How to interpet Korzybski

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
simplex
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2000 12:37 pm
Location: here, there , and everywhere
Contact:

How to interpet Korzybski

Post by simplex » Thu Apr 19, 2001 2:05 pm

Peter:
A = A?
You are right here, since I don't know any person who has reached the state of A = A regarding every thing(Even amoebas can differentiate regarding stimulus on its protoplasm) but I have personal knowledge about a person which are thinking that women are someone detesting beings, because he hate them! And he has even, went to jail for it! Because of beatings!

However, he can understand that women like different kind of food! Hence he differentiate!
But he identifying them as detesting beings, hence his taste is A = A
It is true that consciousness can be, symbolized by 100 units, and 99 are sub, and it goes downwards, down to semiconscious, down to zero units of consciousness. Or 100 units of unconsciousness, and/or Subconsciousness theoretically! However, I don't know how low, it is possible to descend! But the solution is upwards!

I identify when I consider an aggregate of objects, as women, since I have consciously left out differences! In my abstraction! But I can differentiate between them, when it is necessary to do so! Namely, woman1, woman2, woman3, etc, they are similar, because they are women, but my numbers has given them individuality! Because of differences between similarities! Hence I am conscious of abstracting! But a misogynist can't differentiate enough in his taste! Because of his hate feelings! Hence unconscious of abstracting!

Korzybski's work is not one mans work, because it is an aggregate of past achievements, and his own, in his "time", for the posterity! It was the humanities time-binding energy at work there!

simplex
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2000 12:37 pm
Location: here, there , and everywhere
Contact:

Post by simplex » Thu Apr 19, 2001 2:46 pm

Peter,
first of all you are talking about a "sick" person - even though he can see that women are different he still "hate" them in general. (More or less like someone that "hates" everybody who are inside Co$ ;) - sorry.)

From this you can not conclude that any abstraction is "wrong". And I doubt that Korzybski can tell what abstractions we need to eliminate - that would be a major contradiction in it self. (His notation tools can be very helpful, I think).


It is thus still a very individual task to select what abstractions we want to avoid. Then again it is very important to make a note when we make an abstraction that influence out actions, and this is where we can use the notation woman1 .... womann


So the only A=A creature/object in the world would be God - or if you can not imagine that, it would be the entire world including anything - and it would still need the notation world1900, world1901, world1902 etc. since the world changes over time.

And we can add extra complexity by talking about rellativity.

So I am not claiming that GM is wrond or unproductive, but does - in it self - show that there are great risk that you misinterpet scientific observations. And that naturally apply to GM as well.... thus www.Korzybski.org and other misinterpetations.

Simplex

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by peter » Fri Apr 20, 2001 10:29 am

TO SIMPLEX
The misogynists are an aggregate of men who has hate regarding women, as their distinct mark of class! Hence similarities! But they differ in their grades of hate, and thus deserve to be labeled, and indexed as, mysigonist1, misogynist2, and misogynist3, etc! Hence difference between similarities! Furthermore even a misogynist1 differ in his hate, from "time" to "time" (hate is a dynamic affair, and not static) and thus deserves to include even dating!

A hypothetical operational extensional methods, can be illustrated as follow, A misogynist1 has beating woman2 approximately in space-time 2001-04-19 clock 17:30 in their home! And his hate is lowered afterwards, because his dramatization is satisfying, but he deserves, according to my judgement to be, send to jail for his crime!

Differentiation can be done unlimited, 100 units is mine a mathematical symbol for potential or activated maximum differentiation abilities! And thus awareness level 70 is a mathematical amalgam between, 100% conscious units, and 30% unconscious units! Hence 70 % conscious, and is subconscious to optimum consciousness, and is potentially more able to differentiate, than he is, at awareness level 40! This is only a mathematical illustration! And not the factual happenings! But are eventually similar in its structure, and thus is a fair symbolizing description!

However, whole number can be divided into infinitely many decimals, and thus make my illustration more complex, even a specific whole number is too complex description, it is more appropriate to feel a smoothly developments upwardly, and downwardly, there insanity is propagated downwards, and sanity is developed upwards!

