Parsing Existence

[tjohnson]

People round up animals and send them to the slaughterhouse so they can eat them. The people who do the rounding up also breed the animals on farms. The Germans killed Jews to exterminate the race from humanity. No breeding was involved nor anything else in your animal analogy. This had nothing to do with equating Jews with farm animals. This was pure hatred.

But Micheal, simply calling it "pure hatred" does not explain anything. In fact, that is an example of subject-predicate structure right there - "this was (is) pure hatred". Whatever you say it is (was), it isn't. I was trying to explain the actual mechanism (a theory of it anyway) of what happened and you simply dismiss it as "pure hatred". What happened was an event, "pure hatred" is some feeling inside us, the two are very different and so you can't say one IS the other. In social science we need to build a language of relations and order and so be able to explain events as we do in physics, etc. and avoid the subject-predicate trap.

[Ellen Stuttle]

What I'm asking is why you would then say otherwise of the electromagnetic spectrum: why would you say you know what that IS, unlike in the case of "objects"? Aren't you in the same situation of abstracting as regards the electromagnetic spectrum as you're in as regards the shape of the earth?

I don't see that the passage you referred to from Korzybski (post #107) helps, since I have the same question about what's quoted: How can he claim to have access to the nature of "the event, or scientific object, or the sub-microscopic physico-chemical processes"? It seems to me that an assertion is being made about the ultimate nature of TWWAF, an assertion the truth of which, by the logic of your own thesis, can't be demonstrated. I think that instead you'd logically have to say, with Bob K. (post #109), "the things to which the judgments etc. pertained might persist" (my emphasis). I realize that you've said a number of times that you consider logic "useless." It's just that I was intrigued by the contrast between your general epistemological views and your apparent certainty about what TWWAF is.

LOL, I would never, ever say what TWWAF is! That would be heresy in GS Basically Korzybski is saying that subject-predicate language, like "grass is green" misrepresents the situation in which we find ourselves and we know this because of science.

But you aren't presenting any way that you can know this because of science. You're invalidating your own knowledge claims by the logic of your own argument. As Merlin felicitously expressed the point in his post #119, "But it all flips upon entering the physics lab." What's the justification for this flip?

Ellen

___

Edited October 30, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[BaalChatzaf]

But Micheal, simply calling it "pure hatred" does not explain anything. In fact, that is an example of subject-predicate structure right there - "this was (is) pure hatred". Whatever you say it is (was), it isn't. I was trying to explain the actual mechanism (a theory of it anyway) of what happened and you simply dismiss it as "pure hatred". What happened was an event, "pure hatred" is some feeling inside us, the two are very different and so you can't say one IS the other. In social science we need to build a language of relations and order and so be able to explain events as we do in physics, etc. and avoid the subject-predicate trap.

A sentence of the form A is B might be problematical. However a sentence of the form A does X to B is the basic paradigm of physics, which is to say interaction of entities. The four basic "forces" of physics are interactions. Likewise the sentence A causes B or B is caused by A is not problematical. It my be false but the meaning is clear.

A is B is problematical because of its ambiguity. It might mean class A is included in class B. It might mean A is a member of class B. It might mean A has the property B (as in my apple is red). One must be cautious in using assertions of this kind and resolve any ambiguities that might arise.

One has to be careful of that tricky intransitive verb "is".

Our thinking may be muddled now and again, but it is always a problem with language.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 30, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

Here is a question; What is it Hitler and the Nazis believed that led them to murder millions of Jews? Could it have been something like "Jews are animals"? The subject-predicate linguistic form can indeed create a delusional world, in fact, it can lead to illusions and even hallucinations, in Korzybski's opinion, and I agree with him. GS is not merely epistemology, it is a theory of sanity, and Korzybski believed that the structure of our language effects our sanity.

GS - Is it your serious, well-considered judgment that Hitler and the Nazis murdered millions of Jews because of a delusional world created by use of the subject-predicate linguistic form? Seriously?

Alfonso

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

We are on very different wavelengths as regards causality. You see a trap with subject-predicate. I see none so far. The hatred I mentioned stems from man's nature and choices, not from a technical aspect of his use of language.

Michael

[tjohnson]

But you aren't presenting any way that you can know this because of science. You're invalidating your own knowledge claims by the logic of your own argument. As Merlin felicitously expressed the point in his post #119, "But it all flips upon entering the physics lab." What's the justification for this flip?

The justification is that physics uses relational methods structurally similar to 'reality', not subject-predicate methods which are primitive and false to facts.

[tjohnson]

GS,

We are on very different wavelengths as regards causality. You see a trap with subject-predicate. I see none so far. The hatred I mentioned stems from man's nature and choices, not from a technical aspect of his use of language.

