reaction' as something negative; perhaps on a par with an epileptic seizure. I have known 'teachers' of 'general-semantics' who have lead students in exercises designed to make them clever at distinguishing 'emotions' ('feelings') from 'intellect' ('thoughts'). How Korzybski might groan at what gets done in his name!

Semantic reaction constitutes a 'neutral' nonjudgmental term. As presented by Korzybski, it refers to the total ('emotional'-'intellectual', psycho-logical) response of a human organism to a given stimulus. The semantic reaction, then, constitutes the 'significance' the human organism 'assigns' to whatever stimulates it: situation, passage read in a book, verbalization by a friend, TV commentator, automobile backfire, a touch, etc., etc. -- what for thousands of years of human experience has been called 'meaning'. 'Meanings,' then, constitute evaluations by particular organisms; in a term, semantic reactions.

In our Institute of General Semantics seminars we specify modes of semantic reactions. We differentiate symbol reactions as conditional, i.e., related to circumstances (context), typically delayed as a function of orientation; i.e., human. We further distinguish signal reactions as typically unconditional (immediate) not sufficiently related to existing circumstances, un-delayed, dominated by reflex mechanisms, i.e., animal. We posit the conditional-unconditional continuum, recognizing that we humans can manifest semantic reactions all along the continuum (ruminative-to-spastic), but that for us, so far as habitual (orientation-driven) reactions are concerned, symbol reactions seem more appropriate -- for our survival, for our human-ness.

But, however we characterize these reactions, these evaluations, we are referring to our organism-as-a-whole reactions that constitute 'meanings' for us; our semantic reactions.

There is no way, short of death, to avoid semantic reactions. The question, then, is how would we characterize our typical, habitual semantic reactions? We project our semantic reactions onto our extra-personal environments. Intra-organismically, we generate semantic reactions to our semantic reactions. Thus the need for general-semantics.

We call multiordinal the term semantic reaction and the mechanisms to which it refers. They operate on many mutually-influencing levels. In our next installment we will address this further coinage by Korzybski: the multiordinality of terms and mechanisms.

NOTE

My use of quotation marks in this glossary is in conformity with the conventions of the General Semantics Bulletin. To wit:

SINGLE QUOTES (Extensional device) 1. To mark off terms and phrases which seem to varying degrees questionable for neuro-linguistic, neuro-physiological, method-ological or general epistemological reasons.

2. To mark off terms used metaphorically, playfully, etc. a. 'mind,' 'meaning,' 'space,' or 'time' used alone, etc. b. "...the semantic reaction formulation could serve as a 'bridge'...between Pavlovian classical conditioning and Skinnerian operant conditioning." (Silverman)

SINGLE QUOTES (Standard usage) To indicate a quote within a quote.

DOUBLE QUOTES (Standard usage) 1. To indicate a term or phrase used by some referred-to person but not necessarily indicating a direct quote. Example: What Korzybski referred to as the "semantic reaction." 2. To indicate a direct quotation from a named source.

General Semantics Bulletin, Nos. 44-45, 1978, p.8

Robert Pula edited the General Semantics Bullettin from 1977-1985 and served as director of the Institute of General Semantics from 1983-1986.