Correspondence.

Dear Editor: I write in response to Milton Dawes's "On Time-Binding Consciousness" (July, 2005, ETC). I answer "Yes" to Milton's question, "Do you consider use of general semantics principles non-allness, non-identity, non-elementalism, extensionalizing, dating, indexing, consciousness of abstracting and others, progress in human evaluating?" (p.270). However, in seeking to apply these principles, I (2005) evaluate Korzybski's 1921 Manhood of Humanity: The Science and Art of Human Engineering, as a hubristic philosophical treatise uninformed by any of the general semantics principles he would later formulate.

Many general semantics people on many occasions, including Milton in this article, present Korzybski's early differentiation of humans (time-binding) from other living organisms (space-binding and chemistry-binding) as denoting a hierarchy of classes, with the human class at the top. And they say that the most evolved individuals within the human class are those who practice "consciousness of abstracting."

In my opinion, the biosphere includes humankind as a significant but expendable component. I incline toward the evaluations of Tor Norretranders in The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size (1998, p.335):

    Consciousness and human societies are organizations and
    effectuations of these activities [i.e., gathering food, choosing
    reproductive partners, waste disposal], but always on the premise
    that they have to operate in the cycle comprising living organisms
    on earth. In recent centuries, conscious civilization has permitted
    an evolution of these activities to a degree that has created
    problems for the cycle of the living planet. Pollution, resource
    depletion, and the selection of species to be promoted or not
    [promoted] have altered important flows of matter and energy on the
    planet.

In the human-centric universe of Milton's article, "With time-binding consciousness, we are able to do more time-binding; and, in improving ourselves, contribute our little increment to the sanity of the race." (p.268)

I test my own self-improvement and contributing with questions like these: Do I continue to learn? Do my actions respect others? Do my actions seek right relation with respect to the society and the biosphere to which I belong? Trying my best to listen and observe, do I hear/see evidence that what I do adds value?

Milton cites the benefit of "applying a method" to aid our efforts towards improvement (p.266). I seem to get help when I punctuate my days with pauses to re-ground myself. The rest of the time, behavior flows, mostly without conscious oversight or direction. I have tried different grounding methods at different times and stages in my life. I used to pray, and I continue to try to pray without implying the God of my earlier prayers. Infrequently and irregularly over the last 30+ years, I have spent silent time with a structural differential. Currently, I am trying and I recommend the Eugene Gendlin self-excavation process called "Focusing."

Going forward, may I remain open to the possible power of any method, not only methods currently catalogued under general semantics, that will help me improve and contribute. I thank Milton Dawes and ETC for inviting this response.

PHIL ARDERY

LOUISVILLE, KY

USA

Dear Editor: I was hoping that comments on the article would address the main theme of the article: my proposal that "Time-binding" involves progress, not just passing on information from generation to generation.

Regarding Phil's labeling Manhood of Humanity as a "hubristic philosophical treatise," I cannot abstract enough information from this label to make a lengthier response than to remind Phil that (among other factors) what we find depends a great deal on how we look and what we expect to find--and often we are not aware of our expectations or how we are 'looking.' I also propose that what we 'find' (our abstraction-evaluations at tim[e.sub.2]), depends on how we evaluate what we found (the words read at tim[e.sub.1]). And that the interval between tim[e.sub.1] and tim[e.sub.2] is usually of such a tiny dimension that without the insertion-interference of consciousness of abstracting, or some other re-evaluating, differentiating mechanism, in this interval, we are very likely to treat our evaluation as being the same (identification) with what has been evaluated.

It might help if one read Manhood of Humanity not as philosophy but as a proposal ... Then, in the spirit of the discipline, and specifically "extensionality," follow what is proposed, note the results, and be ready to do some time-binding.

I re-read my article and could not find where I had written that humans were at the top of the hierarchy of life, and that the most evolved individuals within the human class are those who practice "consciousness of abstracting" ... But I might have missed this. Anyway, I will offer this: From our own biased judgment, we could consider ourselves the smartest in some areas (science, mathematics, technology, art, philosophy, etc.) ... But we also behave very stupidly in many areas. In brief, in terms of human behavior over the millennia, I don't consider humans as tops. Our time-binding in many areas is way behind our accomplishments in others. Korzybski's concern regarding this asymmetry resulted in his researching and developing a "General Theory of Time-binding" formulated in the system-discipline "General Semantics," and proposed as a way to correct this imbalance.

MILTON DAWES

MONTREAL, QUEBEC

CANADA

Editor's Note: We welcome letters from readers in response to the Correspondence pages, or to articles in ETC. With regard to the above exchange, some questions to consider are: As Milton Dawes proposes, does time-binding involve progress, not just passing on information from generation to generation? Can you recommend a method of self-evaluation for improving ourselves? How would one develop a personal time-binding consciousness? What can we do to improve how we evaluate and deal with pollution, resource depletion, and other human behaviors that harm our environment? Please send your letters to [e-mail], or P.O. Box 1565, Fort Worth, TX, 76101.