General semantics: a general theory of evaluation.

"Human evaluational (or semantic) reactions provide the basic unit of study for general semantics."

**********

Some people think of general semantics (GS) as being "just about words," but in fact it involves much more. Although concern with words and language remains a vital part of general semantics, that is only "the tip of the iceberg." The below-the-surface part of the "iceberg" focuses on the non-verbal world--what goes on in ourselves and our universe before we use words to describe it, think about it, etc. With general semantics we explore relations between the non-verbal and the verbal, including our verbal and non-verbal transactions--how we evaluate.

"Evaluation" implies both 'intellectual' and 'emotional' factors as inseparable aspects of human behavior. Even mathematics and science, as forms of human behavior, have 'emotional' content. (Want to see some passionate discussions?--go to a convention of mathematicians and scientists.) The practical study of human evaluation in science and in daily life defines the field of general semantics.

In Manhood of Humanity Korzybski called this field, with its basis in time-binding, "human engineering," Later, he called it "humanology." However, due to his focus on evaluation, by the time of Science and Sanity's publication in 1933 he had renamed his system of formulations "general semantics"--two words used as a unified term. He subtitled the book An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics.

Supporters and critics alike have continually confused Korzybski's use of "semantic(s)" in "general semantics" with other uses of the word which refer to linguistic 'meaning,' the history of words, etc. To say that "something is a matter of semantics" implies 'just a quibble' about words. Because of this confusion, labeling his system "general semantics" may constitute Korzybski's biggest error.

Even a quibble about 'words' involves much more than words, much more than isolated verbal consequences. The term 'semantic(s)' as used in "general semantics," "semantic reactions," etc., functions as a synonym for evaluation(al). Thus general semantics constitutes a general theory of evaluation, such evaluation involving people's inseparable thinking-feelings in a particular context.

I find it useful to contrast "evaluation, evaluational" as used in GS with the current use of the terms "cognition, cognitive" in the field of Cognitive Science. The common, habitual interpretation of 'cognition' tends to separate 'intellectual' from 'emotional' factors. Such a separation is explicitly denied in GS.

GS constitutes an applied general theory of human evaluation and awareness. In ways that may seem odd to conventional views of mathematics and science, GS looks at the meeting point of scientific-mathematical methods and daily life. This provides ways for us humans to more fully develop our critical and creative potentialities and to cooperate to achieve optimal time-binding.

"The Astonishing Hypothesis"

Human evaluational (or semantic) reactions provide the basic unit of study for general semantics. Evaluational reactions involve neurologically based responses of an organism-as-a-whole-in-an-environment (you, me, every living individual on the planet) to words, symbols, and other events in terms of their 'meanings,' significances, etc., to each of us.

'Meanings' or significances in this sense are not merely verbal. Words and symbols considered as products of human behavior inevitably occur in association with what J. S. Bois called "happening-meanings"--organic, neural processes which correlate with language symbols but do not themselves qualify as what people normally refer to as 'language'. (1) Rather, these happening-meanings consist of neurological reactions which include so-called 'intellectual,' 'emotional,' 'physiological,' and 'physico-chemical' aspects, etc., inseparable from one another.

Read the following sentences slowly while imagining what the words describe.

I see, smell and touch a ripe, yellow, juicy lemon. I take a knife and cut through the skin, releasing the lemony smell. The juice drips onto my knife. I bite into the lemon and the sour juice makes me pucker ...

What physiological aspects of your evaluational reactions to these words (happening-meanings) do you notice?

I eschew the traditional division of 'mind' and 'body.' Can you show a 'mind' separate from a 'body'? What assumptions do you engage if you continue using those terms which can so easily imply separate entities?

Korzybski had a seminar student who insisted that he had a 'mind' separate from his 'body.'

"Give it to me!" Korzybski said.

"I can," the student replied peevishly, "but I don't want to." (2)

Naturalistic humanists would do well to follow general semanticists here. Our so-called 'mental' life has a physiological or bodily basis in nervous system functioning. Korzybski proposed that it can be understood most accurately in terms of neuro-evaluational (neuro-semantic) reactions built upon electro-colloidal structures.

