The structural differential diagram: part V Sawin's elaboration.

The Time Factor

ON APRIL 26, 1983, I created an elaboration of the structural differential that illustrates a "third dimension" for noticing differences--I call this dimension the "time factor." This elaboration changes the structural differential from a 2-dimensional diagram into a 3-dimensional model. The process level parabola becomes a paraboloid; the object level disk becomes a cylinder, with tags hanging from different parts of the cylinder. (Figure 13).

For consistency, to match the 3-dimensional object level cylinder and the 3-dimensional array of tags, I also changed the 2-dimensional parabola of the original structural differential diagram into a 3-dimensional paraboloid. The parabola and paraboloid represent the same idea--the undifferentiated "stuff" of the universe in constant flux, extending indefinitely.

[FIGUKE 13 OMITTED]

In this elaboration, the object level cylinder represents a constantly changing person who is experiencing (abstracting) some aspects of 'reality' over a period of time (seconds, minutes, hours, or days, etc.). From the back end to the front end of the object level cylinder, each tag represents a label or description at a different point in time (t): [t.sub.1], [t.sub.2], [t.sub.3]. At the first time point ([t.sub.1]), the observer perceives something and describes it in a particular way. Later ([t.sub.2]), based on new information or experience, the observer describes the same thing differently, which reflects a different understanding of that thing; and at a still later time ([t.sub.3]), again the observer creates a new description based on his or her perception (seeing, hearing, tasting, etc.) of changes in that thing (first-hand knowledge), or based on new verbal information, such as statements made by someone else about that thing (second-hand knowledge).

Open-minded, science-oriented, flexible thinkers are aware that their knowledge about something may have become obsolete and inaccurate over a period of time, so they try to make new observations, which they will use to update their descriptions (mental maps) to make them more accurate in relation to the 'facts' of 'reality' (territory).

In contrast, close-minded, rigid thinkers may not make the important distinction between one moment in time and the next. They do not update their nonverbal and verbal maps, but hold on to fixed descriptions, unaware that those 'facts' are abstractions, "snapshots" of a changing territory--they have not learned consciousness of abstracting. For such people, their map is the territory--they believe that what they say about something is it, no more and no less. With their lack of awareness that they abstract, they tend to dogmatically cling to outdated and inaccurate descriptions that would be contradicted by new observations or other up-to-date, reliable information.

As an example of the change-over-time factor, imagine that you are a 13-year-old at [t.sub.1]. At [t.sub.2], you are 40 years old; and at [t.sub.3], you are 70 years old. As you go through life, you are busy abstracting on nonverbal and verbal levels, and you learn from experience. You may try to integrate or reconcile this new information with your previous knowledge, which can lead you to create new and different descriptions, which can lead to new and different inferences and conclusions (attitudes, opinions, theories, beliefs, etc.). Our moment-to-moment experiences with 'reality'--the continuous flow of new nonverbal sense data and new verbal data in the form of spoken and written language, which we abstract through our nervous systems, often lead us to revise our maps (inferences, etc.) about territories (people, things, or events in the world).

This elaboration of the structural differential makes the factor of change over time explicit. Bois wrote about this process of change: "Both the world that surrounds us and our own organism undergo subtle changes from moment to moment, and the relationship between the observer and the observed constantly varies." (1, p.80) The time factor relates to Hayakawa's statement, that there is "... no necessary connection between the symbol and that which is symbolized." (2, p.22) Not only is the map (symbol) an abstraction of the territory, the territory constantly changes but a conventional map does not. Therefore, an old map, which may have been relatively accurate when someone created it ([t.sub.1]), may be less accurate now ([t.sub.3]).

Safer Driving

Consider this example of how awareness of the time factor can be applied to driving.

You are driving on the freeway with cars all around you ([t.sub.1]). You want to change lanes. You are aware that a nearby car could make a quick move, such as a lane change, which could jeopardize the safety of your lane change. At this point ([t.sub.2]), you observe that it appears safe to change lanes; but a fraction of a second later ([t.sub.3]), the situation is different because someone has suddenly swerved into the lane you wanted, so you immediately abandon your plan and avoid an accident, and you wait for another chance to change lanes. This is why double-checking (to update your mental maps) is so important when driving.

Although Korzybski did not include the time factor in the structural differential diagram, he noted the importance of being aware of time-related differences: "In a world of processes ... it follows that no individual, 'object,' event, etc., can be the 'same' from one moment to the next." (3, p.li)

Korzybski also said this about representing the time factor in a diagram: "... 'time' may very well be represented geometrically, except that our diagrams and figures look a little different. For instance, a flat circular orbit in two-dimensional 'space' becomes a helix in three-dimensional space-time.... 'Time', when properly represented, becomes simply another geometrical dimension." (3, p.645; "flat circular" relates to the object level disk, and the "helix" relates to the object level cylinder. Also see fig. 17 in ref. 3, p.629.) Therefore, I believe that my elaboration of the structural differential is consistent with the formulations of general semantics.

Conclusion

Awareness of differences and changes in three dimensions can help us deal more effectively with everyday life. My final version of the structural differential is a composite of all three dimensions. (Figure 14)

By now, you may be thinking, "I already know about making these types of distinctions. Obviously, the word is not the thing (Dimension 1); Dog[.sub.1] is not identical to Dog[.sub.2] (Dimension 2); people, things, situations, etc., change over time (Dimension 3). Why go to so much trouble to explain these simple facts?"

My answer is that many people speak and act as if they do not know these simple things; so their maps do not fit the territory, and their behavior often does not achieve the desired results.

[FIGUKE 14 OMITTED]

If we learn and internalize these general semantics principles as habits of evaluation, we can perceive, think, and communicate with greater skill, which should help us cope more successfully with daily challenges and empower us to achieve a better quality of life.

This concludes Gregory Sawin's 5-part series on the Structural Differential Diagram.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

REFERENCES

1. J. Samuel Bois, The Art of Awareness: A Textbook on General Semantics and Epistemics (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 3rd edition 1978).

2. S. I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 4th edition 1978).

3. Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Co., 1933, 4th edition 1958), distributed by the Institute of General Semantics.

* Gregory Sawin, author of many ETC articles, serves as Assistant Editor of ETC and VP/Publications of ISGS. His book, Thinking & Living Skills: General Semantics for Critical Thinking, is available from ISGS. He is Assistant Editor of the Administration and Policy in Mental Health journal, and also works as a freelance medical editor. He wishes to thank Dr. Bruce I. Kodish for his 1993 and 2001 critiques of the manuscript, and Jeremy Klein and Paul D. Johnston for their editorial assistance.