Michael

If the only tool you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail. If the only linguistic tools you have are ancient subject-predicate forms then you confuse things in your mind with 'reality". Hatred can be taught to children and even institutionalized via these forms. How is the child supposed to know he hasn't been brain washed?

[tjohnson]

GS - Is it your serious, well-considered judgment that Hitler and the Nazis murdered millions of Jews because of a delusional world created by use of the subject-predicate linguistic form? Seriously?

Alfonso

Not 'caused' it, but instrumental in it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hatred can be taught to children and even institutionalized via these forms. How is the child supposed to know he hasn't been brain washed?

GS,

I would be interested in reading any scientific literature you have comparing how emotions are taught via linguistic forms, especially studies that compare teaching emotions using the subject-predicate form against the same emotions taught using relational forms.

That would be one way to find out whether children get brain washed by using subjects and predicates.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

GS,

We are on very different wavelengths as regards causality. You see a trap with subject-predicate. I see none so far. The hatred I mentioned stems from man's nature and choices, not from a technical aspect of his use of language.

Michael

If the only tool you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail. If the only linguistic tools you have are ancient subject-predicate forms then you confuse things in your mind with 'reality". Hatred can be taught to children and even institutionalized via these forms. How is the child supposed to know he hasn't been brain washed?

Subject-predicate linguistic tools are a trap and/or a source of confusion.

May we quote you on that? :-)

REB

[Brant Gaede]

GS,

We are on very different wavelengths as regards causality. You see a trap with subject-predicate. I see none so far. The hatred I mentioned stems from man's nature and choices, not from a technical aspect of his use of language.

Michael

If the only tool you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail. If the only linguistic tools you have are ancient subject-predicate forms then you confuse things in your mind with 'reality". Hatred can be taught to children and even institutionalized via these forms. How is the child supposed to know he hasn't been brain washed?

Subject-predicate linguistic tools are a trap and/or a source of confusion.

May we quote you on that? :-)

REB

What quote?

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

But you aren't presenting any way that you can know this because of science. You're invalidating your own knowledge claims by the logic of your own argument. As Merlin felicitously expressed the point in his post #119, "But it all flips upon entering the physics lab." What's the justification for this flip?

The justification is that physics uses relational methods structurally similar to 'reality', not subject-predicate methods which are primitive and false to facts.

And on what basis do you know what is "structurally similar to 'reality'"? Man, you're assuming your conclusion all over the place. It's called the fallacy of affirming the consequent, but then you and logic don't get along well.

Ellen

___

[BaalChatzaf]

And on what basis do you know what is "structurally similar to 'reality'"? Man, you're assuming your conclusion all over the place. It's called the fallacy of affirming the consequent, but then you and logic don't get along well.

Ellen

___

Arrgghhhhh! Smart as paint ye arrrrre.

Physics has two claims to fame.

1. It predicts the outcome of experiments go twelve decimal places

2. It grounds highly effective technology.

Any claims to "structural similarity" to reality are hypothetical, quite literally.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

1. It predicts the outcome of experiments go twelve decimal places

Well if it predicts the outcome of experiments go twelve decimal places wouldn't it be reasonable to claim some structural similarity? Isn't this what we mean by invariance under transformation? Compare that to "the water is hot" etc.

[merjet]

The justification is that physics uses relational methods structurally similar to 'reality', not subject-predicate methods which are primitive and false to facts.

This is written in subject-predicate form. So it must be primitive and false. Please translate to a physics formula! Five decimal places will suffice.

[tjohnson]

I would be interested in reading any scientific literature you have comparing how emotions are taught via linguistic forms, especially studies that compare teaching emotions using the subject-predicate form against the same emotions taught using relational forms.

Yes I would too It would probably suffice to look at some hate literature and examine how it is worded. I found this;

SCORES OF CHILDREN'S BOOKS PUBLISHED IN ISRAEL encourage hatred and contempt for the Arabs. The principle is identical in all these endless serials: the Israeli hereos defeat the stupid Arabs.

So, Israelis ARE heroes and Arabs ARE stupid.

A librarian at a large municipal library says: "They are a disaster, these books; and however much as we recommend classical literature — the children want these books. Parents are glad to see their child sitting enthralled by a book — and it does not cross their mind what he is actually reading. We are not able to control what every child reads, and on the part of the Ministry of Education and Culture — there is no control."

As far as children's books are concerned, anarchy reigns. Everyone can publish whatever he wants. Bad translations, mis-educational books; Children 's books, apparently, are the only product over which there is no control.

But the books which are published in this country are much worse than bad translations — and there are many tens of books — which deal with one topic: the Arabs who murder Jews out of pleasure, and the pure Jewish boy who defeats "the coward swine."

