Soderqvist1: this is a reply to Caroline’s messages!
Hubbe Boy wrote: We find a scholar of the level of Count Alfred Korzybski, for instance, writing an entire text and an entire subject - General Semantics - on the premise that two MEST universe spaces cannot concur, and they cannot be in the same space. It's interesting to the degree to which this can go. This is not even vaguely true. It's just space. I mean, you can do anything with space - unless you were convinced that space will not duplicate you, and that you mustn't duplicate space. If you're convinced of that, then you mustn't duplicate. That's your first level: You'd better not duplicate space - not this MEST universe space.
Soderqvist1: I have read Korzybski’ s book Science and Sanity, but I haven’t the slightest clue what Hubbard possible can have in mind. Hubbard doesn’t deserve a rebuttal because he has no reference to where this can be found! But I replay anyway! Btw, the elementalistic word space is not used by Alfred Korzybski, he uses Hyphen like space-time, or when he does so he uses it with scare quotes like this; “space”
ESGS: During centuries, it was regarded as obvious that 'space,' 'time' and 'matter' had an objective existence. Until 19th century, physicists tried to clutch to these 'ideas', although negative experiments accumulated. Then, Einstein broke the taboo by establishing equivalence of 'matter' and energy, with his famous formula E=mc2. Furthermore, 'space' and 'time' disappeared for a combination of both, in agreement with the experimental results of the time (1905-1920). Korzybski was strongly influenced by the considerable progress of physics at that time. He understood that this revolution was due to a profound change of premises and methodology.
One important lesson to draw from these new formulations is that it is very risky to separate verbally what cannot be separated empirically. It appears difficult to show any 'space', 'time' or 'matter', without showing the two other elements altogether. Korzybski baptised "elementalistic" (el) these words that separate what cannot be separated empirically. Conversely, he baptised "non-elementalistic" (non-el) those that restored the union, broken at verbal levels. Thus "space-time", "psycho-somatic", "evaluation", "semantic reaction", etc., are non-el, whereas "space", "time", "body", "spirit", "feeling", "reasoning", "emotion", "logic", etc., are el. The main tools of general semantics dealing with this problem are the hyphen and the scare quotes.http://esgs.free.fr/uk/el.htm
Hubbe Boy: The notion of the misunderstood word derives from Korzybski: "General Semantics was of use to Dianetics. I started going back looking for the first time a word had appeared ... There might be some misdefinitions ... General Semantics is definitely of use in the definition of a word. (54). [R&D vol1, p.440]" — Jon Atack, from Possible Origins of Dianetics and Scientology.
ESGS: Again, none of what is said in this quote can reasonably originate from general semantics. At best this could come from some semantic theory. Jon Atack just repeats LRH's claims.
Soderqvist1: I haven’t seen anything of that either!
Korzybski claims that our words are hopelessly over-defined by intens
ion, and hopelessly under-defined by extension. For example a circle is too platonic perfect because in our empirical world rings can only be found, and there is a lot of particulars regarding all empirical rings that are not covered in dictionaries in example a ring of wood is some times rotten! More about it here, and he is also talking about a extrovert-Introvert person!http://www.rodsmith.org.uk/alfred-korzy ... 200371.htm
Hubbe Boy: Korzybski. Korzybski, in his tremendous piece of work there, was trying madly to differentiate over, above, around, under, alongside of - and for God's sakes, let's do something about - this A=A=A=A of an electronic ridge to which facsimiles are affixed. Now, you want to know routes out of this trouble, how you get away from this trouble, he points out a route. His route, however...Although Hayakawa
 and some of the boys in general semantics believe there's a therapy involved in it, there isn't. You can train and train and train and train and train, when you're training into differentiation, and all you're doing is training in a secondary circuit response. The fellow starts to identify, and then he gets very careful and differentiates. Well now, he's got a circuit set up that differentiates what he started to identify. And of course, all you're doing, really, is giving a lot of credit to some ridge. You're giving the ridge credit of beingness, and the guy will get worse, he won't get better. So watch crediting ridges! That's true, isn't it!
Soderqvist1: identification means the order of abstractions are confused!
In example; a stone is identified with pain, a non-identification is; the stone which has hit me is not the pain I feel!
ESGS: Finally, we have the point of view of the general semantics officials themselves. Did AK ever acknowledge a link between general semantics and Dianetics (having died in 1950, he could not have evaluated Scientology, the offspring of Dianetics)? No trace of that anywhere in the records of the Institute of General Semantics. Indeed, a prominent member of the International Society for General Semantics and former US senator, Samuel I. Hayakawa
, viewed Dianetics in a rather negative way:
"The lure of the pseudoscientific vocabulary and promises of dianetics cannot but condemn thousands who are beginning to emerge from scientific illiteracy to a continuation of their susceptibility to word-magic and semantic hash."
— S. I. Hayakawa, "Dianetics: From Science-fiction to Fiction-science," pp.280-293, Etc: A Review of General Semantics vol 8:4 (1951).
This link is strong and negative, in that general semantics officials do not acknowledge any significant similarity between the two disciplines. Quite the opposite in fact: Dianetics is exposed, by one of the prominent members of a general semantics organisation, as a pseudoscience one year before Gardner did it, in 1952.http://esgs.free.fr/uk/art/jk8.htm
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist