Page 24
GENERAL SEMANTICS
An Introduction to Perception
Fig. 1.
LOGICAL FATE
How free are we to think?
Can we become more aware?
Does it make a difference?
1. Culture is linguistic, built by language, and represents the potential for entrapment.
2. We possess the ability to change and/or alter our behaviors.
3. Achieving a consciousness of our abstracting benefits both the individual and society.
2. We possess the ability to change and/or alter our behaviors.
3. Achieving a consciousness of our abstracting benefits both the individual and society.
I.
LOGICAL DETERMINISM
Premises vs conclusions: From premises, conclusions follow
A. The joint structure of premise-conclusion is a closed system, within which, the freedom to think no longer exists.
B. Conclusions are dependent upon premises.
C. A new premise leads to a new conclusion(s).
01. It is precisely our premises which regulate our lives.
02. We are free to alter our premises, eliminate them altogether, and/or adopt new ones.
03. Freedom vs. inclined resistance:
a. Although we are empowered to change old premises or adopt new ones, we are inclined to resist doing so.
b. High orders of inference levels (premises) involve entrenched degrees of prejudice, religion, beliefs, and value judgments.
D. Relevant to any premise/conclusion structures, it is the resultant behaviors that remain the focus of importance.
E. Human evaluating and subsequent behaviors:
01. From underlying assumptions (premises) behavioral actions follow, of a passive or active nature.
02. Attempts to externally change our behavior (behavior modification) are short-lived.
03. Appropriate and successful changes arise from alteration or elimination of old premises and the adoption of new ones.
F. We want to change our premises because it is very useful in becoming more aware of what we do and why.
01. Not a magical process by which we can change our lives for the better overnight.
B. Conclusions are dependent upon premises.
C. A new premise leads to a new conclusion(s).
01. It is precisely our premises which regulate our lives.
02. We are free to alter our premises, eliminate them altogether, and/or adopt new ones.
03. Freedom vs. inclined resistance:
a. Although we are empowered to change old premises or adopt new ones, we are inclined to resist doing so.
b. High orders of inference levels (premises) involve entrenched degrees of prejudice, religion, beliefs, and value judgments.
D. Relevant to any premise/conclusion structures, it is the resultant behaviors that remain the focus of importance.
E. Human evaluating and subsequent behaviors:
01. From underlying assumptions (premises) behavioral actions follow, of a passive or active nature.
02. Attempts to externally change our behavior (behavior modification) are short-lived.
03. Appropriate and successful changes arise from alteration or elimination of old premises and the adoption of new ones.
F. We want to change our premises because it is very useful in becoming more aware of what we do and why.
01. Not a magical process by which we can change our lives for the better overnight.
II.
MULTI-MEANING / MULTI-ORDINALITY
Terms of consequence
A. Multi-Meaning:
01. A good example is the word, love.
02. Lexical dictionary meanings involve the same word, but with different definitions.
03. Contexual meanings use the same word, but in different situations.
04. Neurological social agreement is where different brains define the same words similarly:
a. No such thing really as the same word; agreement is for various and different reasons, among all-different brains..
05. Individualized responses are what we add to the multi-meanings of terms as a result of neuro-linguistic feedback:
a. Hypnosis as an example of how behavior is changed via the implications of neuro-linguistic feedback.
b. The self-hypnotic effect of talking to ourselves:
0a. Becoming aware of the content of our in-head running tape.
0b. An internal monologue that is non-neutral and self-criticizing.
0c. The negative impact of listening to self-critical abuse.
0d. The production of neuro-induced health and mental disorders via stress.
0e. What we say, versus our physical and or mental condition.
06. Culture as a shared hallucination.
B. Multi-Ordinality:
01. Applying different orders of abstraction to the same language.
02. No change in dictionary meaning, but a definite change in the term’s functional meaning.
03. Primary context involves an initial level of abstraction vs. an escalation of redundancy of identical terms, i.e. those applied to themselves:
a. communications about communications.
b. Theories about theories.
c. An increase of one's functional vocabulary.
04. To hate something represents an initial abstraction level of hate. (primary context)
05. Learning to hate the hate: same meaning, different, escalating level.
06. Identical terms which have multiple abstraction level applications:
a. to structure a structure of structures.
0a. A complex of relations.
0b. The qualitative content of knowledge.
0c. A joint product of observer and observed.
01. A good example is the word, love.
02. Lexical dictionary meanings involve the same word, but with different definitions.
03. Contexual meanings use the same word, but in different situations.
04. Neurological social agreement is where different brains define the same words similarly:
a. No such thing really as the same word; agreement is for various and different reasons, among all-different brains..
05. Individualized responses are what we add to the multi-meanings of terms as a result of neuro-linguistic feedback:
a. Hypnosis as an example of how behavior is changed via the implications of neuro-linguistic feedback.
b. The self-hypnotic effect of talking to ourselves:
0a. Becoming aware of the content of our in-head running tape.
0b. An internal monologue that is non-neutral and self-criticizing.
0c. The negative impact of listening to self-critical abuse.
0d. The production of neuro-induced health and mental disorders via stress.
0e. What we say, versus our physical and or mental condition.
06. Culture as a shared hallucination.
B. Multi-Ordinality:
01. Applying different orders of abstraction to the same language.
02. No change in dictionary meaning, but a definite change in the term’s functional meaning.
03. Primary context involves an initial level of abstraction vs. an escalation of redundancy of identical terms, i.e. those applied to themselves:
a. communications about communications.
b. Theories about theories.
c. An increase of one's functional vocabulary.
04. To hate something represents an initial abstraction level of hate. (primary context)
05. Learning to hate the hate: same meaning, different, escalating level.
06. Identical terms which have multiple abstraction level applications:
a. to structure a structure of structures.
0a. A complex of relations.
0b. The qualitative content of knowledge.
0c. A joint product of observer and observed.
III.
NON-ESSENTIALISM VS ESSENTIALISM
A. Almost everyone believes in the notion of essences:
01. That there exists an intrinsic core-quality within everything.
02. A disregard for our own participation in the discovery process.
B. Essentialism is considered inappropriate as we only impose or project such ideas due to our in-brain perceptions and transactions.
01. That there exists an intrinsic core-quality within everything.
02. A disregard for our own participation in the discovery process.
B. Essentialism is considered inappropriate as we only impose or project such ideas due to our in-brain perceptions and transactions.
IV.
NON-ELEMENTALISM Vs ELEMENTALISM
A. Almost everyone splits into separate elements, verbally and mentally, what cannot actually be split:
01. Observer and observed are a joint product.
02. Space-time includes no spatial considerations without time, no time without spatial consequences.
Q: How far is the moon?
A: When?
Q: Humans?
A: Processes that age.
03. Feelings–thoughts:
a. No thought without affectations of emotions.
b. No feelings without intellecting.
c. As oppposed to traditional intellectual and emotional dualism used in psychology and psychiatry.
b. Feelings-thoughts produce behaviors.
B. The process character of reality versus linguistic habits.
C. Elementalism is not congruent with what’s going on.
D. Non-elementalism does not attempt to join things, rather it acknowledges that which already exists wholely (and solely) within the parabola.
01. Observer and observed are a joint product.
02. Space-time includes no spatial considerations without time, no time without spatial consequences.
Q: How far is the moon?
A: When?
Q: Humans?
A: Processes that age.
03. Feelings–thoughts:
a. No thought without affectations of emotions.
b. No feelings without intellecting.
c. As oppposed to traditional intellectual and emotional dualism used in psychology and psychiatry.
b. Feelings-thoughts produce behaviors.
B. The process character of reality versus linguistic habits.
C. Elementalism is not congruent with what’s going on.
D. Non-elementalism does not attempt to join things, rather it acknowledges that which already exists wholely (and solely) within the parabola.
V.
SEMANTIC REACTIONS
The total response in humans to a stimulus,
related to the meaning assigned -- to that stimulus
A. The term total refers to an intellectual-emotional response of elementalistic components; the lack of contradiction exists in the awareness that we are being elementalistic.