Aristotle is not invalidated in Korzybski's work, because Aristotle is one of our greatest Geniuses on record! Korzybski's work is dedicated to him, as origin of knowledge!

Regarding criticizing Korzybski's work? You are too eager to criticize because you have not made your homework done, regarding Manhood of Humanity, and Science and Sanity! Make your homework rigorously done first! Criticize next! I mean your allegation that Korzybski has pointed at Paul Tabaka 's inferences as a right direction, indicates to me that, you don't understand Korzybski's work, because you are too ambiguous in our inferences, I mean Steven Lewis link oppose you!

Furthermore, Korzybski's principal work, Science and Sanity are reviewed, before marketing, by the best scientists of his day! Who are you to say that, they are wrong in their conclusion?
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by peter » Fri Apr 20, 2001 11:21 am

TO SIMPLEX
You wrote: first of all you are talking about a "sick" person - even though he can see that women are different he still "hate" them in general. (More or less like someone that "hates" everybody who are inside Co$ - sorry.)

Peter1: What you have actually described here is a confusing between different order of abstractions, and it indicates to me that, you don't understand, and I think there is no meaning to argue with you about it either!
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by peter » Fri Apr 20, 2001 1:13 pm

Simplex even wrote, from this you can not conclude that any abstraction is "wrong". And I doubt that Korzybski can tell what abstractions we need to eliminate - that would be a major contradiction in it self. (His notation tools can be very helpful, I think).

Peter1: Here it is evident, that you are not conscious of abstracting, because his tool (structural differential) are aimed to make the user aware about his, confusing of different orders of abstractions, and thus differentiate it, as a consequence!

Do your basics
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

simplex
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2000 12:37 pm
Location: here, there , and everywhere
Contact:

Post by simplex » Fri Apr 20, 2001 2:59 pm

OK Peter, I shall make no further attempts to debate this until I have done my reading of 'Science and sanity'. ;)

I can only comment that your description of consciousness sounds very sane, and I belive that it will however not appeal to the normal Freudian followers. While it sound artificial I can understand that it would in praxis work very well! (Freudians will say that subconsciousness is the latter 30%, but in your model of the world there is no need for that abstraction; so you call it unconsciousness (perhaps non-consciousness?))

Simplex

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by peter » Mon Apr 23, 2001 7:58 am

TO SIMPLEX

Thank you for your e-mail!

I am not offended now, because your Thursday message is not now! And I was not offended when I read your message either! But I think we can make our communication more effective here, namely, you are free to point to my "inconsistencies" and ask me, I don't quite understand you here? or what do you mean?
Can you give me structure? I think I can rehab most of my "shortcomings" And adjust myself to your criticism, when I am unable to do so!

REGARDING NON-CONSCIOUSNESS?
Words are undefined by intension as long as some context is inconsistent and undefined by extension, when we have not pointed to some specific object, or relation between objects etc, and thus, it is only noises, or empty scratches under such circumstances, according to my understanding! Your coined term non-consciousness is negative, and thus is useful to describe subconscious! I mean consciousness can be symbolized by 100 units of conscious, and thus 99 is subconscious, because 100 is positive, add 1 negative labeled as 1 unconscious unit, or 1 non-conscious unit = 99 is negative, compared with 100 positive, sine it is lacking in 1 positive conscious unit!

We can also let the units talk for them self, namely, 99 conscious unit is more positive, than negative since it Is a relation of 100 positive, and 1 negative. 70 positive and 30 negative is still more positive than negative. 50 positive and 50 negative is neutral, or semiconscious. 40 positive and 60 negative is thus more negative than positive; hence it is more sameness, than differentiation! I don't know how low it is possible to be! But catatonic cases are the lowest known. I have secondhand information about a man, a catatonic case, who doesn't know about the difference between, when a cup of milk is front of his nose, and when the cup is taken away from him, since he don't understand the difference. Because he are like a 1 year old child. There is a mention in Science and Sanity, from psychiatric hospital about a decorticated boy who was born in that way and that boy were even deeper in catatonia! I believe the state of non-consciousness, is somewhere there!
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by peter » Mon Apr 23, 2001 8:56 am

TO SIMPLEX
I will elaborate my issue even more here, a misogynist has misogyny as his case, and can be mathematically formulated, as woman1 = women! But he doesn't know about this formula, since the formula is buried in his subconscious "mind" And I will give you an illustration here!

