Attending the A.N. Smith lecture in Journalism at Melbourne University last night, Fairfax Media Chief executive and General Manager Greg Hywood outlined the digital media strategy for Fairfax in a "post-classified ad" revenue present and of course, future. Apart from the oh-so humble reminders that the Age and Sydney Morning Herald embraced the internet long before their competitors, his subtle investor pitch demonstrating the media convergence that Fairfax employs to derive its revenue was finally indicative of a media ecological approach to journalism and content communication across a mass yet still fragmented (in terms of point of access) audience. Print in the morning, smartphones on the go and accessing the web during the day, etc.
Mr. Hywood made a salient point in terms of devising a business model to ensure not only survival, but growth in quality journalism and content creation. Leaving the privileged curatorship vs. citizen engagement debate aside; he struck at the core of the problem for lumbering giants resistant to changes in their once robust classified ad "rivers of gold." The journalism, he said, was a solution to the fundamental problem of people trying to "make sense of the world around them." The media can no longer sit idle and react to changes in the consumption of their products, they must now find "solutions" in the skein of Postman and the Media Ecologists.
For example, Neil Postman only months prior to his passing remarked in a lecture that an airline wished to spend a substantial sum to improve the speed of their aeroplanes. Researchers found that they could cut at least three hours from the Los Angeles to New York trip utilizing new engine technologies. But then engineers wondered; what did passengers do with their three hour surplus of time?
Go back to their hotels and watch television.
Thus money was saved by installing televisions into the backs of their seats - the solution was much more ingenious than attempting to appeal to the abstraction of "progress." Just like News Ltd. recognizing that the medium in the afternoon was in fact the train platform and bus and tailored its message accordingly in the form of free, portable and "light" newspapers that can be read while waiting to arrive at one's destination.
Just because journalism can be uploaded and broadcast to smartphones and tablets doesn't mean it always, in every case should; if the problem is not knowing when or where rock gigs are and the solution is a weekly street press to guide you, why force change when it isn't required? Perhaps pondering this question will write the next chapter of journalism; whether in print or online or something unheard of.
Showing posts with label General Semantics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Semantics. Show all posts
6.2.11
The Urgency of Paradise
Today, I was fortunate enough to sit down with a one-on-one discussion session with President Emeritus of the Australian General Semantics Society, Mr. Laurie Cox. Despite his advanced age (92!) he insists his psycho-social age is merely 40, having "surpassed all the traps of adolescent thinking" with over 57 years of General Semantics training and teaching.
As we sipped coffee and talked, he asked me how I was going professionally and personally. Professionally things weren't great, but I was heading towards completing my thesis half way through the year and thus my master's degree. Personally, I didn't have much to report - though we hit upon sex, interpersonal communication and intimate relationships for a majority of the session. One of his salient points that resonated with me is this; "With all relationships, you mustn't forget the axis of time."
Of course, he referred to axis as that of a graph - that time is crucial in forming lasting, trusting and loving relationships. In our environment, we are sold many things that ought to "save time" otherwise "time is wasted." If it is, the "opportunity will be lost" at that "instant." We work "overtime" and consequently have no "time to spare." But in the realm of relationships, time is not of the essence, but "is" the essence.
"Rushing it" almost never feels as satisfying as "taking it slow" and some predatory "dating coaches" emphasize "speed seduction" and moreover "quick fucking" but not "spending time with someone significant" or "passionate lovemaking." Love and relating to others takes up our time in our thoughts and actions - it's not meant to be kept to a rigorous "timetable." One figuratively must "take the time to take the time." Even if it's "come time" to acquaint yourself with someone new, re-affirm an old friendship or even "find time" to work on oneself with hobbies, projects and other creative pursuits.
I for one viewed time as an enemy while growing up, something I felt I was constantly "short of" - but now I am beginning to view it as one of my most powerful allies.
Laurie in his own life-affirming way knows something about time - and emphasizes that we may have a lot or very little at all; but if the "timing is right" between two (or even more) people, time can invariably bind us all together, with love.
As we sipped coffee and talked, he asked me how I was going professionally and personally. Professionally things weren't great, but I was heading towards completing my thesis half way through the year and thus my master's degree. Personally, I didn't have much to report - though we hit upon sex, interpersonal communication and intimate relationships for a majority of the session. One of his salient points that resonated with me is this; "With all relationships, you mustn't forget the axis of time."
Of course, he referred to axis as that of a graph - that time is crucial in forming lasting, trusting and loving relationships. In our environment, we are sold many things that ought to "save time" otherwise "time is wasted." If it is, the "opportunity will be lost" at that "instant." We work "overtime" and consequently have no "time to spare." But in the realm of relationships, time is not of the essence, but "is" the essence.
"Rushing it" almost never feels as satisfying as "taking it slow" and some predatory "dating coaches" emphasize "speed seduction" and moreover "quick fucking" but not "spending time with someone significant" or "passionate lovemaking." Love and relating to others takes up our time in our thoughts and actions - it's not meant to be kept to a rigorous "timetable." One figuratively must "take the time to take the time." Even if it's "come time" to acquaint yourself with someone new, re-affirm an old friendship or even "find time" to work on oneself with hobbies, projects and other creative pursuits.
I for one viewed time as an enemy while growing up, something I felt I was constantly "short of" - but now I am beginning to view it as one of my most powerful allies.
Laurie in his own life-affirming way knows something about time - and emphasizes that we may have a lot or very little at all; but if the "timing is right" between two (or even more) people, time can invariably bind us all together, with love.
10.1.11
Steps to an Integrity of Mind
During this social media moratorium* I've been doing a wealth of reading - mostly re-reading psychology books such as Drs. Ellis and Harper's A Guide to Rational Living (I started re-reading it yesterday and am almost finished - It's incredible what can be accomplished when you decide to walk away from a computer!) I'm also re-reading much of my "useful resource" library that can be accessed here.
In addition I'm getting out of the house more - just because!
The ability to silence one's chatter to allow one to think, challenge and pose new questions is severely hampered by the "Niagara of words" as Samuel I. Hayakawa once noted. Twitter and Facebook updates with a frequency that is twice or even three times as quick than the human nervous system could possibly parse and understand. If our abstraction processes are routinely incomplete then surely social media networks are passing around discrete packages of shortened information that are whittled down into something almost nonsensical (insofar we are unable to extract meaning from them via our senses.) So why is our mind being littered with tiny tracts and tidbits? Where is our mindfulness in this instance?
In my view, mindfulness is being conscious of your abstraction and subvocalization process - also known as metacognition or "thinking about thinking." You are most likely not reading this post aloud and thus subvocalizing the words. But how often do we sit back and think about what we are telling ourselves about the world?
Usually we are unaware of our own thoughts. These are powerful - they impact on our emotions and behaviors. If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and researches of Count Korzybski are held to be valid, our reality is inferred and created by what we tell ourselves and how we derive meaning from the outside world. If we tell ourselves we are a "piece of shit" or unable to handle certain situations we feel we have been trapped in a cage built by our reactions to a largely self-constructed semantic environment.
It is true - we only have limited choice when considering the vastness of the cosmos and the immediate macrocosm that we see. Standing on the corner of the street we can choose what direction to travel and whether to peruse a shop, book a holiday or even chat up a girl we find attractive but causality remains. But there are some things we cannot prevent and other things we are completely incapable of. But that does not make life unlivable, harrowing or awful. We adapt to our environment as best as possible and carve out happiness within it.
The universe is indifferent but the way we choose to see it is up to us entirely. Even if one is a cognitive neuroscientist, a believer in the eight-circuit model of consciousness or a strict religionist or somewhere in between, we all choose to adapt to these methods of thinking - no one forces us. At the end of the day we are alone in how we conduct ourselves and how we perceive the outside world. Belief is the death of intelligence. Belief in the irrational is the death of one's agency and one's mental freedom.
Much like Marcus Aurelius says - Do you not possess reason? With reason doing its job, what else could you possibly want or need? It can feel like a struggle to become rational in an increasingly irrational world - but, at least in my opinion, it is one of the most worthwhile endeavors one can ever take.
---
*I am aware that some of my non-social media activities on the web cause automated tweets to be sent, such as posting this blog or "loving" tracks on Last.fm, etc. This does not constitute a "breaking" of the moratorium according to my criterion.
In addition I'm getting out of the house more - just because!
The ability to silence one's chatter to allow one to think, challenge and pose new questions is severely hampered by the "Niagara of words" as Samuel I. Hayakawa once noted. Twitter and Facebook updates with a frequency that is twice or even three times as quick than the human nervous system could possibly parse and understand. If our abstraction processes are routinely incomplete then surely social media networks are passing around discrete packages of shortened information that are whittled down into something almost nonsensical (insofar we are unable to extract meaning from them via our senses.) So why is our mind being littered with tiny tracts and tidbits? Where is our mindfulness in this instance?
In my view, mindfulness is being conscious of your abstraction and subvocalization process - also known as metacognition or "thinking about thinking." You are most likely not reading this post aloud and thus subvocalizing the words. But how often do we sit back and think about what we are telling ourselves about the world?
Usually we are unaware of our own thoughts. These are powerful - they impact on our emotions and behaviors. If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and researches of Count Korzybski are held to be valid, our reality is inferred and created by what we tell ourselves and how we derive meaning from the outside world. If we tell ourselves we are a "piece of shit" or unable to handle certain situations we feel we have been trapped in a cage built by our reactions to a largely self-constructed semantic environment.
It is true - we only have limited choice when considering the vastness of the cosmos and the immediate macrocosm that we see. Standing on the corner of the street we can choose what direction to travel and whether to peruse a shop, book a holiday or even chat up a girl we find attractive but causality remains. But there are some things we cannot prevent and other things we are completely incapable of. But that does not make life unlivable, harrowing or awful. We adapt to our environment as best as possible and carve out happiness within it.
The universe is indifferent but the way we choose to see it is up to us entirely. Even if one is a cognitive neuroscientist, a believer in the eight-circuit model of consciousness or a strict religionist or somewhere in between, we all choose to adapt to these methods of thinking - no one forces us. At the end of the day we are alone in how we conduct ourselves and how we perceive the outside world. Belief is the death of intelligence. Belief in the irrational is the death of one's agency and one's mental freedom.
Much like Marcus Aurelius says - Do you not possess reason? With reason doing its job, what else could you possibly want or need? It can feel like a struggle to become rational in an increasingly irrational world - but, at least in my opinion, it is one of the most worthwhile endeavors one can ever take.