B. Signal Responses:
01. Animal, immediate, and conditioned:
a. Flinching and ducking when threatened.
b. Sexual and instinctual.
c. A reflex.
02. Acknowledgement of circumstance.
03. Different reactions vs. different situations.
C. Symbol Reactions:
01. Human, delayed, and conditional.
D. An evaluation of where we spend most of our time:
01. Signal responses?
02. Symbol reactions?
Q: Time spent mostly in signal response areas?
A: You win a neuro-linguistic feedback case of stress.
E. Internal and external, productive and destructive behaviors.
B. Signal Responses:
01. Animal, immediate, and conditioned:
a. Flinching and ducking when threatened.
b. Sexual and instinctual.
c. A reflex.
02. Acknowledgement of circumstance.
03. Different reactions vs. different situations.
C. Symbol Reactions:
01. Human, delayed, and conditional.
D. An evaluation of where we spend most of our time:
01. Signal responses?
02. Symbol reactions?
Q: Time spent mostly in signal response areas?
A: You win a neuro-linguistic feedback case of stress.
E. Internal and external, productive and destructive behaviors.
VI.
EMPIRICAL DATA
Data which is either verified or disproved (discredited) by observation or experimentation
A reliance upon experience and observation
A. Statements of fact.
B. Verifiable inferences which involve socially shared agreements.
C. Skepticism:
01. Avoiding/rejecting assertions about just anything:
a. Humans, in an honest attempt to make sense of what is experienced, invent answers:
1a. A fruitful process that encourages inference-level escalations.
02. What’s the data?
a. Show me.
b. Show others. (mutualities)
D. The functions of neuro-biology at the circle (Object) level.
B. Verifiable inferences which involve socially shared agreements.
C. Skepticism:
01. Avoiding/rejecting assertions about just anything:
a. Humans, in an honest attempt to make sense of what is experienced, invent answers:
1a. A fruitful process that encourages inference-level escalations.
02. What’s the data?
a. Show me.
b. Show others. (mutualities)
D. The functions of neuro-biology at the circle (Object) level.
VII.
THE CHARACTERISTICS Of PROTOPLASM
From slime molds to human beings
A. The natural state of all protoplasm is that of a gel with no defiinite shape.
01. Caffeine dissolves the gel.
02. Alcohol coagulates the gel.
B. Liquifaction and Coagulation processes are deteriorative forces that destroy protoplasm; a process we call death.
C. Attitudes and behaviors dictate our vulnerability to, or protection from, pathological disorders.
01. Caffeine dissolves the gel.
02. Alcohol coagulates the gel.
B. Liquifaction and Coagulation processes are deteriorative forces that destroy protoplasm; a process we call death.
C. Attitudes and behaviors dictate our vulnerability to, or protection from, pathological disorders.
The SELF-REFLEXIVE MAP
Fig. 2.
I.
MAKING MAPS Of MAPS
A Continuous Process
A. The final word is never said. (the final map is never made)
B. An ideal map would include a map of itself. (which is not possible)
C. Maps do, however, include the makers of maps.
D. Human brains contain skilled, map-making systems:
01. Brains can only talk about their own content.
02. We can only map ourselves, self reflexively:
a. Internally produced projections about external and internal relationships.
E. The event-level of the parabola is the primary ultimate territory:
01. Through transduction, personal experiences initiate the map-making process at the object level (circle).
a. The map evolves as a holographic display from which we chart courses of abstraction and behavior.
b. Maps can easily and wrongfully become assessed as territories.
c. Each map (a level of inference) becomes the subject of subsequent mapping. (escalating higher orders)
F. What we say vs. what is observed:
01. Sensations of alertness vs. drinking coffee. (caffeine anticipation)
02. Feelings of disappointment vs. our level of expectation.
G. Non- Identity: The map is not the territory.
H. Identification: Confusing various levels of abstraction:
01. What I say affects what I see.
02. What others say, may affect what I see.
03. What others do may affect what I do. (mass sociogenic disease)
04. Previous mapping affects and influences present mapping.
I. Checking what we say, against what we observe – with a strong bias towards observation.
B. An ideal map would include a map of itself. (which is not possible)
C. Maps do, however, include the makers of maps.
D. Human brains contain skilled, map-making systems:
01. Brains can only talk about their own content.
02. We can only map ourselves, self reflexively:
a. Internally produced projections about external and internal relationships.