Woman1 is hypothetically in the most cases his mother, or some of his relative, or a past child nursery. (Sadistic, and dominating). Let us take the relation 30 positive and 70 negative if such a case is possible?
Thus mathematically, the beaten woman2 is identified as woman1 to 70%, and recognized as 30% woman2, This is an analytical description by me. But is reactively, and thus unconsciously computed by the misogynist1, "this is the reason why she deserved it". And the slightest wrongs on the women1 side, is over interpreted by him, and the aim of the mental professions, is to make the reactive computation, even analytical computed by the misogynist1, and thus the misogynist1 is rehabbed, into a non-misogynist, or a normal person! Hence the unconscious content is made conscious, and the case is ended!
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by peter » Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:51 am

TO SIMPLEX
A non-Aristotelian system and its modus operandi general semantics are open-ended, according to Korzybski! And that means, science is free to change something in it when the need is risen to do so! But I think it is reasonable, to make it clear when, and by who, the changes, or modifications is done, but I also firmly believes, that changes can't be arbitrarily made in the system by anyone! I mean as follow!

A map is a description of its territory, and a map cannot mapping all of its assumed territory, but a map is self-reflexive, and mapping it self infinitely! Hence if Korzybski is wrong in his descriptions (general semantics) about the territory, the mapping of infinitely, will turned out to be distorted too! And thus show us where the changes, or modification is necessary to be done, by formal scientific modus operandi! But you can change your own mapping, whenever you find it necessary to do so!

I recommend Manhood of Humanity, as your first study object, and Science and Sanity issue 1994 as next. Science and Sanity is very comprehensive, and has a bibliography of approximately 700 books from the best Scientists, and every chapter begins with quotes from them, and Korzybski's investigations, experimenting and elaboration, as an answer to the quotes! And there is a scientific review in the end of the book from various famous universities! In short, the verdict is; Korzybski has made it!

His total lifework is a 4½-inch thick compilation, in an extra neural-space! Compare that with L. Ron Hubbard's gigantic imagination of a lifetime, exhibition at boulevard in Hollywood?

I am close to never here at weekends

Sincerely yours
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

simplex
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2000 12:37 pm
Location: here, there , and everywhere
Contact:

Post by simplex » Mon Apr 23, 2001 11:45 am

Peter, (Written before your last two postings)
Perhaps the problem is that we are both unable to make totally consistent statements? This is how I interpret Korzybski (Simplex,22-04-2001).

So perhaps I can just keep pointing out inconsistent details in your wording and we will not make progress? My strategy is one of re-enforcement, that is let´s point out the consistent points and validate those to the best of our knowledge. That is, let us figure out how we can interpret, and use, the 1-100% consciousness scale. Say, under what conditions can/must we use this scale?


Given one of your examples, if you were able to fully understand - perceive - the state of the misogynist case you would also be able to forgive him! That is your knowledge of him would be 100% perfect, and you would be able to perceive his reactions in the relevant context.

But neither of us will ever be 100% conscious (Gods)! Now add to this that as humans we complicate situations with ethics and social rules - stuff that is non-perceptions, but dictated by our culture/belief.

So the scale of consciousness is only valid in some relations where people are clearly not perceiving the world correctly - say when they start believing in UFOs and stuff. We need an other scale for the perceptions of ethics etc. (Maslows scale is a valid bid)

So what I am saying that we can not conclude that 100% consciousness is the goal, partly because a 100% conscious creature would be a God. In fact a human being can live a perfect life without being conscious about more than 0,000001% of what is actually important for his well being - in fact one can be perfectly happy with a totally wrong perception of the world, total knowledge about the state of the world could however be quite depressing. This is also the real genius of the mind, under normal conditions it can work perfectly on a very limited amount of information.