See http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archiv...s_hate_lit.html

[tjohnson]

This is written in subject-predicate form. So it must be primitive and false. Please translate to a physics formula! Five decimal places will suffice.

Unfortunately, we will never be able to make an exact science of general semantics like physics, for example. The phenomena is hidden inside a skull and it would severely effect the observed if the observer was to "look inside" Seriously though, comments about language are in a different class than comments about observations, feelings, etc.

[BaalChatzaf]

This is written in subject-predicate form. So it must be primitive and false. Please translate to a physics formula! Five decimal places will suffice.

Unfortunately, we will never be able to make an exact science of general semantics like physics, for example. The phenomena is hidden inside a skull and it would severely effect the observed if the observer was to "look inside" Seriously though, comments about language are in a different class than comments about observations, feelings, etc.

Observations about external events can be checked empirically (in principle). Feelings are dreck (so to speak). That is why Sarek was my favorite Vulcan character from Star Trek. He was completely non-human. All Vulcan, all the time. Way to go!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 31, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I would be interested in reading any scientific literature you have comparing how emotions are taught via linguistic forms, especially studies that compare teaching emotions using the subject-predicate form against the same emotions taught using relational forms.

Yes I would too It would probably suffice to look at some hate literature and examine how it is worded.

GS,

Actually it does not suffice, neither as the science I requested nor as an anecdotal support for the theory. There are many other values operating in the literature you mentioned—plot, just to name one—that transmit the hatred. From what I saw, bigotry was the reason for the way the language was used, not the language was used in a certain manner, so bigotry resulted. I have no doubt at all that if certain language structures were censored and prohibited from use, the bigots would easily find other means of expression and be able to teach the young their hatred without a hitch.

Also, the implicit call for censorship and mind control of others in the example you cited left me completely unsympathetic to resolving the problem from that angle. I prefer to let people think what they want and restrict rights-violating actions by law. In fact, the right to think what you want is one of the most fundamental of all rights and it is reflected in freedom of speech. Proposing anything else is to propose a dictatorship.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Feelings are dreck (so to speak). That is why Sarek was my favorite Vulcan character from Star Trek. He was completely non-human. All Vulcan, all the time. Way to go!

Bob,

Way to go!?

That's quite a feeling you just expressed.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Feelings are dreck (so to speak). That is why Sarek was my favorite Vulcan character from Star Trek. He was completely non-human. All Vulcan, all the time. Way to go!

Bob,

Way to go!?

That's quite a feeling you just expressed.

Michael

Yes. And my cheerfulness is dreck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

From what I saw, bigotry was the reason for the way the language was used, not the language was used in a certain manner, so bigotry resulted. I have no doubt at all that if certain language structures were censored and prohibited from use, the bigots would easily find other means of expression and be able to teach the young their hatred without a hitch.

Also, the implicit call for censorship and mind control of others in the example you cited left me completely unsympathetic to resolving the problem from that angle. I prefer to let people think what they want and restrict rights-violating actions by law. In fact, the right to think what you want is one of the most fundamental of all rights and it is reflected in freedom of speech. Proposing anything else is to propose a dictatorship.

Sounds like a chicken or the egg thing to me - you can't separate one from the other. You know, freedom doesn't come without responsibilities. We are free to drive our cars on the road provided we accept responsibility to get a licence, insurance, inspection, etc. and follow the rules of the road. But for some reason we can say whatever we want, no matter who it hurts or how much destruction is causes with no responsibility? it is not a question of censorship anyway (except in the case of public figures who would have to have a higher standard), it's a question of education.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

If the issue is education only, I am not at all convinced that the subject-predicate form is the reason hate can be taught, or even an important part of that reason other than being simply a means of communication.

As to freedom of speech, there are some exceptions, like sudden loud warnings, that cannot be allowed due to the chaos they would prompt—Lincoln's famous statement about freedom of speech not being a right to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In this case, he is not talking about an idea, but a call to action.

Michael

[tjohnson]

One has to be careful of that tricky intransitive verb "is".

Yes, one does.

The little word is has its tragedies it marries and identifies different things with the greatest

innocence, and yet no two are ever identical, and if therein lies the charm of wedding them and

calling them one, therein too lies the danger. Whenever I use the word is, except in sheer tautology, I

deeply misuse it; and when I discover my error, the world seems to fall asunder and the members of

my family no longer know one another. (461) G. SANTAYANA

[Guyau]

This bears looking into:

“Necessary Existents”

Timothy Williamson

In Logic, Thought, and Language

A. O’Hear, editor; Cambridge 2002

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/asse...12/1326/rip.pdf

Edited March 25, 2008 by Stephen Boydstun