We now know much more about the structure of the nervous system than was known in Korzybski's time. Nowadays scientists acknowledge the colloidal behavior of cellular stuff while focusing in much more detail on the behavior of particular colloidal structures--macromolecules such as proteins, etc. Korzybski recognized the tentativeness of his discussion in these areas. (3)

Nonetheless, his basic assumptions regarding colloidal behavior and neurology still hold. We constitute living stuff- the stuff that dreams, 'life,' 'mentality,' 'logic,' etc., are made on. This stuff has 'material,' physical-chemical structure. This implies that 'culture' and 'biology,' 'nurture' and 'nature' don't exist in separate realms. What we think-feel (evaluate), say and do result from, indeed constitute, organic processes. What we and others do and say, in turn, must affect as, not through some 'immaterial' 'mental' processes, but neurologically, physiologically, physico-chemically, etc. (Korzybski coined the non-elementalistic term "psycho-logic(s)" to emphasize the non-separation of 'logical' from neuropsychological processes.)

Thus, very early in the twentieth century, he was already emphasizing what Francis Crick later called "the astonishing hypothesis" that:

   ... all feelings and thoughts are essentially the behavior of an
   enlarged set of nerve cells, neurons, and their associated molecules
   and other cells in your brain. One has to say two things: It's
   really not astonishing to a lot of scientists, especially
   neuroscientists who work on the brain; it's what they normally
   assume. On the other hand, if you take the ordinary citizen, in
   general, not only is it regarded as astonishing, he or she decides
   it is almost certainly false. (4)

In emphasizing the neuro aspect in how we talk about evaluating, GS formulating does not require that all thinking-feeling must be completely localized in the brain--that part of the nervous system inside the skull--which could imply a 'brain'-rest-of-'body' dualism inconsistent with the facts of neurobiology today. (5) Although "the pain in sprain is mainly in the brain," events related to that experience may not be solely located there. Such events are distributed throughout the nervous structure of the organism and involve other physiological systems as well. (6)

This viewpoint also considers socio-cultural factors as facts in their own right which affect individuals through neurological, organic means.

Korzybski saw "the astonishing hypothesis" as an intrinsic part of his work and made significant efforts to spread knowledge of it as a basic aspect of his teaching. He contended that if one wishes to act more sanely, each individual needs to understand and have a language for talking about the mechanisms of his or her reactions. Because of this, he felt it crucial for the sanity of the human race that ordinary citizens as well as scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers evaluate and talk about themselves and what they do from a neurological, neuro-evaluational standpoint.

To my knowledge, no one before or after Korzybski, except for some of his students, has stressed to a similar degree the importance of applying this neuro-evaluational, psycho-logical understanding to how we view and talk about all behavior: mathematics, science, and everyday life included.

The Structural Differential 

Shortly after the publication of Manhood of Humanity, Korzybski devised a model of the neurological process of human evaluation. He originally built this model out of metal, wood, strings, etc. He came to label it "the structural differential" because it shows the different primary structural levels involved in human experience and knowledge (what he called the process of abstracting). The structural differential on the next page appears substantially like Korzybski's pictorial representations. The labels for the different levels, although based on Korzybski's terminology, were chosen by me and my wife originally for Dr/re Yourself Sane. In Chapter 11 of Dare to Inquire, where I discuss the process of abstracting in greater detail, I present another visual model, based in part on the structural differential. For now, I provide a brief description of the levels of the differential.

According to the best, current, scientifically inferred knowledge, you and everyone and everything else constitute dynamic energy systems--fields within fields of activity within a larger cosmic process--built up from relationships of sub-microscopic events. We call this whirl of activity the Event or Process Level.

Out of this whirl, individuals perceive/create their sense of 'things,' 'objects,' phenomena, etc. From a given 'common' event, each of us abstracts differently and so constructs a different experience. Some particulars get included, some left out--indicated by the connected and unconnected strings. At this perceiving level, we sense but have no words for our experiences. You have probably had the experience of "knowing" something and yet feeling unable to convey this to someone else adequately; you may say, "It's hard to put into words," at such times. We call this the silent, Object Level, or the level at which we non-verbally experience objects and other macroscopic phenomena inside, outside and on our skins. At this level we can see, touch, taste, smell or otherwise experience with more or less unaided senses. The circle on the left represents the animal object level.

We do put many things into words, and this ability represents a central difference between us and other forms of life. Other animals do not appear to have our elaborated symbolic-linguistic abilities. We humans can use language; we can operate at Verbal Levels.

As an example, let's talk about bananas. Imagine a banana on your kitchen counter. From childhood, we learn to label and describe what we perceive. We learn, for example, that this thing we can point to, touch, and eat is called a banana. We can call this use of language the Descriptive Level or the level of statements of 'facts.' We also learn to make inferences about our experiences. For example, in learning that what we call a banana tastes good, we might infer that when we see something else that looks like what we call a banana, this something else will taste good too. Let's call this Inference Level1. We might generalize that certain things shaped similarly but looking somewhat different are all called bananas. We can form "theories"; for example, the theory that anything we see which looks like what we've learned to call a banana will also taste good. Based on this questionable inference, we may take a bite out of a plastic 'banana' or a rotten one. Let's call this Inference Level (2). We can think or talk about each of these levels of experience, and then think or talk about our thinking and talking, make inferences about our inferences, etc. Theoretically, this process can go on unendingly. So we say Et Cetera.

When we function at our best, we use our ability to differentiate our evaluations in this way to lead us back to events and our silent-level experiences and observations of them (represented by the arrows going back toward the Event). This helps us to eat bananas we find delicious and avoid eating the plastic or rotten ones. These different levels occur together. However, we often are not aware of them or of how they affect our lives. Using GS we focus our attention on them. The Structural Differential provides a visual tool which can help to separate out the different levels of existence and experience in order to understand them better and function more effectively.

Einstein's Model

As Stuart Mayper showed, this model of the abstracting-evaluating process seems remarkably similar to that of Einstein's model of thinking. (8) As shown below, Mayper flipped the Structural Differential around, which makes it easier to see how the elements of Einstein's model of thinking map onto it. While Einstein's model emphasizes the scientist's process of making conjectural jumps from experience, applying 'logic', and then testing against experience, the Structural Differential emphasizes the structure of the underlying neuro-psycho-logical process of abstracting through which this takes place. The movement from E (experience), to J (the conjectural jump) to A (assumptions, axioms, theoretical models) to S (statements about experience deduced from A) and back to E again (testing against experience) is shown on the two diagrams side-by-side.

Korzybski's Legacy

After publishing Science and Sanity, Korzybski worked intensively with individuals and seminar groups, seeking to find out to what extent his system worked. The importance of language as a neuro-evaluative 'lever,' of having the courage of one's assumptions, and of questioning them, remained key to his teaching and writing. He founded the Institute of General Semantics in 1938 in Chicago--in 1946 moving it to Lime Rock, Connecticut, where he continued writing and teaching individuals and groups until his death on March 1, 1950.

In "A Memoir: Alfred Korzybski & His Work," Korzybski's close coworker, M. Kendig, wrote:

   The circumstances of his death, it so happened, were symbolic of his
   life and work. In working with students, he exhibited a tremendous
   power of caring about any individual bit of humanity before him. He
   was continuously aware that some infantile evaluation he might be
   struggling to change in an individual mirrored a symptom from the
   social syndrome. He spent the last few hours of his life at his desk
   working on such a problem. In his non-elementalistic orientation,
   the individual and society were split verbally only for convenience.
   Empirically, they could no more be split in the world of facts than
   space and time, psyche and soma, heredity and environment, etc. To
   him, no human problems were 'insignificant' problems. Thus the
   intensity, the warmth of his social feelings, the lavish extravagant
   ways he spent himself. He died Match first at three o'clock in the
   morning. He had lived for 70 years, 7 months and 29 days. (10)

In Part II of Dare to Inquire, I provide a broad but detailed thematic overview of the legacy which Korzybski left us--the general theory/discipline of evaluation, which became known as "general semantics." The theory was already present in less-well-developed form in Korzybski's earlier writings. It is based upon the foundations of time-binding, logical fate, scientific-mathematical attitudes and worldview, the neuro-evaluational view, and the structural differential. In Science and Sanity and later writings, Korzybski developed a consciously integrated system of formulations, exploring their connections, implications and applications in more rigorous language and detail. The system has a kind of fractal structure. Each formulation is related to others and has relations with the whole.

I hope my discussion of the development, shape and implications of the GS system will stimulate you to explore Korzybski's legacy--and, more importantly, to apply it.

NOTES

(1.) Bois, J. Samuel. (1957) Explorations in Awareness. San Francisco: International Society for General Semantics, p.46.

(2.) Korzybski, Alfred. (1948/1949) Intensive Seminar. Audio tapes, unedited; 37 hours, recorded December 27, 1948-January 2, 1949. Brooklyn, NY: Institute of General Semantics.

(3.) See Korzybski (1994) (1933) Science and Sanity. Brooklyn, NY: Institute of General Semantics, pp.111,456; Hauser, Ernst A. (1950) Korzybski's Relation to Colloid Chemistry. General Semantics Bulletin 4 & 5, pp.6-8. Available at http://www.general-semantics.orgg Mordkowitz, Jeffrey A. (1990). "Korzybski, Colloids and Molecular Biology." General Semantics Bulletin 55, p.88. Available at http://www.general-sema,dcs.org; and Lewis, Steven (1995). "Jacques Loeb's Influence on Korzybski." http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/pennvalley/biology/lewis/loeb.htm.

(4.) Crick, Francis. (1994) "Francis Crick on the Workings of the Brain." Free Inquiry, 14 (4), p.18.

(5.) Damasio, Antonio R. (1994) Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York: Avon Books.

(6.) Robert Pula coined the memorable phrase, "the pain in sprain is mainly in the brain." (Lecture Notes). Pula has emphasized the importance of not turning the unity of the nervous system-organism into an undifferentiated 'mush'. He emphasizes rather its particularity (specificity) of structure. "Two main descriptive characteristics of the nervous system are plasticity and specificity of structure, all manifested as dynamic processes. Nervous system events do not happen 'all at once' but over localizable-temporal space-time" (Personal Note). This and other important structural facts about the human nervous system were also noted by Korzybski (Korzybski, Science and Sanity, p.161).

(7.) Modified from Korzybski's Structural Differential Diagram. Used with permission from the Institute of General Semantics and the Alfred Korzybski Literary Estate.

(8.) See Mayper, Stuart A. (1980) "The Place of Aristotelian Logic in Non-Aristotelian Evaluating: Einstein, Korzybski, and Popper." General Semantics Bulletin 46, pp. 106-110. Also see Dare to Inquire, pp. 109-112.

(9.) Used with permission of the Institute of General Semantics and the General Semantics Bulletin.

(10.) Kendig, M. (1950) "A Memoir: Alfred Korzybski and His Work," in Manhood of Humanity. Brooklyn, NY: Institute of General Semantics, pp.xxxiv-xxxv.

BRUCE I. KODISH *

* Bruce I. Kodish, Ph.D., P.T., practices physical therapy and teaches the Alexander Technique of posture-movement education in Pasadena, California. Co-author of Drive Yourself Sane: Using the Uncommon Sense of General Semantics, he serves as a Senior Editor of the General Semantics Bulletin and on the teaching staff of the Institute of General Semantics. Dr. Kodish's book, Back Pain Solutions: How to Help Yourself with Posture-Movement Therapy and Education, Extensional Publishing, 2001, applies general semantics to the problem of activity-related musculoskeletal pain. This article has been adapted with permission of the author from Chapter Nine of his new book, Dare to Inquire: Sanity and Survival for the 21st Century and Beyond, published by Extensional Publishing, Pasadena, CA. Copyright [c] 2003 by Bruce I. Kodish.