Simplex
ps Your simple 1-100% congruousness scale have now enabled us to realize that 100% is not a goal, and that is quite a nice step in the right direction?

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by peter » Mon Apr 23, 2001 1:59 pm

TO SIMPLEX
Your conscious scale of 0 – 100 is workable, and the direction most be upwards. Our aims as human time-binders, must be increased cooperation between humans, without individual aims left out! The notion about our inferences, or abstractions can never be infinitely valid, since the event level is always in a continuum of ever changing. But our mappings can be better, and better, and thus lessening the distance between the infinite true, and our mappings, since our mapping power, is equivalent, or identical with our time-binding energy! And time-binding energy is the highest energy form known since it can convert natural energy, like coal, or oil into man made energy, like lights in our lamps, it can even convert atoms into nuclear power!

I will leave know
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by peter » Tue Apr 24, 2001 9:16 am

TO SIMPLEX
You wrote so what I am saying that we can not conclude that 100% consciousness is the goal, partly because a 100% conscious creature would be a God. In fact a human being can live a perfect life without being conscious about more than 0,000001% of what is actually important for his well being. - In fact one can be perfectly happy with a totally wrong perception of the world, total knowledge about the state of the world could however be quite depressing. This is also the real genius of the mind, under normal conditions it can work perfectly on a very limited amount of information.

Peter1: I don't understand you here, what do you mean?
You have mixed two different orders of abstraction here, namely unconscious or conscious of abstracting, with consciousness about what is important for his wellbeing? I will define my consciousness of abstracting once more. Conscious of abstracting is an ability to differentiate, by "thought, and "feeling" between the orders of abstraction, and thus recognize, that apple1 is not equal with its self! Since its anatomy is a dynamic changing nature, simply perceived, as born, growing, mature, decaying, dead, gone, with infinite many decimals included in the lifecycle! But only differentiating cannot give me a feeling of familiarity, since I must, somehow recognize similarities, between the different orders (number symbolizes order). This abstracting awareness makes it impossible to confuse the orders of abstraction! Hence perceiving similarities between differences, and differences between similarities, and sameness in all respect (identity), is thus rejected!

Your 0.000001% conscious of what is necessary for his wellbeing, is far below starvation, according to my mathematics! What do you really mean here?

However, an infinitely valued abstraction is meaningless, when we are intended to make an apple pie, since we take some of them, which we have recognized as useful, to make pie with. Hence an optimal approximation, conditioned by circumstances, is mathematically correct, from a human engineering point of view!
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

simplex
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2000 12:37 pm
Location: here, there , and everywhere
Contact:

Post by simplex » Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:56 am

Peter,
My point is simply that it is still a personal/human - perhaps an ethical - decision to select what abstractions you want to address. To my knowledge it would thus require divine knowledge to know and manage all important abstractions at all times.

The 0,0000001 % is thus about what could be the real number of abstractions you can process. (That is, your nervous system can process about 10Mb of information, and this is done generally by throwing away most of those 10Mb without much thinking.)

How do we select the abstractions that we want to be conscious about, and how do you know that there are not more?

Simplex
ps I generally do not like the term "human engineering" - is sounds like you think that humans must be controlled?

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by peter » Tue Apr 24, 2001 1:41 pm

TO SIMPLEX
I don't understand what my pie baking description has to do, with controlling humans? I don't understand your intermixing of types between divine and human dimensions either, and you will never be able to understand me, as long as you confuse these dimensions either!

My 0 - 100 approximation description, belongs to human dimension!
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

simplex
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2000 12:37 pm
Location: here, there , and everywhere
Contact:

Post by simplex » Tue Apr 24, 2001 2:47 pm

Peter(!),
I may confuse "human engineering" with the engenireing of humans?

Peter: My 0 - 100 approximation description, belongs to human dimension!

... and we - naturally - agree that the huamn dimension has a natural upper limit? If so we can return to:

How do we select the abstractions that we want to be conscious about, and how do you know that there are not more?

Simplex

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests