Customer Reviews

Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

In his book, Science and Sanity, Alfred Korzybski succeeds in presenting to his readers a distillation of many seemingly diverse branches of knowledge, including: Anthropology, Biology, Education, Logic, Mathematics, Neurology, Physics, Physiology, Psychiatry, Semantics, etc.

Specialists in the above mentioned disciplines may be disappointed or even insulted at Korzybski's general, integrative style. However, Korzybski was mainly concerned about extracting the aspects of the above mentioned disciplines that have the most human value.

Korzybski's attitude was definitely NOT "science for science's sake." Instead, he sought to integrate diverse branches of knowledge into a system that would be simple enough to teach to young children, so that each young child would begin life with the knowledge and wisdom that took the human race centuries of labor to achieve. Of course, if this goal could actually be achieved, the progression and survival of the human race would be greatly enhanced!

Although Science and Sanity is certainly a difficult book to read and understand, Korzybski's system can be easily taught to young children. The reason for this is that Korzybski summarized his system as a non-verbal diagram. Probably, the wisdom of thousands of books are represented non-verbally on that diagram!

It's true that one must know what the different parts of the diagram represent in order to appreciate or understand it; however, Korzybski's system is certainly unique in that one can explain the system to another while referring (pointing) to a diagram. This visual aid, called the Structural Differential, could be used in the education of young children as a way of simply and easily imparting "the wisdom of the ages."

Note: Science and Sanity uses some abbreviations throughout the book. There are charts on pages 15 and 16 that explain these. Don't miss those charts, or you'll miss the whole book!

I first read this book over 25 years ago, and it stunned me. Only a fool or the bitterest cynic could come away from this book unchanged. Whether or not you agree with all or even some of its premises and conclusions, Science and Sanity will make you keenly aware of language, psychology, and communication in all aspects of your life. You will realize how little most people know or understand about the deep and complex role language plays at home and on the world stage. This book will give you a different platform to stand on. Yes, it is a difficult book to read, but like another difficult book, Samuel Hahnemann's timeless Organon of the Medical Art, it rewards the patient and thoughtful reader in countless subtle ways over the course of time. I'd rate this book in my top ten books of a lifetime spent reading everything under the sun.

This book should probably be on any short list of the century's most influential books but would, ironically, never make a list of most read books. A significant number of people did read and internalize the book's message and Korzibsky's thought thus found its way into a number of diverse fields. But despite the wide dissimination of the book's message, the book itself, because it is so dense and difficult, has never had a wide reading audience. In fact, early critics made the point that a book about language and meaning should not have such difficult language that its meaning is difficult to understand. Yet this is the problem that Korzibski faced - having to use language to demonstrate the inherent limitations and dangers of language.

I have read the book, having come to it from a number of popular treatments of Korzybski's work. These at least provided a framework for understanding what otherwise might have been lost to me in the author's stiff prose. The book's most basic message, that 'the map is not the territory' (the Word is not the Thing it represents), can seem trivial when stated simply. However, only a little analysis will suffice to show how easily even very bright people fall into the trap of the 'Is of identity' - the semantic error that is inherent in the syllogistic form of reasoning that makes use of statements of the form 'All A are B, C is A, therefore C is B'. Note that 'is' suggests, and indeed often is taken to be, a statement of identity - that category A is identical in some ways, to category B. This is false. As words, these simply stand for, or 'point to' certain things, which themselves are identical only on the verbal level - the level of conceptual thought - not on the non-verbal level of external reality. Because we must use language to think and communicate with others about that external reality, we always run the risk of confusing what we say about things with the reality that exits independently of our thought.

The full implications of this line of reasoning is vast and extremely important. From the easy to see fallacy of reification, where having a name for something lends it a reality which in fact might not exist, to more complex issues having to do with the levels of abstraction inherent in various forms of thinking/speaking, this book touches on such a multitude of important topics that it is impossible to sum up in a few words.