E. The event-level of the parabola is the primary ultimate territory:
01. Through transduction, personal experiences initiate the map-making process at the object level (circle).
a. The map evolves as a holographic display from which we chart courses of abstraction and behavior.
b. Maps can easily and wrongfully become assessed as territories.
c. Each map (a level of inference) becomes the subject of subsequent mapping. (escalating higher orders)
F. What we say vs. what is observed:
01. Sensations of alertness vs. drinking coffee. (caffeine anticipation)
02. Feelings of disappointment vs. our level of expectation.
G. Non- Identity: The map is not the territory.
H. Identification: Confusing various levels of abstraction:
01. What I say affects what I see.
02. What others say, may affect what I see.
03. What others do may affect what I do. (mass sociogenic disease)
04. Previous mapping affects and influences present mapping.
I. Checking what we say, against what we observe – with a strong bias towards observation.
Fig. 3. Prehistoric fossil bears striking likeness to modern map
II.
MAPPING
The map is not the territory.
The map does not contain all the territory.
The map contains our own mapping behavior (self-reflexivity)
The map does not contain all the territory.
The map contains our own mapping behavior (self-reflexivity)
Maps involve irreversible processes:
Once an experience-perception is mapped, it is a permanent part of memory.
LOGICAL FATE:
PREMISES (maps) vs. CONCLUSIONS (maps of maps)
We learn to overcome our behavior problems by:
A. Becoming aware of our underlying assumptions (premises).
B. Adopting new premises (making new maps).
C. Discarding the use of (reliance upon) old maps.
Once an experience-perception is mapped, it is a permanent part of memory.
LOGICAL FATE:
PREMISES (maps) vs. CONCLUSIONS (maps of maps)
We learn to overcome our behavior problems by:
A. Becoming aware of our underlying assumptions (premises).
B. Adopting new premises (making new maps).
C. Discarding the use of (reliance upon) old maps.
Fig. 4.
III.
THE ART Of CONSTRUCTIVE STRUCTURING
A. Time-binding: The inter/intra cooperation of multiple generations.
B. IFD disease
01. Idealization
02. Frustration
03. Demoralization
a. Idealizations (unrealistic expectation) produce:
b. Frustrations (non-realizations) which induce:
c. Demoralizations (pathologies)
C. Indexing: one thing is not another, or is wrongly another.
D. Dating: Oneself as a process
E. Hyphenating: The observer/observed continuum.
01. No such thing as objective; the non-objective view from within.
F. General Semantics: Modern, open, applied epistemology.
B. IFD disease
01. Idealization
02. Frustration
03. Demoralization
a. Idealizations (unrealistic expectation) produce:
b. Frustrations (non-realizations) which induce:
c. Demoralizations (pathologies)
C. Indexing: one thing is not another, or is wrongly another.
D. Dating: Oneself as a process
E. Hyphenating: The observer/observed continuum.
01. No such thing as objective; the non-objective view from within.
F. General Semantics: Modern, open, applied epistemology.
IV.
The MAP
There are one-hundred tables in the room.
The room can accommodate two-hundred tables.
There is, therefore, space for many more tables in the room.
The room can accommodate two-hundred tables.
There is, therefore, space for many more tables in the room.
Q: Is this a valid conclusion?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this an authentic conclusion?
A: No.
The territory is, in actuality, a real room in which:
A. There is actually only one table.
B. The room can barely accommodate the one table. (it’s a small room)
C. Therefore no space exists for more tables.
Q: Is this a true description?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: Empirical verification.
Valid statements may contain extremely high orders of inference (skating on thin ice) whereas:
Ascertainments of truth derive from very low orders of inference (high degrees of authenticity).
A: Yes.
Q: Is this an authentic conclusion?
A: No.