---
*I am aware that some of my non-social media activities on the web cause automated tweets to be sent, such as posting this blog or "loving" tracks on Last.fm, etc. This does not constitute a "breaking" of the moratorium according to my criterion.
28.10.10
Renovation of the Soul
If there's nothing to be learned in life then in my opinion, you aren't living life. This past week has been full of anger, tumult, hate, love and renewal. Just today I was caught between bliss and indignation, the latter caused by a failure to stop and take repose. In moments of intense pressure, the head takes flight and the heart gears for war.
Rationality has no meaning and in some cases, the sounds coming out of one's mouth would sound almost foreign to you and others in calmer moments. A industry colleague of mine, after unjustly calling him "unprofessional" (I later apologized and thanked him for his good work and kind words) advised me to "kick back."
Kick back! If only I could kick back, I thought. I have work - paid, unpaid and academic to finish. I have all these attachments that signify anything other than kicking back. But why? Was this true? Had I forgotten my GS training? Were my meditations and self-reflections all for naught?
These items of paper with instructions printed on them are not the cause of my stress and worry. Ultimately, I am the culprit. If I am dissatisfied with an aspect of my life, then I can only really blame myself. So I took his advice. I poured myself a double whiskey and sipped a while. My feelings told me that I was putting myself under the "pump" rather than anyone else. My thoughts were not in alignment with reality - 3,000w of 4,000w done with 2 full days to complete the remainder? Hardly a challenge for me. It has been done before and can be done again. My internal map was very much out of alignment with the blank, "objective" territory.
Reading my colleague Sandi's blog, she has learned a lot in 26 years. She makes some good points, others I disagree with. But there is one point that remains pertinent:
Just like a modern day Marcus Aurelius, we sometimes have to sometimes stop and remind ourselves: "The universe is change, life is what our thoughts make it."
Rationality has no meaning and in some cases, the sounds coming out of one's mouth would sound almost foreign to you and others in calmer moments. A industry colleague of mine, after unjustly calling him "unprofessional" (I later apologized and thanked him for his good work and kind words) advised me to "kick back."
Kick back! If only I could kick back, I thought. I have work - paid, unpaid and academic to finish. I have all these attachments that signify anything other than kicking back. But why? Was this true? Had I forgotten my GS training? Were my meditations and self-reflections all for naught?
These items of paper with instructions printed on them are not the cause of my stress and worry. Ultimately, I am the culprit. If I am dissatisfied with an aspect of my life, then I can only really blame myself. So I took his advice. I poured myself a double whiskey and sipped a while. My feelings told me that I was putting myself under the "pump" rather than anyone else. My thoughts were not in alignment with reality - 3,000w of 4,000w done with 2 full days to complete the remainder? Hardly a challenge for me. It has been done before and can be done again. My internal map was very much out of alignment with the blank, "objective" territory.
Reading my colleague Sandi's blog, she has learned a lot in 26 years. She makes some good points, others I disagree with. But there is one point that remains pertinent:
Disappointment and hurt is everywhere in life. Happiness and wonder is also everywhere in life. Choose what you decide to focus on.
Just like a modern day Marcus Aurelius, we sometimes have to sometimes stop and remind ourselves: "The universe is change, life is what our thoughts make it."
18.10.10
Embargo of Presence
Some excerpts with commentary from my recent essay (footnotes removed) on media ecology entitled "An iPhone in every hand."
Neil Postman in his magnum opus “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” wrote the easiest way to see through a culture is to “attend to its tools for conversation.” Currently, all of our conversation, save for face to face contact is mediated, at some level, by computers and the internet – the tools – and the conversation – the exchange of messages – is happening globally in which any user of a computer is theoretically part of this “globalized conversation.” But what is the nature of the language of this conversation – the “driver” of conversation that makes it possible?
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis presents the formation of language is “not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas, but rather itself is a shaper of ideas.” The computer and the internet and all its various convergent and multimedia forms not only have produced new platforms for communication, they have, in fact, shaped a new way of organizing and regulating ideas; the way humans interact with one another, conduct their business, their politics and their education of future generations.
One such device that achieved this was the mechanical clock. A computer is built on a time-telling function – time regulates the processing of information by creating a sense of “dramatic, fictional or symbolic time as well as a sense of past, present and future.” Computers, like clocks are self-operating machines; they manufacture no physical products. They are able to regulate starting and ending times for social/economic/political engagements; enforce deadlines and are used to track units of remuneration (workers paid by the hour, etc.) For example, all people across the known world began to
"[W]ork, sleep and eat by the clock” and began to “regulate their actions by this arbitrary measure of time, the clock was transformed from an expression of civic pride into a necessity of urban life…the computer too has changed from a luxury to a necessity for modern business and government.”
In 1993, Postman said that it would be possible for us to "privatize" our public space by outsourcing it to computers - we would be able to shop, converse and vote from the comfort of home. We have moved beyond that space - we can now do this anywhere with mobile smartphones. Like the mechanical clock, the computer regulates our movement and how we communicate.
It as if we cannot communicate if we do not have a phone or access to the internet like social media. It's commonplace to hear about events after the fact if you did "not check your Facebook."
Chunks of time can now be graphically represented; we can see the past and the future in our own present by the dynamic exchange of text, video, audio and images. The television was bound by time to show its programs sequentially - now the programs can be viewed in our own "time" at our will from wherever. As Watzlawick says, "one can not not communicate" - but what happens when one does not have an iPhone in his hand to begin with?
Neil Postman in his magnum opus “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” wrote the easiest way to see through a culture is to “attend to its tools for conversation.” Currently, all of our conversation, save for face to face contact is mediated, at some level, by computers and the internet – the tools – and the conversation – the exchange of messages – is happening globally in which any user of a computer is theoretically part of this “globalized conversation.” But what is the nature of the language of this conversation – the “driver” of conversation that makes it possible?
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis presents the formation of language is “not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas, but rather itself is a shaper of ideas.” The computer and the internet and all its various convergent and multimedia forms not only have produced new platforms for communication, they have, in fact, shaped a new way of organizing and regulating ideas; the way humans interact with one another, conduct their business, their politics and their education of future generations.
One such device that achieved this was the mechanical clock. A computer is built on a time-telling function – time regulates the processing of information by creating a sense of “dramatic, fictional or symbolic time as well as a sense of past, present and future.” Computers, like clocks are self-operating machines; they manufacture no physical products. They are able to regulate starting and ending times for social/economic/political engagements; enforce deadlines and are used to track units of remuneration (workers paid by the hour, etc.) For example, all people across the known world began to
"[W]ork, sleep and eat by the clock” and began to “regulate their actions by this arbitrary measure of time, the clock was transformed from an expression of civic pride into a necessity of urban life…the computer too has changed from a luxury to a necessity for modern business and government.”
In 1993, Postman said that it would be possible for us to "privatize" our public space by outsourcing it to computers - we would be able to shop, converse and vote from the comfort of home. We have moved beyond that space - we can now do this anywhere with mobile smartphones. Like the mechanical clock, the computer regulates our movement and how we communicate.
It as if we cannot communicate if we do not have a phone or access to the internet like social media. It's commonplace to hear about events after the fact if you did "not check your Facebook."
Chunks of time can now be graphically represented; we can see the past and the future in our own present by the dynamic exchange of text, video, audio and images. The television was bound by time to show its programs sequentially - now the programs can be viewed in our own "time" at our will from wherever. As Watzlawick says, "one can not not communicate" - but what happens when one does not have an iPhone in his hand to begin with?
22.9.10
This is not a sign
Talking to my broskie Mari today, we had a (very hearty) chuckle at one of our (former) twitter followers' predicaments following a "breakup" of her "boyfriend" who just so happened to live on the other side of the world. Communicating exclusively over the internet, it was revealed that this "boyfriend" neglected to give his e-paramour his phone number. He promptly deleted her from Twitter, Facebook, Skype and stopped responding to her emails.
You read correctly, sports fans. He didn't even give her his phone number.
I have been in a similar situation before but I was given her phone number, the phone numbers of her friends, pictures of them, letters and almost everything barring a physical presence. So why do people blatantly see warning signs when they arise and blithely decide to ignore them? Is it because they aren't told a warning sign is one when they see it? Do they need to be told in order for them to act upon it in the "correct" way?
Although seemingly unrelated, I had some free time today (on account of having no job - hopefully I'll inadvertently hack twitter somehow and gain some attention for myself) and read more of my perpetually renewed copy of Postman and Weingartner's Teaching as a Subversive Activity. There contained was an example of a class of students being forced to sit an exam again after several students were caught cheating, stealing the exam ahead of its sitting. Students' opinions ranged - it was unfair for make all to resit it due to the actions of a few; that it would give them an advantage over others; that sitting it again would impair their chances of passing since they forgot what they studied after the sitting anyway. The content of the test was irrelevant; it was only important the students passed.
Students in the modern era have been asking teachers "will this be on the test?" I always thought it curious and harmful during my high school years, considering I almost always read outside of the curriculum, especially for the humanities. I was ridiculed by others for doing so. It was, in the context of my "education", a complete waste of time which could be better spent "studying" for assessments.
So what did we all learn at high school? I loathe to think it was only information that required to be regurgitated at the right time in the right context. But the more I do remember about those days, the more my suspicions are confirmed. Since "being taught" is a top-down process, we are coerced into "learning" what teachers provide for us. If we didn't, a horrible consequence would befall us (such as ending up cutting onions in a potato factory, as my father would enjoy saying to frighten me.)
If they tell us a warning sign looks like A on a certain exam, then it cannot look like B. It is either A or not A. The Aristotelian law of non-contradiction holds fast in the classroom (in addition to the law of the excluded middle and the is of identity.) But as adherents of GS or other multi-valued empirical systems can attest to, it's far more ambiguous than that.
Affairs of the heart seldom are guided by the head. If the head is empty, then even more so. A warning sign usually doesn't say "Warning" on it. If our schools insist they do, then our schools are derelict in their mission to pass our knowledge on to the next generation so they may expand upon it.
You read correctly, sports fans. He didn't even give her his phone number.
I have been in a similar situation before but I was given her phone number, the phone numbers of her friends, pictures of them, letters and almost everything barring a physical presence. So why do people blatantly see warning signs when they arise and blithely decide to ignore them? Is it because they aren't told a warning sign is one when they see it? Do they need to be told in order for them to act upon it in the "correct" way?
Although seemingly unrelated, I had some free time today (on account of having no job - hopefully I'll inadvertently hack twitter somehow and gain some attention for myself) and read more of my perpetually renewed copy of Postman and Weingartner's Teaching as a Subversive Activity. There contained was an example of a class of students being forced to sit an exam again after several students were caught cheating, stealing the exam ahead of its sitting. Students' opinions ranged - it was unfair for make all to resit it due to the actions of a few; that it would give them an advantage over others; that sitting it again would impair their chances of passing since they forgot what they studied after the sitting anyway. The content of the test was irrelevant; it was only important the students passed.
Students in the modern era have been asking teachers "will this be on the test?" I always thought it curious and harmful during my high school years, considering I almost always read outside of the curriculum, especially for the humanities. I was ridiculed by others for doing so. It was, in the context of my "education", a complete waste of time which could be better spent "studying" for assessments.
So what did we all learn at high school? I loathe to think it was only information that required to be regurgitated at the right time in the right context. But the more I do remember about those days, the more my suspicions are confirmed. Since "being taught" is a top-down process, we are coerced into "learning" what teachers provide for us. If we didn't, a horrible consequence would befall us (such as ending up cutting onions in a potato factory, as my father would enjoy saying to frighten me.)
If they tell us a warning sign looks like A on a certain exam, then it cannot look like B. It is either A or not A. The Aristotelian law of non-contradiction holds fast in the classroom (in addition to the law of the excluded middle and the is of identity.) But as adherents of GS or other multi-valued empirical systems can attest to, it's far more ambiguous than that.
Affairs of the heart seldom are guided by the head. If the head is empty, then even more so. A warning sign usually doesn't say "Warning" on it. If our schools insist they do, then our schools are derelict in their mission to pass our knowledge on to the next generation so they may expand upon it.
3.9.10
Sense Data from the AGS
Here follows a summary of the activities of the Australian General Semantics Society National Conference and our attendance at the UN DPI-NGO Conference "Advancing Global Health" held in Melbourne, Australia.
The 1st Australian General Semantics Society National Conference
27-29 August, 2010 held at the Initiatives of Change Center, Toorak, Australia
The first day of the conference on Friday Night was muted - just a dinner held in the stately Armagh manor in Toorak. A federation mansion, it boasted a ballroom, two libraries and a conservatory - the focus point for our discussions. I met some of the AGS members - David Hewson, Pauline Heather as well as Dr. Earl Livings, Laurie Cox and Robert James and his wife Jeanne. We talked into the night before retiring for the big day ahead.
Saturday Morning saw President Robert James and elder statesman Laurie Cox make their keynote addresses and Earl make his talk on Fiction and GS, particularly A. E. van Vogt and the World of Null-A and Nexialism, a sort of fictional applied GS that has even been applied in the real world.
I then gave my talk on Overcoming Conservative Characteristics, a research into a little known chapter in Korzybski's Science and Sanity.
In the Afternoon, David gave his talk on GS and Happiness to the general public as well as another one on GS and problem solving using other sciences. Laurie talked briefly explaining GS to beginners. Robert James prepared a talk on a "sense of purpose" that GS brings as well as bringing in Initiatives of Change volunteers to give their perspectives.
Sunday morning we reconvened for a talk by David on "Identity, non-identity, then what?" which was originally published as an article in ETC. Confusing facts with inferences was a warning to us all. Earl then presented his talk on the nexus between Edward De Bono's work and GS which proved very useful, in my estimation.
31st August - 2nd of September - the United Nations DPI-NGO Conference: "Advance Global Health" held at the Melbourne Convention Center, Melbourne, Australia
Though I only attended one of the three days at the UN conference, I thought my time to be more interesting than valuable. It was admirable to see the United Nations and affiliated NGOs work to advance the Millennium Development Goals. However, the milieu of the delegates was centered around a select few organizations and their booths (we at the IGS were not given one) as well as "Workshops" which focused more on guest speakers, established players and government officials rather than opening up the debate to people like myself or even the youth delegates. Though we met many people interested in GS, its hard to explain "What GS is" since GS principles are more like verbs, not nouns. I can explain How it works or why one should use it but emphasizing "clear thinking" or "sanity" will invariably draw glances of indignation - "How dare you imply I am unsane!"
Nevertheless, it was a rewarding experience and I would like to thank the members of AGS for affording me these wonderful learning and networking opportunities.
The 1st Australian General Semantics Society National Conference
27-29 August, 2010 held at the Initiatives of Change Center, Toorak, Australia
The first day of the conference on Friday Night was muted - just a dinner held in the stately Armagh manor in Toorak. A federation mansion, it boasted a ballroom, two libraries and a conservatory - the focus point for our discussions. I met some of the AGS members - David Hewson, Pauline Heather as well as Dr. Earl Livings, Laurie Cox and Robert James and his wife Jeanne. We talked into the night before retiring for the big day ahead.
Saturday Morning saw President Robert James and elder statesman Laurie Cox make their keynote addresses and Earl make his talk on Fiction and GS, particularly A. E. van Vogt and the World of Null-A and Nexialism, a sort of fictional applied GS that has even been applied in the real world.
I then gave my talk on Overcoming Conservative Characteristics, a research into a little known chapter in Korzybski's Science and Sanity.
In the Afternoon, David gave his talk on GS and Happiness to the general public as well as another one on GS and problem solving using other sciences. Laurie talked briefly explaining GS to beginners. Robert James prepared a talk on a "sense of purpose" that GS brings as well as bringing in Initiatives of Change volunteers to give their perspectives.
Sunday morning we reconvened for a talk by David on "Identity, non-identity, then what?" which was originally published as an article in ETC. Confusing facts with inferences was a warning to us all. Earl then presented his talk on the nexus between Edward De Bono's work and GS which proved very useful, in my estimation.
31st August - 2nd of September - the United Nations DPI-NGO Conference: "Advance Global Health" held at the Melbourne Convention Center, Melbourne, Australia
Though I only attended one of the three days at the UN conference, I thought my time to be more interesting than valuable. It was admirable to see the United Nations and affiliated NGOs work to advance the Millennium Development Goals. However, the milieu of the delegates was centered around a select few organizations and their booths (we at the IGS were not given one) as well as "Workshops" which focused more on guest speakers, established players and government officials rather than opening up the debate to people like myself or even the youth delegates. Though we met many people interested in GS, its hard to explain "What GS is" since GS principles are more like verbs, not nouns. I can explain How it works or why one should use it but emphasizing "clear thinking" or "sanity" will invariably draw glances of indignation - "How dare you imply I am unsane!"
Nevertheless, it was a rewarding experience and I would like to thank the members of AGS for affording me these wonderful learning and networking opportunities.
3.8.10
Clarity and Passion
Either August will kill me or I will kill it.
In addition to my actual studies, I'll also be:
In addition to my actual studies, I'll also be:
- leading the Melbourne NMMNG support group
- Contributing two talks to the Australian General Semantics Society National Conference in collaboration with AGS members with valuable assistance from Media Ecology Association founder and Fordham University Professor of Media and Communication Dr. Lance Strate
- Attending the United Nations DPI/NGO Annual Conference on Global Health representing the Institute of General Semantics
- Writing my sarcastic as hell columns on the insipid and tasteless AU federal election for Onya Magazine
- Gearing up Melon Race for production, writing and shooting.
13.7.10
This Human Equation
Holidays from both study and work leave me with spare neurons to devote to idle reflection. I decided to read extensively on media ecology and economics over my semester break in preparation for my Masters' thesis as well as work on my General Semantics studies.
Chatting to an acquaintance of mine (whom I hope to get to know better!) we settled that, amongst a great many other things, one aspect of commonality we shared was we "didn't understand humans properly" despite our chosen professions of reporting on what they do and why.
Therefore, I will embark on an ongoing project entitled the Human Equation project, the title inspired in part by Arjen Lucassen's Ayreon record of the same name and the motto of the American Psychological Association; "man is the sum of his parts." It is my contention that our society has willfully disconnected us from one another; we work longer and spend more money and time alone, purposefully separate ourselves and hole ourselves off from the world using a myriad of digital distractions. These will comprise three initial experiments.
1. The Ellis Experiment
As regular readers may know, Albert Ellis, Ph.D was the father of Rational Emotive Therapy, a widely successful cognitive behavioral therapy. By applying rational, empirical thinking to every day situations he found that people could live happier, calmer and neurosis free.
One of his earlier experiments involved talking to members of the opposite sex since he had an exaggerated fear of speaking in public during his adolescence. At age 19, he forced himself to himself to talk to 100 women in the Bronx Botanical Gardens over a period of a month. Although "he didn't get a date, he reported that he desensitized himself to his fear of rejection by women." I, along with several others will attempt this experiment on a smaller scale to reconnect with people in a meaningful way.
2. The Postman Experiment
Media ecologist Neil Postman was both in awe of and skeptical of technology - especially media technology. While many of us take it for granted he contended that media was a Faustian bargain. It both giveth and it taketh away. It takes our sense of community, ties to the real and tangible and forces us to spend time away from others. In his book Technopoly, he sets an assignment for his students - they must forsake their use of all media technologies for 48 hours. If they broke their media "fast" they were forced to start again from scratch. Set in the mid-90s before the advent of cheap and easily accessible hand-held devices with access to the internet, it will seem that media is unavoidable by design in 2010. Therefore me and my fellow experimenters will attempt 24 hours and record our experiences.
3. The Rushkoff Experiment
I think this one will prove the most challenging. This will be an attempt to re-create tangible value amongst the community by exchanging goods and services in real terms with other people. Instead of buying from corporations, I will try to buy locally and trade with neighbors and others using a modified principle of "comparative advantage" - what I can do well in exchange for something else another can do well that I cannot. In his Life, Inc. he argues that corporations have abstracted wealth from local institutions and people and clustered it towards a center, far removed from everyday life. If we can use the abundance in front of us instead of from somewhere inaccessible, we can add value to ourselves locally instead of an elite few.
These experiments have a two-fold purpose - for myself to further my personal development and re-connect with people in a true-to-fact and purposeful way and to "debunk" the givens of modern society. That we must be disconnected and that "bowling alone" is not the right way but merely the path we have chosen in the environment we find currently find ourselves in. If the map is not the territory, it is time to redraw the map and hopefully through our own action and effort, carve out our territory for the better.
Chatting to an acquaintance of mine (whom I hope to get to know better!) we settled that, amongst a great many other things, one aspect of commonality we shared was we "didn't understand humans properly" despite our chosen professions of reporting on what they do and why.
Therefore, I will embark on an ongoing project entitled the Human Equation project, the title inspired in part by Arjen Lucassen's Ayreon record of the same name and the motto of the American Psychological Association; "man is the sum of his parts." It is my contention that our society has willfully disconnected us from one another; we work longer and spend more money and time alone, purposefully separate ourselves and hole ourselves off from the world using a myriad of digital distractions. These will comprise three initial experiments.
1. The Ellis Experiment
As regular readers may know, Albert Ellis, Ph.D was the father of Rational Emotive Therapy, a widely successful cognitive behavioral therapy. By applying rational, empirical thinking to every day situations he found that people could live happier, calmer and neurosis free.
One of his earlier experiments involved talking to members of the opposite sex since he had an exaggerated fear of speaking in public during his adolescence. At age 19, he forced himself to himself to talk to 100 women in the Bronx Botanical Gardens over a period of a month. Although "he didn't get a date, he reported that he desensitized himself to his fear of rejection by women." I, along with several others will attempt this experiment on a smaller scale to reconnect with people in a meaningful way.
2. The Postman Experiment
Media ecologist Neil Postman was both in awe of and skeptical of technology - especially media technology. While many of us take it for granted he contended that media was a Faustian bargain. It both giveth and it taketh away. It takes our sense of community, ties to the real and tangible and forces us to spend time away from others. In his book Technopoly, he sets an assignment for his students - they must forsake their use of all media technologies for 48 hours. If they broke their media "fast" they were forced to start again from scratch. Set in the mid-90s before the advent of cheap and easily accessible hand-held devices with access to the internet, it will seem that media is unavoidable by design in 2010. Therefore me and my fellow experimenters will attempt 24 hours and record our experiences.
3. The Rushkoff Experiment
I think this one will prove the most challenging. This will be an attempt to re-create tangible value amongst the community by exchanging goods and services in real terms with other people. Instead of buying from corporations, I will try to buy locally and trade with neighbors and others using a modified principle of "comparative advantage" - what I can do well in exchange for something else another can do well that I cannot. In his Life, Inc. he argues that corporations have abstracted wealth from local institutions and people and clustered it towards a center, far removed from everyday life. If we can use the abundance in front of us instead of from somewhere inaccessible, we can add value to ourselves locally instead of an elite few.
These experiments have a two-fold purpose - for myself to further my personal development and re-connect with people in a true-to-fact and purposeful way and to "debunk" the givens of modern society. That we must be disconnected and that "bowling alone" is not the right way but merely the path we have chosen in the environment we find currently find ourselves in. If the map is not the territory, it is time to redraw the map and hopefully through our own action and effort, carve out our territory for the better.
11.7.10
A Silent Defeat
I have talked about Korzybski's Manhood of Humanity in great detail in a post here, contemplating if we have indeed entered such a phase. I refuted such an idea, instead postulating we are stuck in the adolescence - an unstable transition that sees us valuing erroneously, remaining fearful of the future and striving toward ideals that are equally transitory. Reading Life, Inc. by media theorist, documentarian and writer (in addition to practising general semantics) Douglas Rushkoff a rousing and chilling condemnation of the corporatism that pervades our entire waking life, I wondered if it would be more appropriately titled the Adolescence of Humanity instead. If we worshiped gods and insanity as children, we now supplicate to corporations, brands and unsanity as adolescents.
Corporate culture does not merely exploit that we as humans routinely mistake the map for the territory, it insists that the map is identical to the territory and manipulates us into believing no other possibility exists. Corporations and brands exist merely as higher-level abstractions and as such requires our blind faith, not reason, to validate their outlandish claims. The intentional confusion of logical levels (PC vs. Mac instead of classifying both as "computers") separates us into categories and demographics that equally require our belief and complete and total submission to that belief to keep us spending our money on their brand - the goods and services they produce are largely irrelevant. Only a cult-like devotion to a product would elicit emotionally charged responses towards any claims of inferiority - "Flash isn't necessary for the web experience" is like saying an index finger isn't necessary to make a hand functional, but iPhone and iPad zealots parrot the line nonetheless.
Corporations and special interests wish us to be blissfully aware of the dual-function of language as behavior and language forming behavior. Buying a coffee from an abstracted "coffee house" stand in a local shopping mall, there was an item that could be purchased called a "babycino" - a thimbleful of frothed milk given to children. It pacified the children into thinking they were adult and sophisticated using the sound "cino" in the name as well as giving the illusion of care and provision for the children as parents (it's for baby - why would one deny a baby the pleasure of a beverage?) making both parent and child feeling content and even attached to the product. The drink becomes irrelevant but the kinesthetic experience remains. I asked the barista why it had such a name. He said, quizzically, "because it's for babies." He missed the point. It's for the corporation that owns the coffee house and no-one else.
Corporate culture does not merely exploit that we as humans routinely mistake the map for the territory, it insists that the map is identical to the territory and manipulates us into believing no other possibility exists. Corporations and brands exist merely as higher-level abstractions and as such requires our blind faith, not reason, to validate their outlandish claims. The intentional confusion of logical levels (PC vs. Mac instead of classifying both as "computers") separates us into categories and demographics that equally require our belief and complete and total submission to that belief to keep us spending our money on their brand - the goods and services they produce are largely irrelevant. Only a cult-like devotion to a product would elicit emotionally charged responses towards any claims of inferiority - "Flash isn't necessary for the web experience" is like saying an index finger isn't necessary to make a hand functional, but iPhone and iPad zealots parrot the line nonetheless.
Corporations and special interests wish us to be blissfully aware of the dual-function of language as behavior and language forming behavior. Buying a coffee from an abstracted "coffee house" stand in a local shopping mall, there was an item that could be purchased called a "babycino" - a thimbleful of frothed milk given to children. It pacified the children into thinking they were adult and sophisticated using the sound "cino" in the name as well as giving the illusion of care and provision for the children as parents (it's for baby - why would one deny a baby the pleasure of a beverage?) making both parent and child feeling content and even attached to the product. The drink becomes irrelevant but the kinesthetic experience remains. I asked the barista why it had such a name. He said, quizzically, "because it's for babies." He missed the point. It's for the corporation that owns the coffee house and no-one else.
18.4.10
Far Away and Here Again
Last weekend, I went away to Paradise Beach on the Gippsland coast of Victoria, Australia. I stayed by myself in a friend's holiday house and worked on several things and did some reading. I re-read parts of Korzybski's Science and Sanity and touched upon a part on "Unsanity vs. Sanity" that I am sure many people would find beneficial - I intend to expand upon this finding and deliver it as a talk at the first Australian General Semantics Society National Conference.
Towards a theory of "conservative characteristics." (an abstract)
Conservative characteristics are the tendency of "neurotics" (as described by Korzybski) to confuse the orders of abstraction and revert to Aristotelian "allness" as an infantile, learned behavior.1
In childhood, we make underdeveloped, either-or evaluations. Mother, teddy or television is either positive or negative. We seek to reinforce and seek pleasure and minimize disappointment, anger and frustration. These maladaptive behaviors may persist into adulthood.
According to social anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, humans underwent a process of socialization from their initial self-awareness thousands of years ago to their current state of societal development. Children up until around the age of 14 undergo their own individuation and socialization process. From the ages of 7-14, the child is thought to be in its "narcissistic", "egocentric" stage and through this stage, patterns of evaluation are seen to occur. Real world events and their evaluation could in fact take the form of if/then statements. For example:
"IF I keep quiet and tell no one that I am feeling hurt, THEN I may escape scrutiny and further pain."
This map or method of evaluation may form as the fundamental reasoning process behind most behaviors in the future. In RET or Rogerian therapy this may be called "toxic shame" or irrational thinking. If this becomes a repeated response with no attempt to adjust the behavior, this could be considered a conservative characteristic.
Methods for overcoming conservative characteristics:
1. The consciousness of abstraction.
Using the structural differential or the ABC model in RET. Read more on the ABC model here.
Preparation for a transition to evaluation of probabilities, not absolutes. Asking "If I do this, the outcome will be this" instead moving toward a Hypothesize-Test-Revise model of behavior.
2. Non-attachment to outcome.
Realization the test is more important than the result. Without the real-world test, NO results or data can be gained for later revision. The outcome has no bearing on the efficacy or worth of the tester.
3. Unconditional self-acceptance.
From this, new experiences may be formed. The beliefs of inherent "badness" or "worthlessness" can be safely abandoned and each situation may be seen as a "tabula rasa" for perceiving and evaluating anew. Realizing that situation1 is not situation2.
---
References:
Korzybski, A., Science and Sanity (5th Ed.), Institute of General Semantics: Dallas, 1994. p. 495.
Towards a theory of "conservative characteristics." (an abstract)
Conservative characteristics are the tendency of "neurotics" (as described by Korzybski) to confuse the orders of abstraction and revert to Aristotelian "allness" as an infantile, learned behavior.1
In childhood, we make underdeveloped, either-or evaluations. Mother, teddy or television is either positive or negative. We seek to reinforce and seek pleasure and minimize disappointment, anger and frustration. These maladaptive behaviors may persist into adulthood.
According to social anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, humans underwent a process of socialization from their initial self-awareness thousands of years ago to their current state of societal development. Children up until around the age of 14 undergo their own individuation and socialization process. From the ages of 7-14, the child is thought to be in its "narcissistic", "egocentric" stage and through this stage, patterns of evaluation are seen to occur. Real world events and their evaluation could in fact take the form of if/then statements. For example:
"IF I keep quiet and tell no one that I am feeling hurt, THEN I may escape scrutiny and further pain."
This map or method of evaluation may form as the fundamental reasoning process behind most behaviors in the future. In RET or Rogerian therapy this may be called "toxic shame" or irrational thinking. If this becomes a repeated response with no attempt to adjust the behavior, this could be considered a conservative characteristic.
Methods for overcoming conservative characteristics:
1. The consciousness of abstraction.
Using the structural differential or the ABC model in RET. Read more on the ABC model here.
Preparation for a transition to evaluation of probabilities, not absolutes. Asking "If I do this, the outcome will be this" instead moving toward a Hypothesize-Test-Revise model of behavior.
2. Non-attachment to outcome.
Realization the test is more important than the result. Without the real-world test, NO results or data can be gained for later revision. The outcome has no bearing on the efficacy or worth of the tester.
3. Unconditional self-acceptance.
From this, new experiences may be formed. The beliefs of inherent "badness" or "worthlessness" can be safely abandoned and each situation may be seen as a "tabula rasa" for perceiving and evaluating anew. Realizing that situation1 is not situation2.
---
References:
Korzybski, A., Science and Sanity (5th Ed.), Institute of General Semantics: Dallas, 1994. p. 495.
13.4.10
Learn Why, Unlearn How
Yesterday I received The Situation is Hopeless, but not Serious by former Palo Alto Mental Research Institute scholar Dr. Paul Watzlawick. A pioneer in radical constructivism and communications theory as well as valued contributions to General Semantics, his amusing guide on how to create a constant state of unhappiness I found to be both eye opening and highly useful for guiding my own personal development.
The fundamental principle that many psychotherapies such as RET, Gestalt therapy and even Rogerian therapy base their treatments on is that people learn how to feel unhappy and repeat these thoughts and behaviors throughout their lives - sometimes never learning from them - creating their own unhappiness by doing more of the same.
Dr. Watzlawick's book tells the reader in no uncertain terms to repeat his exercises to be unhappy. Some games such as "self-fulfilling prophecies" or "why would anybody love me?" seem absurd, but are useful for therapy acting as a "symptom prescription" to break an ingrained cycle of unhappiness in a patient.
In the closing pages, he references Dostoyevsky's The Possessed with this line:
While happiness may be a spontaneous condition, it can be hampered by thinking that restricts such feelings from occurring. Watzlawick's wisdom is something everyone can take heed of.
The fundamental principle that many psychotherapies such as RET, Gestalt therapy and even Rogerian therapy base their treatments on is that people learn how to feel unhappy and repeat these thoughts and behaviors throughout their lives - sometimes never learning from them - creating their own unhappiness by doing more of the same.
Dr. Watzlawick's book tells the reader in no uncertain terms to repeat his exercises to be unhappy. Some games such as "self-fulfilling prophecies" or "why would anybody love me?" seem absurd, but are useful for therapy acting as a "symptom prescription" to break an ingrained cycle of unhappiness in a patient.
In the closing pages, he references Dostoyevsky's The Possessed with this line:
"Everything is good...everything. Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's unhappy. It's only that. That's all. That's all! If one finds out, one will become happy at once, that minute."
While happiness may be a spontaneous condition, it can be hampered by thinking that restricts such feelings from occurring. Watzlawick's wisdom is something everyone can take heed of.
25.3.10
Its Not Anything
"Your 'reality' (what to you is the real world) is playing either of two functions: it is either the concernful environment of your needs and is known by sharp, interesting figures against empty grounds, or it is a screen for your projections. If the latter, you will attempt to make the projections conform with observation — you will always be seeking proofs, making mountains out of molehills, or otherwise distorting your perspective." - Dr. Fritz Perls
Using a social "inquiry" website called Formspring.me, I've come to know friends, acquaintances as well as myself better through the asking and answering of questions about myself and others. What has struck me with some of the responses is the revelation of biases about the world that many of us hold. In the quote above, Dr. Perls, the father of Gestalt therapy insists that the world is one of indifferent abundance (an event level observation, as Korzybski would call it) or it is muddled by inferences, assumptions and unverifiable perceptions (a reversal of order.)
One such assumption that many hold is that "life has not given me anything" or that "life is no good for me." It would be irrational to assume that life must give you anything or that life must be good or bad. If life was to unfold around you without your interaction with it, we would still be stuck in caves, venturing out only as often as we needed to nourish ourselves with food and water. Once we travel through childhood and adolescence, we begin to individuate and carve our own path through life. We must depend on ourselves for fulfillment; intellectual, physical and spiritual (whatever that may entail.) If we sit idly and wait for life to approach us, we should soon realize nothing will come.
Yet people sit. They wait. They croak and wither under the pain of disappointment as life passes them by. Their regrets overwhelm them and they are lowered into the ground with frowns plastered on their faces.
Life is chaotic, but we can enjoy it. Reality is a place that holds whatever we project on to it. By observing it in its natural state and describing what we can sense rather than telling ourselves what we believe to be there, we can navigate it with less fear and apprehension and lend our causation into the grand ecology of what the world has to offer.
23.2.10
What do you know?
"How do we know what we know?" was a question posed by psychologist and Palo Alto Mental Research Institute member Paul Watzlawick (working with such prestigious alumnus as Gregory Bateson, Virginia Satir and Jay Haley) in a book he edited with a similar title.
So, how do we separate inferences and biases from our map-making or ideation of the world?
Consider an artist meeting a group of people. One works as an electrician, another as an accountant, the third a graphic designer. Introducing himself as well as his occupation, the abstraction process begins almost instantly. The electrician and the accountant, unfamiliar with art figure he is a painter of portraits. The designer, however, cannot accept his abstraction so easily and make a reversal of order and thus probes further. Suddenly, it is revealed that the artist sculpts figures from stone. What we seldom achieve is the self-awareness to ask ourselves how we arrive at our conclusions. Is it intensional assumption or extensional reasoning by way of evidence and testing?
If the accountant and electrician had not gone further in their inquiry they would only have partial knowledge of the artist's extensional occupation - they would have the word the artist used to describe himself and no other real, concrete knowledge. Their maps would be incomplete, shaded by unconscious biases and internal referential indexes based on what they had encountered previously, not in the present moment. Of course, artist1 is not artist2, yet it seems awfully convenient to coddle together all artists into an indeterminate class to save on time and mental energy.
I ask the question; does a culture that demands instant gratification inevitably demand the dissolution of knowledge into the manageable and familiar, possibly restricting the range and probity of thought and inquiry?
If expediency breeds increased probability for error, as has been demonstrated in so many cases, could the same lust for rapidity erode maps, distorting them to such a degree that it impairs sane and rational judgment? We are all guilty of this and oftentimes it leads us into despair and ruin. I would implore all people to use their nature's gift of self-reflection and self-awareness to avoid such semantic and symbolic traps and to use their nervous systems and the nervous systems of others for the greatest outcome. How? By routinely asking questions and (almost) never staying satisfied with the first answer you get.
In the words of Robert Anton Wilson: "Doubt. Doubt that you have doubted enough. Doubt your doubts." Never take anything on its face value; the world is infinitely complex and in constant flux; those that attempt to answer simply and definitely we should be especially skeptical of.
So, how do we separate inferences and biases from our map-making or ideation of the world?
Consider an artist meeting a group of people. One works as an electrician, another as an accountant, the third a graphic designer. Introducing himself as well as his occupation, the abstraction process begins almost instantly. The electrician and the accountant, unfamiliar with art figure he is a painter of portraits. The designer, however, cannot accept his abstraction so easily and make a reversal of order and thus probes further. Suddenly, it is revealed that the artist sculpts figures from stone. What we seldom achieve is the self-awareness to ask ourselves how we arrive at our conclusions. Is it intensional assumption or extensional reasoning by way of evidence and testing?
If the accountant and electrician had not gone further in their inquiry they would only have partial knowledge of the artist's extensional occupation - they would have the word the artist used to describe himself and no other real, concrete knowledge. Their maps would be incomplete, shaded by unconscious biases and internal referential indexes based on what they had encountered previously, not in the present moment. Of course, artist1 is not artist2, yet it seems awfully convenient to coddle together all artists into an indeterminate class to save on time and mental energy.
I ask the question; does a culture that demands instant gratification inevitably demand the dissolution of knowledge into the manageable and familiar, possibly restricting the range and probity of thought and inquiry?
If expediency breeds increased probability for error, as has been demonstrated in so many cases, could the same lust for rapidity erode maps, distorting them to such a degree that it impairs sane and rational judgment? We are all guilty of this and oftentimes it leads us into despair and ruin. I would implore all people to use their nature's gift of self-reflection and self-awareness to avoid such semantic and symbolic traps and to use their nervous systems and the nervous systems of others for the greatest outcome. How? By routinely asking questions and (almost) never staying satisfied with the first answer you get.
In the words of Robert Anton Wilson: "Doubt. Doubt that you have doubted enough. Doubt your doubts." Never take anything on its face value; the world is infinitely complex and in constant flux; those that attempt to answer simply and definitely we should be especially skeptical of.
16.2.10
Strategies for Unsanity
In my dreaming last night, I saw more literal signals than symbolic, i.e, conversations in their entirety without adulteration by my unconscious mind (which would have to be taken with a grain of suspicion anyhow!)
A friend of mine called me out of the blue - he wanted something from me and I figured as much since I had never received a social call from him before. We got to talking and he hit upon his recent feelings about being depressed. I had noticed after much self-reflection that his depression was not innate or a priori, but learned and reinforced throughout his life.
If we maintain that the Structural Differential holds true-to-fact, then language shapes thought and thus behavior. So at which point can we define the fundamental causes of undesirable or depressive feelings being generated? In my opinion, identification at the evaluation level and its confusion with the event level effects on our feelings with greatest impact.
My friend would say (i.e., utter and most likely subvocalize) that his pursuits both for his work and pleasure were nothing to be commended; that they were "adequate" at best. He would mostly downplay his achievements and enforce irrational restrictions on his well-being.
The maps he had internalized in the past now bear claim to appearing as "reality", using broad and vulgar terms. Despite his activities being "neutral", he identifies them as good or bad by holding them up to unattainable comparisons (i.e., his writings are not read by millions, therefore it is a failure or inherently bad) or believing them as so instead of evaluating them as they are in their environment, or liking/loving them unconditionally as an extension of himself. He continually struggles to feel happy by placing demands on the universe when realizing it is neither benign or malignant but indifferent to his needs.
If you wish to feel inadequate or worthless, I recommend you start or continue to do the following:
I do not claim to be a psychologist; I do however claim to be a student of General Semantics. By using the GS approach, much of his needless self-imposed suffering could be avoided and effectively remedied.
A friend of mine called me out of the blue - he wanted something from me and I figured as much since I had never received a social call from him before. We got to talking and he hit upon his recent feelings about being depressed. I had noticed after much self-reflection that his depression was not innate or a priori, but learned and reinforced throughout his life.
If we maintain that the Structural Differential holds true-to-fact, then language shapes thought and thus behavior. So at which point can we define the fundamental causes of undesirable or depressive feelings being generated? In my opinion, identification at the evaluation level and its confusion with the event level effects on our feelings with greatest impact.
My friend would say (i.e., utter and most likely subvocalize) that his pursuits both for his work and pleasure were nothing to be commended; that they were "adequate" at best. He would mostly downplay his achievements and enforce irrational restrictions on his well-being.
The maps he had internalized in the past now bear claim to appearing as "reality", using broad and vulgar terms. Despite his activities being "neutral", he identifies them as good or bad by holding them up to unattainable comparisons (i.e., his writings are not read by millions, therefore it is a failure or inherently bad) or believing them as so instead of evaluating them as they are in their environment, or liking/loving them unconditionally as an extension of himself. He continually struggles to feel happy by placing demands on the universe when realizing it is neither benign or malignant but indifferent to his needs.
If you wish to feel inadequate or worthless, I recommend you start or continue to do the following:
- Need rather than want, or have second-order needs: i.e, "I need my need for love."
- Misidentifying others' problems for your own.
- Reversing the order of abstraction by mistaking your evaluations of reality for reality itself.
- By thinking either too negatively or positively in absolute terms.
- By tying your well-being to external events and external evaluations (i.e., verbal praise)
- By using outdated maps (i.e., past situations) to navigate present territories.
- By merely hypothesizing and never testing situations to gain the facts.
- By thinking the universe owes you something for services rendered or intentions pure.
I do not claim to be a psychologist; I do however claim to be a student of General Semantics. By using the GS approach, much of his needless self-imposed suffering could be avoided and effectively remedied.
15.2.10
The 3rd Meeting of the Australian General Semantics Society, Melbourne Chapter
Over the weekend of February 13, 2010 and February 14th, Mr. Laurie Cox, President Emeritus of the AGS and Dr. Earl Livings and myself gathered at Earl's house to conduct several GS inquiries and discussions in an informal and relaxed setting. I was particularly surprised and humbled that Laurie had traveled all the way from Sydney just to talk with us! After a quick catch up, we launched into the mini "symposium"; a (very!) brief summary follows below.
Saturday, February 13 2010
Australian Internet Censorship and the GS response
Our first topic of conversation was the debate surrounding the mandatory censorship of Australian web traffic at the ISP level. After explaining it to Laurie in detail, we asked the questions: "What does it hope to achieve?" We surmised that the program was to halt the spread of child pornography and to protect children from it. As GSers, we concluded that the "time-binding" mechanism that is the internet could not be effectively policed with any degree of certainty using a traditional "old world" paradigm or "space-binding" approach.
Sanity, Unsanity and Insanity
The next hour or so was spent on finding an operational definition of Sanity, Unsanity and Insanity. It was almost instantly agreed upon that Insanity was a complete and marked identification of a higher order with lower orders or even the event level. Earl and Laurie posited that Sanity was the simple fact of having the Korzybskian "consciousness of abstraction" as formulated in Science and Sanity.
Pinning down Unsanity was much more difficult however. Laurie drew his own version of a Structural Differential to demonstrate the abstraction process and tried to throw up some examples of non-sane behaviors such as perception on the object level as the object level itself, misidentification, identifying with other person's feelings as one's own and reinforcing second-order feeling (which will be talked about later.) I drew on the teachings of Albert Ellis, Ph.D. and his Rational Emotive Therapy, defining one element of Sanity as "unconditional self-acceptance", and the use of rational thinking and the ABC model.
Laurie noticed the similarity to IGS member William Haney's "ROPE" model (Reality-Object-Perception-Evaluation). We reached a consensus that Unsanity was a mixing of maps and orders of abstraction and that Sanity, by contrast was acknowledgment that we, as humans, make inaccurate maps at times and can take steps to correct them as best as possible and to accept this without condition.
Modes of Male and Female Communication
After reflecting and critiquing our discussion, we moved onto the topic of Male and Female communication. We regarded honest and true-to-fact communication as a responsibility of GS students to "act" according to Korzybski's principle of time-binding.
Drawing on extensional examples such as the research done by Ken Wilber and Erich Fromm in their transpersonal philosophies and approaches we also talked about communication as whole - not just words, but body language and tone of voice. We also marked differences in outlook of males and females, such as inclusive (female) vs. exclusive (male) language and the difficulty or reluctance due to gender conditioning on the part of some males, to recognize the ability to state one's own feelings and needs at given times and to ask oneself, realistically, what those needs and feelings are.
We also wrote down the biological differences between men and women and how that forms behavior. Males are fueled by testosterone which strives for "achievement" and "agency." Females, by contrast are driven by oxytocin which is freed through physical touch and interpersonal communication.
We emphasized that a GS approach would seek complementarity instead of competition between the sexes, that female-driven "communion" and male-driven "agency" can be bridged by awareness and the recognition of the needs of the other and vice-versa while still maintaining our own.
We closed for the evening after a four hour session and resolved to meet the following day with Mr. Robert James to discuss the upcoming National Conference. Unfortunately I was unavailable to meet him due to a conflict of schedules and we instead met again at Earl's house for further studies.
Sunday, February 14 2010
Intensional and Extensional Language
Returning to Earl's house Laurie and I discussed the differences between extensional and intensional language, using Korzybski's definition of the overdefined (intension) and underdefined (extension) and the probability of both. We also used Kodish's example as well as Hayakawa's and Weinberg's interpretation.
First and Second-Order Feeling
Earl had come across a copy of Harry Weinberg's "Levels of Knowing and Existence" as Laurie commented on using self-reflexiveness to take a positive view after scraping his knee in a fall. He, as Weinberg wrote, "liked" his "liking" of an eventual recovery, i.e., his second-order feeling could effectively change his first-order (non-verbal) feeling. This was part of the circularity of human knowledge as demonstrated in the Structural Differential. Once the second-order thoughts effect the object-level first order, they eventually "become" part of that first-order.
We also discussed "synchronicity" by aligning maps with others and looking at a broader map to give context to more complex or troubling situations.
We also surmised that this awareness was an example of the reverse order of the consciousness of abstraction and that putting assumptions first can be damaging. Furthermore, we explored what questions we can ask to arrive at these inquiries, and that some questions are unanswerable, i.e., are either ambiguous or meaningless. Ambiguous questions are unable to be answered by experiment and meaningless questions are similarly so unless they are modified to become merely unanswered; that an extensional, falsifiable and scientific methodology can be made to address the parameters of the question.
At this point, Earl conducted an experiment to demonstrate the Structural Differential. I was writing and he yelled out "STOP!", to which I did. We then drew this as a diagram, with Earl's want for me to stop (second-order), the command itself (first-order) and its transposition on the event level (the utterance as heard by me.) Then we drew the object level (my hearing of it) and my reaction (stopping writing.) We found this to be confusing as a diagram, so I suggested adding a dimension of time to represent multiple onlookers of similar events.
The Representation of Media
Using this revised Structural Differential, it was time to dissect the growing "relevancy of irrelevancy" as described by Neil Postman in current television media. I drew a figure of two SDs - one representing the conception and inherent biases in media (evaluation), the report (object level) and the report as an event being interpreted by an audience in a similar fashion, with both feeding into one another - does the public as an audience wish for softer news, or is it passive in merely accepting what is given to them? We used real world examples such as the Tony Blair inquiry into the Iraq War.
It seemed to us that Mr. Blair disregarded extensional evidence (no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq) over an intensional belief (help the American war effort) and misrepresentation (Saddam helped Al-Qaeda etc.)
We asked how one could prevent this from happening again. We could endeavor to achieve correct symbolism-to-fact; to test and hypothesize and act "sanely."
GS in a non-GS Practicing World
Moving along, we discussed the differences between GSers and non-GSers. For instance, we arrived upon the "Right Man" as Robert Anton Wilson called him, an abstraction (of his own admission) that holds rigid, inflexible beliefs, is intensionally minded and holds only a two-valued orientation (good or bad with no middle ground.)
The General Semanticist by contrast is extensionally minded, multi-valued in his orientation and acknowledges the processes of constant change.
Managing Stress - a GS influenced approach?
Earl and Laurie watched the news last night and came across an item about managing stress. The report stated that we all experience stress, and some stress called "eustress" could actually be positive. However, negative stress could be combatted by asking ourselves questions:
1) Is this important? If the answer is yes, then;
2) Is it reasonable for me to be angry? If yes, then;
3) Can I modify this situation?
It seemed reminiscent of GS and RET principles, and related to the cortico-thalamic pause to gather one's thoughts in moments of heightened confusion and to become conscious of abstraction and reaction once again.
Over 7 or so hours was spent over two days and it was some of the most beneficial, inspiring and insightful hours I have ever spent in GS study. My sincere thanks goes out to Mr. Laurie Cox and Dr. Earl Livings for hosting me and traveling to discuss GS with us!
---
Note: If you are a member of the AGS or IGS and read my blog, I encourage you to comment or contact me for online discussions. Over this weekend I was told my blog has a small "following" among some members and I'd very much like to talk with some of you!
---
Saturday, February 13 2010
Australian Internet Censorship and the GS response
Our first topic of conversation was the debate surrounding the mandatory censorship of Australian web traffic at the ISP level. After explaining it to Laurie in detail, we asked the questions: "What does it hope to achieve?" We surmised that the program was to halt the spread of child pornography and to protect children from it. As GSers, we concluded that the "time-binding" mechanism that is the internet could not be effectively policed with any degree of certainty using a traditional "old world" paradigm or "space-binding" approach.
Sanity, Unsanity and Insanity
The next hour or so was spent on finding an operational definition of Sanity, Unsanity and Insanity. It was almost instantly agreed upon that Insanity was a complete and marked identification of a higher order with lower orders or even the event level. Earl and Laurie posited that Sanity was the simple fact of having the Korzybskian "consciousness of abstraction" as formulated in Science and Sanity.
Pinning down Unsanity was much more difficult however. Laurie drew his own version of a Structural Differential to demonstrate the abstraction process and tried to throw up some examples of non-sane behaviors such as perception on the object level as the object level itself, misidentification, identifying with other person's feelings as one's own and reinforcing second-order feeling (which will be talked about later.) I drew on the teachings of Albert Ellis, Ph.D. and his Rational Emotive Therapy, defining one element of Sanity as "unconditional self-acceptance", and the use of rational thinking and the ABC model.
Laurie noticed the similarity to IGS member William Haney's "ROPE" model (Reality-Object-Perception-Evaluation). We reached a consensus that Unsanity was a mixing of maps and orders of abstraction and that Sanity, by contrast was acknowledgment that we, as humans, make inaccurate maps at times and can take steps to correct them as best as possible and to accept this without condition.
Modes of Male and Female Communication
After reflecting and critiquing our discussion, we moved onto the topic of Male and Female communication. We regarded honest and true-to-fact communication as a responsibility of GS students to "act" according to Korzybski's principle of time-binding.
Drawing on extensional examples such as the research done by Ken Wilber and Erich Fromm in their transpersonal philosophies and approaches we also talked about communication as whole - not just words, but body language and tone of voice. We also marked differences in outlook of males and females, such as inclusive (female) vs. exclusive (male) language and the difficulty or reluctance due to gender conditioning on the part of some males, to recognize the ability to state one's own feelings and needs at given times and to ask oneself, realistically, what those needs and feelings are.
We also wrote down the biological differences between men and women and how that forms behavior. Males are fueled by testosterone which strives for "achievement" and "agency." Females, by contrast are driven by oxytocin which is freed through physical touch and interpersonal communication.
We emphasized that a GS approach would seek complementarity instead of competition between the sexes, that female-driven "communion" and male-driven "agency" can be bridged by awareness and the recognition of the needs of the other and vice-versa while still maintaining our own.
We closed for the evening after a four hour session and resolved to meet the following day with Mr. Robert James to discuss the upcoming National Conference. Unfortunately I was unavailable to meet him due to a conflict of schedules and we instead met again at Earl's house for further studies.
Sunday, February 14 2010
Intensional and Extensional Language
Returning to Earl's house Laurie and I discussed the differences between extensional and intensional language, using Korzybski's definition of the overdefined (intension) and underdefined (extension) and the probability of both. We also used Kodish's example as well as Hayakawa's and Weinberg's interpretation.
First and Second-Order Feeling
Earl had come across a copy of Harry Weinberg's "Levels of Knowing and Existence" as Laurie commented on using self-reflexiveness to take a positive view after scraping his knee in a fall. He, as Weinberg wrote, "liked" his "liking" of an eventual recovery, i.e., his second-order feeling could effectively change his first-order (non-verbal) feeling. This was part of the circularity of human knowledge as demonstrated in the Structural Differential. Once the second-order thoughts effect the object-level first order, they eventually "become" part of that first-order.
We also discussed "synchronicity" by aligning maps with others and looking at a broader map to give context to more complex or troubling situations.
We also surmised that this awareness was an example of the reverse order of the consciousness of abstraction and that putting assumptions first can be damaging. Furthermore, we explored what questions we can ask to arrive at these inquiries, and that some questions are unanswerable, i.e., are either ambiguous or meaningless. Ambiguous questions are unable to be answered by experiment and meaningless questions are similarly so unless they are modified to become merely unanswered; that an extensional, falsifiable and scientific methodology can be made to address the parameters of the question.
At this point, Earl conducted an experiment to demonstrate the Structural Differential. I was writing and he yelled out "STOP!", to which I did. We then drew this as a diagram, with Earl's want for me to stop (second-order), the command itself (first-order) and its transposition on the event level (the utterance as heard by me.) Then we drew the object level (my hearing of it) and my reaction (stopping writing.) We found this to be confusing as a diagram, so I suggested adding a dimension of time to represent multiple onlookers of similar events.
The Representation of Media
Using this revised Structural Differential, it was time to dissect the growing "relevancy of irrelevancy" as described by Neil Postman in current television media. I drew a figure of two SDs - one representing the conception and inherent biases in media (evaluation), the report (object level) and the report as an event being interpreted by an audience in a similar fashion, with both feeding into one another - does the public as an audience wish for softer news, or is it passive in merely accepting what is given to them? We used real world examples such as the Tony Blair inquiry into the Iraq War.
It seemed to us that Mr. Blair disregarded extensional evidence (no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq) over an intensional belief (help the American war effort) and misrepresentation (Saddam helped Al-Qaeda etc.)
We asked how one could prevent this from happening again. We could endeavor to achieve correct symbolism-to-fact; to test and hypothesize and act "sanely."
GS in a non-GS Practicing World
Moving along, we discussed the differences between GSers and non-GSers. For instance, we arrived upon the "Right Man" as Robert Anton Wilson called him, an abstraction (of his own admission) that holds rigid, inflexible beliefs, is intensionally minded and holds only a two-valued orientation (good or bad with no middle ground.)
The General Semanticist by contrast is extensionally minded, multi-valued in his orientation and acknowledges the processes of constant change.
Managing Stress - a GS influenced approach?
Earl and Laurie watched the news last night and came across an item about managing stress. The report stated that we all experience stress, and some stress called "eustress" could actually be positive. However, negative stress could be combatted by asking ourselves questions:
1) Is this important? If the answer is yes, then;
2) Is it reasonable for me to be angry? If yes, then;
3) Can I modify this situation?
It seemed reminiscent of GS and RET principles, and related to the cortico-thalamic pause to gather one's thoughts in moments of heightened confusion and to become conscious of abstraction and reaction once again.
Over 7 or so hours was spent over two days and it was some of the most beneficial, inspiring and insightful hours I have ever spent in GS study. My sincere thanks goes out to Mr. Laurie Cox and Dr. Earl Livings for hosting me and traveling to discuss GS with us!
---
Note: If you are a member of the AGS or IGS and read my blog, I encourage you to comment or contact me for online discussions. Over this weekend I was told my blog has a small "following" among some members and I'd very much like to talk with some of you!
---
25.1.10
A Note on Abstraction and Closure
Since we, as humans, perfectly imperfect as we have come to evolve, abstract all sensory perceptions from the outside world, we also abstract our relationships with these perceptions as they are constantly formed and re-formed. If, like Ellis hypothesizes by way of Korzybski, insofar thoughts create feelings and our behaviors, we must learn to accept that we cannot explain the totality of the outside world and thus, accept the nature of the universe as one of uncertainty and probability, not fact and absolutes.
Many friends and relatives with myself included have gone through almost soul-shattering, life-altering break ups, deaths and other tragedies. Many seek "closure." They believe that healing words - the sounds that come out of our mouths - will cure what ails them as if they were a magic incantation.
My advice to those seeking closure is this:
1. Stand in front of a door. Push it open.
2. Pull the door towards you.
3. Realizing that the door has closed and the reality of your present situation has not changed, be content that you are a functioning human being with the ability to know better than to search for answers that have no sensible question.
I to elucidate further on constructing one's own reality, I was talking with my father the other day about time. He said to me that "whoever discovered that there was sixty minutes in an hour was a genius." I replied that he was a master manipulator. My father looked at me quizzically. "Well," I said, "If the dude can make people believe that time is specifically delivered in parcels of sixty minutes and divisions thereof, he should probably have been King of the World."
Many friends and relatives with myself included have gone through almost soul-shattering, life-altering break ups, deaths and other tragedies. Many seek "closure." They believe that healing words - the sounds that come out of our mouths - will cure what ails them as if they were a magic incantation.
My advice to those seeking closure is this:
1. Stand in front of a door. Push it open.
2. Pull the door towards you.
3. Realizing that the door has closed and the reality of your present situation has not changed, be content that you are a functioning human being with the ability to know better than to search for answers that have no sensible question.
I to elucidate further on constructing one's own reality, I was talking with my father the other day about time. He said to me that "whoever discovered that there was sixty minutes in an hour was a genius." I replied that he was a master manipulator. My father looked at me quizzically. "Well," I said, "If the dude can make people believe that time is specifically delivered in parcels of sixty minutes and divisions thereof, he should probably have been King of the World."
12.10.09
The 2nd Meeting of the AGS, Melbourne Chapter
It was chilly in Melbourne, Australia as the 2nd Meeting of the AGS, Melbourne Chapter commenced last Thursday. It was brought to my attention that AGS President Robert James took a liking to my coining of the name "Melbourne Chapter" for our group which expanded to include my friend Shai, a PhD student in neurological disease - specifically Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease at the University of Melbourne.
In attendance was also Mr. Laurie Cox and Mr. Earl Irvings, the 2nd "certified" member of AGS, Melbourne Chapter. Although a multitude of subjects were covered in volume, I shall attempt a brief summary.
Laurie led the discussion, describing GS as an "epistemology" - Shai provided his own definition, calling it a "theory of 'our' knowledge." We also tried to pin down a working definition of "fact", using GS texts such as Irving J. Lee's Language Habits in Human Affairs and the insiders' look at the legal system by Chester Porter, QC in his Gentle Art of Persuasion.
Laurie professed with great vigor that "talking is not enough, GS must be practiced and applied" to gain any usefulness from the techniques and theories. That said, GS as a discipline attempts to stop "identification" by confusing "reality" and "perception" as it passes our non-verbal observation. We must be conscious that whenever we see/hear/sense, we are not sensing the entire event on each level; we, as humans are simply unable. GS, as Laurie says, can be seen as a "basis for any form of knowledge."
Laurie then presented a short essay to familarize Earl, Shai and I with his understandings of GS, starting with the Map-Territory relation as Korzybski termed it. Seeing as we cannot establish "absolute" facts, we must be reminded that "facts" always carry a degree of probability and uncertainty. Visually, he drew his own interpretation of the Structural Differential, saying that words "leave out a lot of what one has taken from an event" and that inferences may be overgeneralizations or false knowledge. He also says that we should silently remember to include the "etc." when making descriptions, to acknowledge that we do not catch "all" characteristics when conveying information to others. We then talked about the consciousness of abstraction, being aware that our words are not things, that our perceptions (or constructions) are not reality
and that thing(1) is not thing(2) and new experiences are colored by past, unconscious biases.
Laurie insisted that GS may solve problems in such a way that we may properly evaluate situations and events to prevent unsanity or "neurosis" - that defining things/events closely on a "descriptive level" - as close to the actual event as possible - could more likely yield a solution. For example, in a relationship, a boyfriend and girlfriend may fight due to having one map of the situation different to the other. GS encourages to describe these mental "maps" as accurately as possible to synthesize the two or to "agree to disagree." Robert also advocated the use of a GS diary to jot down instances where GS was being applied consciously and to make observations from a new, GS perspective.
We closed the meeting with a discussion for a possible National AGS Conference/Seminar in Melbourne early in 2010. We set a framework for topics, the opening one day of three to the general public, possible speakers and getting the Institute of General Semantics and other international affiliates to contribute their ideas. I also resolved with Earl to hold monthly meetings when time permits and to open an AGS forum for all members to use. A highly intriguing night for all!
In attendance was also Mr. Laurie Cox and Mr. Earl Irvings, the 2nd "certified" member of AGS, Melbourne Chapter. Although a multitude of subjects were covered in volume, I shall attempt a brief summary.
Laurie led the discussion, describing GS as an "epistemology" - Shai provided his own definition, calling it a "theory of 'our' knowledge." We also tried to pin down a working definition of "fact", using GS texts such as Irving J. Lee's Language Habits in Human Affairs and the insiders' look at the legal system by Chester Porter, QC in his Gentle Art of Persuasion.