Those new to the concept of General Semantics might do well to start with one of the popular treatments of the subject such as Hiakawa's Language in Thought and Action. But if one moves on to the primary text the rewards will be many. It 'is' a difficult book, but deeply rewarding

I would first like to say that I read this book at the age of 17 and understood it rather easily; so for me, it was not a difficult book. I would describe it as densely packed, but not particularly difficult. The author has specific instructions on how to read the book -- and even what to do if you don't understand something -- and so if you follow these instructions, you should do fine.

One of the fundamental notions presented in Science and Sanity is that we always see the world through the altering prism of our nervous system; that is, we never experience the world directly, but only through the lense of our 'abstractions' (our individual nervous system's responses to the world). When we talk or think, the world is further altered (abstracted) by the language or words we use in dealing with our nervous system's responses. And because in words we can talk or think about the words and thoughts we have used previously, our abstractions can build on previous abstractions, and extend into many orders or iterations. Therefore, because our thoughts and our words are abstractions from what we are thinking or talking about, and because we don't experience the world directly (but only through the prism of our individual nervous systems), there exists an unavoidable element of uncertainty in even our best statements. They are "from our point of view" so to speak, not "the way it is."

I think you can see from this discussion that Korzybski was trying to generalize Einstein's and Heisenberg's notions of relativity and uncertainty (in science) to the whole of life in its myriad aspects (and create a system to train us in that attitude). Not only is "beauty in the eye of the beholder," everything is in the eye of the beholder. This does not mean that all abstractions from different people are of equal value in Korzybski's system (though all are relative or somewhat uncertain). He values most the abstractions that have the highest predictive value; the ones that seem to fit the 'facts' of our world the best. And thus his quest to impart the attitudes and values of science in our everyday reactions; for instance, the attitude that says, "I don't know, let's see," one of his favorite expressions.

Now, if you find the previous discussion interesting, then I would recommend the book. If you do not find it interesting, then I would not recommend it.

But regardless of my recommendation, I would point out that everything I have said here is just a reflection of my individual abstractions or reactions to Science and Sanity; they are not "it." Note that no two reviews (abstractions of the book) at this site are even close to being identical, and some are wildly different. So, in this case, the best use of the "I don't know, let's see" response (if that is an attitude that you would like to cultivate in your life) would be to get the book and see for yourself (make you own abstractions).

Like some of the other reviewers, I first read S. I. Hayakawa's classic "Language in Action" (later updated to "Language in Thought and Action") before wondering who Alfred Korzybski was and why Hayakawa spoke so highly of him. Eventually I bought "Science and Sanity" from the Institute for General Semantics and read straight through the book in two days.

I am over 50 years old, so I learned to read and write well during my high school years, largely because I didn't watch much television. I had no trouble reading korzybski's book quickly, in spite of its rather large size. The TV generation, though, may just not have the attention span for a book such as this. Too bad for them!

Korzybski warns the reader early in the book that it contains serious material, and so it does. I found his treatment of "infinity" and "variables" alone worth the effort of reading the book. His material on Ivan Pavlov gave me new information on the contributions of that neglected genius. His treatment of Bertrand Russell's "propositional function" and "theory of types" inspired me to actually read Russell on these subjects. His principles of general semantics have provided me with a useful framework for analyzing early Buddhist psychology, the theme of my Master's Degree thesis.

Korzybski, like Hayakawa and Wendell Johnson, advocates elimination of the "is" of identity and the "is" of predication from our language. Unfortunately, they went on using the verb "to be" in their own writing and this somewhat detracted from the weight their message might otherwise have carried. Still, Korzybski's student, D. David Bourland, Jr., went on to pioneer the use of E-Prime (English without the "is") and I can testify to the worth of following his example. Aristotle's superstitious ghost can now rest in peace.

Korzybski could have written better than he did, but then, the value of the book lies in the ideas he proposed and the intelligent men he inspired. That he failed to spoon-feed those suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder, a modern euphemism for too much television, says more about weak readers than it does about his poor (if indeed we can call it that) writing.