The territory is, in actuality, a real room in which:
A. There is actually only one table.
B. The room can barely accommodate the one table. (it’s a small room)
C. Therefore no space exists for more tables.
Q: Is this a true description?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: Empirical verification.
Valid statements may contain extremely high orders of inference (skating on thin ice) whereas:
Ascertainments of truth derive from very low orders of inference (high degrees of authenticity).
V.
GENERAL SEMANTICS
Language - Thinking - Reality - Structures - Behavior
Symbol systems connected to:
Nervous-systems connected to:
Behavior systems
HAPPINESS:
Minimum expectation (within reason)
Plus maximum motivation
UNHAPPINESS:
Motivation
Minus maximum expectation/anticipation
SUMMATION
Fig. 5.
|
This is not a scientific treatise that attempts to dissect the human condition into its constituent parts or components.
It does, however, suggest that hard science, an open attitude, and healthy skepticism have value. Not addressed here has been an investigation into the as yet mysterious and peripheral attributes of the mind. Phenomena such as ESP, hypnotic regression, near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, UFO abductions, parallel evolution among distant species, witchcraft, voodoo, black and white magic, spirits, goblins, angels, apparitions, specters, and other inexplicable anecdotes of human experience, are beyond the scope of the foregoing material. All such occurrences, in any event, reside within the realm of the parabola, and exist as extremely high orders of inference. (speculation/conjecture/embellishment) Most, if not all, supernatural phenomena fall within the category of human psychology and may well be the product of brain functions and neural connections which remain unknown or incomprehensible by present standards of analysis. |
General Semantics represents one of the better tools available to those who wish to unravel the burdensome and complex plenum of information which confronts us. General Semantics acts as a filtering system through which may be sifted one’s concept(s) of reality and from which, life enhancing attitudes and behaviors might follow.
Many persons who will resist the protocol of General Semantics do so because well-entrenched premises and conclusions about themselves and the world are threatened, or (via self-imposition) are immune from a contagion of doubt. Humans possess a proclivity for answers, solutions, and truths; it is a need that subverts our ability to assimilate new ideas, or from disposing of other, wrong ideas.
As a closing thought, it should be noted that the precepts of General Semantics are of a personal and private nature. This is to say that the foregoing formulations are not the sort of thing which can be thrust upon a society, group of individuals, or even a solitary citizen. The inclinations and tendencies of human activities run contrary and in opposition to the modes of thinking outlined here. The coherent flow of culture is via the perpetuation and protection of its own momentum and doctrinal inertia. Consequently the incompatible tenets of hard science are only allowed to exist because its products have been inculturated.
General Semantics begins with the individual and ends with the individual. It allows one to digest the different meanings found in life and not suffer a stomach ache. If considered seriously, General Semantics can show us a universe which is higher, wider, and deeper than may have ever been imagined, and in the process, help us shed a lot of cumbersome and excess philosophical luggage. Thanks for listening.
Many persons who will resist the protocol of General Semantics do so because well-entrenched premises and conclusions about themselves and the world are threatened, or (via self-imposition) are immune from a contagion of doubt. Humans possess a proclivity for answers, solutions, and truths; it is a need that subverts our ability to assimilate new ideas, or from disposing of other, wrong ideas.
As a closing thought, it should be noted that the precepts of General Semantics are of a personal and private nature. This is to say that the foregoing formulations are not the sort of thing which can be thrust upon a society, group of individuals, or even a solitary citizen. The inclinations and tendencies of human activities run contrary and in opposition to the modes of thinking outlined here. The coherent flow of culture is via the perpetuation and protection of its own momentum and doctrinal inertia. Consequently the incompatible tenets of hard science are only allowed to exist because its products have been inculturated.
General Semantics begins with the individual and ends with the individual. It allows one to digest the different meanings found in life and not suffer a stomach ache. If considered seriously, General Semantics can show us a universe which is higher, wider, and deeper than may have ever been imagined, and in the process, help us shed a lot of cumbersome and excess philosophical luggage. Thanks for listening.
Credit: www.adyshanti.org
* * * *
You're currently on page NOU24
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