Laurie professed with great vigor that "talking is not enough, GS must be practiced and applied" to gain any usefulness from the techniques and theories. That said, GS as a discipline attempts to stop "identification" by confusing "reality" and "perception" as it passes our non-verbal observation. We must be conscious that whenever we see/hear/sense, we are not sensing the entire event on each level; we, as humans are simply unable. GS, as Laurie says, can be seen as a "basis for any form of knowledge."
Laurie then presented a short essay to familarize Earl, Shai and I with his understandings of GS, starting with the Map-Territory relation as Korzybski termed it. Seeing as we cannot establish "absolute" facts, we must be reminded that "facts" always carry a degree of probability and uncertainty. Visually, he drew his own interpretation of the Structural Differential, saying that words "leave out a lot of what one has taken from an event" and that inferences may be overgeneralizations or false knowledge. He also says that we should silently remember to include the "etc." when making descriptions, to acknowledge that we do not catch "all" characteristics when conveying information to others. We then talked about the consciousness of abstraction, being aware that our words are not things, that our perceptions (or constructions) are not reality
and that thing(1) is not thing(2) and new experiences are colored by past, unconscious biases.
Laurie insisted that GS may solve problems in such a way that we may properly evaluate situations and events to prevent unsanity or "neurosis" - that defining things/events closely on a "descriptive level" - as close to the actual event as possible - could more likely yield a solution. For example, in a relationship, a boyfriend and girlfriend may fight due to having one map of the situation different to the other. GS encourages to describe these mental "maps" as accurately as possible to synthesize the two or to "agree to disagree." Robert also advocated the use of a GS diary to jot down instances where GS was being applied consciously and to make observations from a new, GS perspective.
We closed the meeting with a discussion for a possible National AGS Conference/Seminar in Melbourne early in 2010. We set a framework for topics, the opening one day of three to the general public, possible speakers and getting the Institute of General Semantics and other international affiliates to contribute their ideas. I also resolved with Earl to hold monthly meetings when time permits and to open an AGS forum for all members to use. A highly intriguing night for all!
7.10.09
We Are Free In these Chains
I have concluded my reading of The Tyranny of Words by one of the most prolific exponents and popularizer of General Semantics, Mr. Stuart Chase, just in time for the 2nd meeting of the Victorian Chapter of the Australian General Semantics Society which will again be chaired by Mr. Laurie Cox and Mr. Robert James.
I have read extensively on GS for a while now; Science and Sanity by Korzybski, Language in Thought and Action by Hayakawa, as well as Levels of Knowing and Existence by Weinberg, Science and the Goals of Man by Rapoport and other GS influenced texts by Robert Anton Wilson, Karl Popper and Albert Ellis. I have to say, I have never read such a profound and forward-looking text as Chase's, as he synthesizes the major strands (1933) of semantic thought and guides the reader through a thorough, referent-based analysis of economics, politics, sociology and media reporting. Even his language as he dissects passages filled with higher-order abstraction "blabs" (as he calls them) does not seem dated; rather timeless and loaded with a message that we all should heed as we steer ourselves into waters that are filled with empty references, inaccurate inferences and in some cases, outright fabrications.
One of the more intriguing ideas he raises (although he makes completely brilliant points almost consistently throughout) is that semantic training should be made compulsory for those wishing to seek employ the following professions:
Imagine a world communicating as clearly possible! Also, I plan to introduce some points of discussion for tomorrow:
Social media and GS: Are one's Facebook status or tweets regarded as an accurate mapping of the territory?
How can GS principles be used to communicate clearly with others who are untrained in or unfamiliar with GS?
A general write up will follow the meeting.
I have read extensively on GS for a while now; Science and Sanity by Korzybski, Language in Thought and Action by Hayakawa, as well as Levels of Knowing and Existence by Weinberg, Science and the Goals of Man by Rapoport and other GS influenced texts by Robert Anton Wilson, Karl Popper and Albert Ellis. I have to say, I have never read such a profound and forward-looking text as Chase's, as he synthesizes the major strands (1933) of semantic thought and guides the reader through a thorough, referent-based analysis of economics, politics, sociology and media reporting. Even his language as he dissects passages filled with higher-order abstraction "blabs" (as he calls them) does not seem dated; rather timeless and loaded with a message that we all should heed as we steer ourselves into waters that are filled with empty references, inaccurate inferences and in some cases, outright fabrications.
One of the more intriguing ideas he raises (although he makes completely brilliant points almost consistently throughout) is that semantic training should be made compulsory for those wishing to seek employ the following professions:
Writers of books and articles dealing with social questions Editorial writers—no exceptions
Reporters and journalists, to keep them from confusing facts with inferences
Government executives
Senators, Congressmen, state and local legislators
Diplomats and writers of state papers
Judges, lawyers, and juries. Every juryman should pass a test in semantics before admission to the box
Lecturers, radio speakers, chairmen of forums, dealing with social problems
Teachers and professors—no exceptions
Mothers and fathers who do not want their children to be
badly hurt when they must face the outside world alone
And all consumers of the verbal output from the above classes — just in case the goods are not as advertised. Semantics might be called a testing bureau for the consumer of language.
Imagine a world communicating as clearly possible! Also, I plan to introduce some points of discussion for tomorrow:
Social media and GS: Are one's Facebook status or tweets regarded as an accurate mapping of the territory?
How can GS principles be used to communicate clearly with others who are untrained in or unfamiliar with GS?
A general write up will follow the meeting.
5.7.09
The 1st Meeting of the AGS, Melbourne Chapter
Last night marked the first informal gathering of the Australian General Semantics Society in Melbourne, led by Chairman Laurie Cox (celebrating his 91st birthday!) and President Robert James. Although we only numbered six, I found it to be an inspiring and enlightening discussion of GS concepts and philosophies from both the academic and practical sides of the discipline. What follows is a brief summary of our talks.
Towards Time-Binding Ethics
An element of GS that I have neglected in my own studies is that of time-binding, or "the transmission of knowledge and abstractions through time which are accreted in cultures" as Korzybski defined it. More simply, when must one "time-bind", as in pass facts over to others and how can it be achieved? Laurie described his "mission" to time-bind as effectively as possible, although in some cases it may not be prudent to do so. (i.e., trying to surprise someone for a birthday - as we did with Laurie with a special cupcake for him) We also discussed how time-binding is expanded by blogging and social media as it prevents time-binding in isolation; diaries and personal writings usually cast aside and forgotten.
Revising the Structural Differential
Laurie showed great delight in revealing that he had simplified his own understanding of the Structural Differential to be able to explain it to a French girl a few nights prior. Going through the reversal of order and the ability for one versed in GS to be conscious of abstracting on multiple levels at once - something I tried once the meeting concluded myself. He emphasized the "sensory impact" level and the "unknowable" (or rather, indescribable) "Reality" of the outside world, mediated by our senses. We also discussed differences between descriptions, inferences and abstractions and how we could also apply this simple informal GS training to children of a primary school age and to emphasize that GS can be learned and applied by all; that a process must begin to make learning GS appealing to all people.
GS and Personal Relationships
Following abstracting, we were then told a story of how GS improves mental well-being and communication between people; Robert and Phil (?) who was also in attendance would sometimes get into disagreements, but using the Null-A principle of "non-allness" made arguments more workable - moving away from absolutist blaming and shaming ("You are always such an idiot") to expressing (semantic) reactions about immediate situations ("I feel angry at what you have done since I don't think it was appropriate, etc.") to find a workable solution. The importance of "etc." to remind oneself that not everything about an external event can be completely described.
Non-Aristotelian Orientation and Heisenberg
Towards the end of the discussion we hit upon the "World of Null-A" (also the title of the A. E. van Vogt novels), the works of science fiction that fellow member Earl found GS through. We talked briefly about replacing "absolutisms" with probabilities in our every day life and language - "this will always" to "this will most likely", etc. similar to the "sombunall" (some but not all) term coined by Robert Anton Wilson. Laurie also hit upon an often overlooked similarity of GS with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (as GS approaches are usually compared to the classical scientific method; observe-hypothesize-test-revise) - that its premise of "properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities" applied to our approach to life.
I found the discussions highly stimulating and I hope to attend similar gatherings, either in Australia or overseas. Thanks to all that attended and for organizing the meeting!
Towards Time-Binding Ethics
An element of GS that I have neglected in my own studies is that of time-binding, or "the transmission of knowledge and abstractions through time which are accreted in cultures" as Korzybski defined it. More simply, when must one "time-bind", as in pass facts over to others and how can it be achieved? Laurie described his "mission" to time-bind as effectively as possible, although in some cases it may not be prudent to do so. (i.e., trying to surprise someone for a birthday - as we did with Laurie with a special cupcake for him) We also discussed how time-binding is expanded by blogging and social media as it prevents time-binding in isolation; diaries and personal writings usually cast aside and forgotten.
Revising the Structural Differential
Laurie showed great delight in revealing that he had simplified his own understanding of the Structural Differential to be able to explain it to a French girl a few nights prior. Going through the reversal of order and the ability for one versed in GS to be conscious of abstracting on multiple levels at once - something I tried once the meeting concluded myself. He emphasized the "sensory impact" level and the "unknowable" (or rather, indescribable) "Reality" of the outside world, mediated by our senses. We also discussed differences between descriptions, inferences and abstractions and how we could also apply this simple informal GS training to children of a primary school age and to emphasize that GS can be learned and applied by all; that a process must begin to make learning GS appealing to all people.
GS and Personal Relationships
Following abstracting, we were then told a story of how GS improves mental well-being and communication between people; Robert and Phil (?) who was also in attendance would sometimes get into disagreements, but using the Null-A principle of "non-allness" made arguments more workable - moving away from absolutist blaming and shaming ("You are always such an idiot") to expressing (semantic) reactions about immediate situations ("I feel angry at what you have done since I don't think it was appropriate, etc.") to find a workable solution. The importance of "etc." to remind oneself that not everything about an external event can be completely described.
Non-Aristotelian Orientation and Heisenberg
Towards the end of the discussion we hit upon the "World of Null-A" (also the title of the A. E. van Vogt novels), the works of science fiction that fellow member Earl found GS through. We talked briefly about replacing "absolutisms" with probabilities in our every day life and language - "this will always" to "this will most likely", etc. similar to the "sombunall" (some but not all) term coined by Robert Anton Wilson. Laurie also hit upon an often overlooked similarity of GS with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (as GS approaches are usually compared to the classical scientific method; observe-hypothesize-test-revise) - that its premise of "properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities" applied to our approach to life.
I found the discussions highly stimulating and I hope to attend similar gatherings, either in Australia or overseas. Thanks to all that attended and for organizing the meeting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)