Read the book once, then read it again, and then start putting general semantics to work in your own reading, writing, and--most importantly--thinking. If you don't do anything else in your life, get rid of the verb "to be" and you will have gotten more from Korzybski than you will ever get from another author. The rest of the book will then just amount to layers of frosting on the cake. Warning, though! Once you do, you will hardly ever again read a book or listen to another person speak without recoiling from the dogmatism they espouse with every use of that malignant little Aristotelian invitation to identification, rationalization, and objectification.

So, I read the selections from Science and Sanity, and I realize, damn this book is amazing. One would be wise to ask, What is the importance of generalities, or in other words, how important is a general understanding of the position mankind is in at this-very-moment(1933). Of the information and knowledge, the engineering, history, and science, which influences every moment of our day, from when we wake till when we sleep. Korzybski accumulated a large amount of information for the developement of a system, which not only gives a general outline of the evolution of science and math, up to 1933, but still holds weight to this very day.
General semantics, does not refer to the semantics of words, but of our thoughts, and the nature of the logic which we adhere to today, mostly of Aristotlian propositions. He outlines and differentiates from his system the older, outdated Aristotlian system. This of course, he acknowledges as being a loose generalization of his system. His system takes the revolutionary ideas of great mathemeticians, scientists, philosophers, psychiatrists, and anthropologists, to name a few, and accumulates the knowledge to form a concept he refered to as 'time-binding' or the function of passing information learned in ones lifetime to one's kin, more efficiently. My understanding of the system at this point is still amateur at best, but the potential is damn near infinite. Criticism of the system comes mainly from those who haven't taken the time to apply the principles, and not just ponder them. The genius behind the system is in the application. He utilizes techniques I don't even think were fully understood at the time of writing the book. The use of visualization and non-identification alone in application creates an inner revolution of unspeakable precident, increasing memorization ability, organization of thought, temper reactions to words and memories, and numerous other benefits that can only be experienced.

I've read this book three times, but I do not have the professional or academic qualifications to verify the author's rarified theoretical assertions. That said, I *can* verify that some of the techniques described in S&S have assisted me often in problem solving. Some will dismiss this claim as mere anecdotal evidence, but i believe it has enough indirect support to warrant further investigation. See the high success rates of therapeutic techniques in the cognitive-behavioural psychologies, which use principles equivalent to those of g-s. (For what it's worth, I do not know of a more effective nondrug therapeutic orientation than cognitive-behavioural psychology.) To korzybski's credit, however, he was concerned centrally not with therapeutic methods, but with preventive and educational methods.

I believe the strength of his system lies in its accessibility to children and uneducated people. It provides a simple evaluative framework that does not rely on a priori religious or animalistic assumptions about `human nature'. Nevertheless, do not expect your kids or your run-of-the-mill blue collar worker to read S&S. Although Korzybski said this work was intended for the "average intelligent layman," that seems too generous -- he draws frequently from findings in psychiatry, physics, higher mathematics, neurology and similar abstruse fields. If a nonacademic person truly is motivated to read S&S, I would recommend keeping a comprehensive dictionary on hand.

Many issues are addressed by the author. I believe here he made his greatest mistake and he acknowledged this in places -- especially when he said the aims of his work exceeded the energy of any one man. I wonder how many mistakes he made in S&S in his over-exertion and his desire to see his life's work come to fruition.

I recommend taking lightly the extremists of the pro and con camps, both represented in these reviews. This includes those who consider korzybski a `paradigmatic genius', as well those who dismiss the whole of g-s because korzybksi sometimes made foolish claims, or because some of its followers act in a dogmatic or `cultish' manner. Both types seem of a similar coin to me.

Ultimately, S&S should be read with some prior knowledge of the issues with which korzybski deals. It would find its best context in a broad curriculum of humanism, materialism and naturalism.

Ms. M. Kendig said:

"What about Science and Sanity 1971?"

