Yes - I did a unit on Hayakawa in 1st Year Behavioural Sciences and have kept my notes to this very day.
Mh, I have tried to read a few chapters of "Science and sanity --- An introduction to non-aristotelian systems and
general semantics" and it was, wee!, difficult. While I "think" to have understood the very basic concept, the full
line of reasoning is beyond my understanding. I have to say that I have no psycho background studies.
I enjoyed the citations in front of each chapter, though.
This is one of my favorites:
One needs only to open the eyes to see that the conquests of
industry which have enriched so many practical men would never have
seen the light, if these practical men alone had existed and if
they had not been preceeded by unselfish devotees who died poor,
who never thought of utility, and yet had a guide far other than
caprice.
H. Poincaré
Semantics are used a great deal in advertising and politics (probably not much different from advertising, when you really get down to it). Different words are used to either elicit positive or negative opinions about particular products and competing political candidates and so on.
Semantics is not the same thing as General Semantics.  Korzybski made a grave mistake when he chose the name of his philosophy, a grave mistake, indeed.  Any good GS practitioner will tell you that it was a mistake.  Time binding, for example, is not part of semantics, although it is part of GS, for example.
Sorry, but I don't agree. Semantics is semantics!
Semantics is not the same thing as General Semantics. Korzybski made a grave mistake when he chose the name of his philosophy, a grave mistake, indeed. Any good GS practitioner will tell you that it was a mistake. Time binding, for example, is not part of semantics, although it is part of GS, for example.
Sorry, but I don't agree. Semantics is semantics!
You aptly illustrate one of the problems that GS was meant to remedy, that people get hung up on the symbols and ignore the fact that the symbol is not the object. Korzybski, himself, expressed regret at having chosen the term "semantics" to refer to his philosophical school. GS is not a branch of semantics, just ask a professional linguist who is familiar with GS.
The idea of nonverbal experience is very intereting. My area of interest is semiotics, which has led me to GS (though not at any great depth, yet).
Semantics is not the same thing as General Semantics.  Korzybski made a grave mistake when he chose the name of his philosophy, a grave mistake, indeed.  Any good GS practitioner will tell you that it was a mistake.  Time binding, for example, is not part of semantics, although it is part of GS, for example.
Sorry, but I don't agree. Semantics is semantics!
You aptly illustrate one of the problems that GS was meant to remedy, that people get hung up on the symbols and ignore the fact that the symbol is not the object.  Korzybski, himself, expressed regret at having chosen the term "semantics" to refer to his philosophical school.  GS is not a branch of semantics, just ask a professional linguist who is familiar with GS.
Very well, I just think it is stupid to call something but a particular name if it isn't the same thing. I don't care about symbols here as semantics or general semantics are just words.
Very well, I just think it is stupid to call something but a particular name if it isn't the same thing. I don't care about symbols here as semantics or general semantics are just words.
[/quote]
Words belong in the catebory "symbols", although not all symbols consist of words. The number of words identical the things in-and-of-themselves (etc.) comprises a very small proportion of our language.
The symbol is not the thing symbolized.
The map is not the territory.
Words are fluid, changing meaning over time and space.
Communication (and mental health) are greatly hampered by ignoring these (and other) GS principles.
it probably suprises you, but I studied Philosophy and whilst I loved Critical Thinking for the ability it gave me to stregthen my arguements and my logical/analtical structures, I don't care much to draw on this. The reason is on a day to day basis I don't need it. When I talk to people generally I am looking at conversing with them at a level which is easy for both. If I take up Uni again, no doubt I will tax my brain cells again. If I have a crisis I may have to use these skills, but by and large? No not really. It is kinda good to have in reserve but I like to take people on their merits and not overly expose their logical flaws or failures in their analysis on things.
It is kinda good to have in reserve but I like to take people on their merits and not overly expose their logical flaws or failures in their analysis on things.
Failure of analysis put Hitler in power.
Oh, Rossco, NOW look what you've done!
I do appreciate what you say and it is not without some merit. However I want you to consider this. I, unlike many here, have striven my entire life to "fit in" best I can. THis mean mask my autism - I do it best I can. This means - I dumb down any talk if it means I can talk comfortably and freely. This means that I don't look for situations that tap into this natural stregnth if it may serve to marginalise me further.
It is not to say there is not a time and place, and that on this basis society ought to relax their intellectual ability to examine the world.
But as a marginalised member of society I will pick and chose my times to exercise this. I don't need ostracising by those people I communicate with on a daily basis.
4:58 Max snap. Been a while since i have seen you mate. Good to see you are still alive and around!
4:58 Max snap. Been a while since i have seen you mate. Good to see you are still alive and around!
I guess I was busy with my year-end audit while you were busy electing Hitler... 
I don't know anything about semantics. But I know a lot about mind and consciousness, which are opposites. Mind is unconsciousness.
Really? And just what professional cognitive science journals does this hypothesis of yours appear in? When I write of mindlessness/mindfulness, I use them as the professional cognitive scientists use the terms. So, if my reading of the professional literature is in error, please point me toward the proper scientific literature.
A good idea can exist, even if it hasn't been documented in scientific literature; however, I also think that Five needs to clarify his point. It is unclear.
Would you expand, Five?
It is kinda good to have in reserve but I like to take people on their merits and not overly expose their logical flaws or failures in their analysis on things.
Failure of analysis is death, not just for one, but sometimes for thousands or millions of people. Failure of analysis put Hitler in power. Failure of analysis--what is also known as "mindlessness" in recent cognitive literature, is fine for people who just want to be industrial drones, but if they have any influence on others, failure of analysis is a recipe for disaster.
In an autocracy or oligarchy, failure of analysis is fine for most people to blithely blunder through life upon. In any society in which decisions of the people are given some weight, it is the way to self-destruction.
We can no longer afford to be a mindless society.
Is that like when people go around with metaphorical "blinkers" on?