"Last spring, reflecting on that question, I dashed off a note on 'Up-Dating an Open-Ended System.' Before I could revise it for publication I got a letter from Russell Meyers and - happily for me - he included his 1971 evaluations of S & S - some paralleling my own, some going far beyond what I'd dare write as a layman, lacking (as I do) Dr. Meyers' professional qualifications in neuro-medical sciences and as a 'learned generalist'. I quote him in full below."

Dr. Russell Meyers said:

"...I have just re-read Science and Sanity (my 8th run) and am so deeply impressed with it as to now say, without reservation, that, disregarding its rhetoric (in the main, its repetitious statements), it is far and away the most profound, insightful and globally significant book I have ever read.

"With some knowledge of the interim developments of science and the socio-political events that have materialized since 1933, I can say in retrospect that any modifications that might now have to be made in the original text would be trivial, mainly technological supplements; none in principle ('structure'-as-function). A.K. has proved far more a prophet than he would ever have allowed himself to fancy. What a tremendous breadth and depth of insight, analytic and synthetic achievement!" [June 1971]

The late Russell Meyers, MD, FSC, was Chief of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Williamson Appalachian Regional Hospital, 1963-; formerly Chairman, Division of Neurosurgery, and Professor of Surgery, University of Iowa, 1946-1963. [Dr. Meyers died in 2001, I believe.]

We humans have a limited capacity for experiencing and sensing the electro-colloidal energy around and within us. What we "know" with five or fewer senses, is not everything that is going on. Our limited sensing potential disenables us from getting anything but the 'map' we are capable of drawing based on our bounded sensing capabilities of the electro-colloidal territory. These bounded capabilities are further `limited' by the way we meaning-make. Animals and the technology we have developed tell us more about the `territory' than we are able to perceive.

Korzybski goes on to inform us that all we "know" about anything is structure. Therefore, the way we "organise" our meaning-making informs the very structure we perceive. This forms part of his Structural Differential which identifies the various levels of abstraction we can operate from and how abstracting can influence our other abstractions.

When we introduce language (linguistic expression as a symbol-system) to our meaning-making processes, we further abstract from the actual electro-colloidal `events' because "the word is not the thing it describes or represents" and therefore anything that you or I say or think about an object, a person, or an event cannot completely describe the experience because our sensing is limited, and even more limited is our linguistic expressions to describe that which we experience.

For example, I can describe in words some of my conscious experiences of smelling a flower or listening to music or riding a bike. Yet, as Korzybski demonstrates to us, any description (abstraction) of those activities leaves out a considerable amount of detail of the actual experience. Therefore, whatever I say something is to me the words represent a very limited (low resolution) facsimile of the actual experience.

And there is more, much more...

I enjoy reading Science and Sanity and recommend it to anyone. I'm not sure what your experience will be but I am certain that you will have changed considerably after reading it.

What amazes me is how this simple book is so often misunderstood. Take Korzybski's theory of time-binding, for example. Time-binding is the actual and potential ability of a life form to transfer knowledge and information at an accelerating rate from generation to generation. Humans have this potential ability, but animals do not, except to a very limited extent. One critic remarked, "Korzybski says animals do not have the ability to "time-bind" (i.e., store information) yet in the same breath he speaks of how Pavlov obtained a conditioned response from his dogs(!)" Of course, I think you can see that a dog learning a conditioned response is not an example of time-binding as defined by Korzybski. In this case, it would only be time-binding if the dog had the capacity to pass on this conditioned response to its off-spring (and if the off-spring had the capacity to refine it and improve upon it, and in turn, pass it on to the next generation of dogs, and so on). Dogs do have a limited ability to pass information to the next generation, e.g., how to go about hunting, but the next generation of dogs does not hunt any better than the previous generation. Their ability to pass information is limited to a very few examples, and it does not accelerate over the generations. A human hunter today with a rifle is a much more powerful hunter than the hunters of 3000 B.C., and time-binding made it possible. Time-binding truly sets human beings apart from the animals.

Well, Korzybski has many mind-expanding formulations like this, and you have to read the book to get the information. If you do, then you will be able to take his ideas, and time-bind them for yourself. Don't let anyone talk you out of reading this book!