Copied from the Los Angeles Public Library catalogue :Marras, Ausonio. Title(s) Intentionality, mind, and language. Publisher Urbana, University of Illinois Press [1972] Paging vi, 527 p. 24 cm. Contents Chisholm, R. M. Sentences about believing.--Cornman, J. W. Intentionality and intensionality.--Marras, A. Intentionality and cognitive sentences.--Chisholm, R. M. Notes on the logic of believing.--Luce, D. R., Sleigh, R. C., and Chisholm, R. M. Discussion on "Notes on the logic of believing."--Lycan, W. G. On intentionality and the psychological.--Hempel, C. G. Logical analysis of psychology.--Carnap, R. Logical foundations of the unity of science.--Nagel, T. Physicalism.--Ryle, G. Dispositions.--Sellars, W. Empiricism and the philosophy of mind.--Chisholm, R. M. and Sellars, W. The Chisholm-Sellars correspondence on intentionality.--Aune, B. Thinking.--Bergmann, G. Intentionality.--Sellars, W. Notes on intentionality.--Frege, G. On sense and nominatum.--Russell, B. On denoting.--Carnap, R. The analysis of belief sentences.--Putnam, H. Synonymity, and the analysis of belief sentences.--Quine, W. V. O. Quantifiers and propositional attitudes.--Linsky, L. Substitutivity and descriptions.--Hintikka, J. Semantics for propositional attitudes.--Rosenthal, D. M. and Sellars, W. The Rosenthal-Sellars correspondence on intentionality.--Bibliography (p. 505-523) Subject Headings Intention (Logic) Thought and thinking. Semantics (Philosophy)
"You Won't Ge Me Into This !"
Note there has been George Brock Chishom, pal of the criminal Alger Hiss (cf. the US vs. Hiss case) ; author of a plan to send the people to a gulag in Alaska who, if found fit so to be "diagnosed" by some quack, were "insane". (That hoax did not make it through the U.S. Congress but some residues of G.B. Chisholm's activities are, unfortunately, still present to-day).
There has been Francis P. Chisholm :
Author Chisholm, Francis Perry. Title(s) Introductory lectures on general semantics, a transcription of a course given at the Institute of General Semantics [Chicago] Publisher Lakeville, Conn., Institute of General Semantics, c1945. Paging 126 p. illus. Notes Bibliography: p. 126. [NYPL]
[Note I am not at all sure that the middle name was in fact Perry ; if not, then there might be something to it, and perhaps worthy looking into, Professor. (WPT)]One notes that "Major-General" Chisholm (i.e. G. Brock Chisholm) had appeared rather suddenly, and as if out of nowhere, just about 1946. There might be something to it, Professor.
Please educate youself on the methods of the Red Bolshevik conspiracies ; the connection by G. Brock Chisholm with the Red mole Hiss might be not at all accidental, in so far as the mutiplicity of Chisholms goes.
It would be pointless to argue over such propositions in some 'yes' or 'no' terms before one knows better. By any reckoning, these events may contain some keys to unraveling a whole host of the problems the 20th century, many such not at all yet handled.
Please note, Professor : "war is an accelerator" (Trotzky quoting Lenin, see Trotzky's writings). In case you did not know, 1945 was the year one of them wars had been "won" : America was tired and only wanted to resume some semblance of normalcy. Was the Red Star ally (USSR) tired ? It does not seem so, Professor. The Kremlin-based party had just then gained influence in large parts of Europe, in the mainland China, and was rearing to go as far as the rest of the world would give in.
In this context, please examine carefully the situation on the intellectual (or "intellectual", depending on who, which individual(s), one speaks about) scene in Chicago after 1945. Once off-course, Professor, the course continues in error, and more and more error, until the fact of it having veered be noticed and corrected. This, by my own findings, certainly applies to some parts of the "scientific progress" in America, everything else being at least indirectly affected certain phenomena having gone simply unnoticed.
"Major-General" Chisholm had been able to fool some notable authors into (partially) accepting his propositions, such as eradicating the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong'. (I could form no idea how did those boors and bullies expect to get by without some such notions as, say, the "wrong way" on the high-way and the like. But you could expect anything from certain sorts of 'philosopher', the reader).
Then, this was not always only somebody's being "dumb on a subject". For example, the "political Right" would be quite admissible a statement ; even though its (the "political Right"'s) presumed or implied being "wrong" would by those criteria not be an admissible statement.
But then, why should some propaganda specialist worry about being clear on such matters ? It was the purpose, not to be understood, but to palm off some notions (whatever the meaning if any at all) on some unwary reader. You attack some x, and very hard : sooner or later some people will be deceived into defending this x, and will when doing so accept some premises, any premises, quite 'unconsciously'.But, Who was Chisholm, R. M. (as at top of the page) ?
Who was Marras, Ausonio (as at top of the page) anyway ? There is only on item found at the LAPL under such a name.
CONFER :
Possony, Stefan Thomas, 1913- Title(s) Wordsmanship: semantics as a Communist weapon; a study prepared for the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. Publisher Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1961. Paging 18 p., 24 cm. Notes At head of title: 87th Cong., 2d. sess. Committee print. Subject Headings United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Communism Terminology.(every one of the three listed copies NOT FOUND at the LAPL, by my personal inquiry.)
What is this all about ? There had been a patently fraudulent article published in America on such subjects by one certain Anatol Rapoport (who had infiltrated the Chicago scene in the 1940's).
There have been quite a number of patently fraudulent texts published on such a subject, especially after circa 1946-7 (notably one by one certain Adam Schaff, a writer ('philosopher') with whose presence and literary produce some parts of Europe were infested for a time : his texts having been translated into a number of languages).
The are patently fraudulent writers masquarading as "experts" on such subjects TODAY (2007), the reader.
IN THE MEANWHILE : The Essey de Semantique by M. Breal, Paris, Hachette, 1897, had in the meanwhile DISAPPEARED from the American library catalogues.
Breal was the one to have introduced the term 'semantics' into the scientific literature.
DO NOT GET INTO THIS, the reader, before you have any idea who among the numerous authors could be trusted.
However, it is not the 'subject' that has anything difficult with it : it is the WORKS OF IMPOSTERS who had usurped such a 'subject'. Why : I suppose that "Wordsmanship : Semantics as a Communist Weapon" by Possony might containn some true answers.
WHAT is 'semantics' : it is a branch of philology having to do with the meanings (or significance) of the words.
For example, any lexicographer (which means the people who compile dictionaries) has to decide what are the definitions to be presented in his dictionary, of such or such a word.
In the everyday life this extends to one's having a good understanding of the language he (or she) uses. This has fundamentally nothing to do with any bickering over words (as the 'philosophers' have often done) ; if the language somebody constructs has no meaning then the utility of any arguments is not there.
If the language somebody is using is false — it had better been noticed by the reader so that he (or she) would not be taken in by anybody's impostures.
And THAT is the only thing that has ever been "wrong" with such subjects. DO NOT GET INTO ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR, the reader ; but please make sure neither you nor any ones you care about fall victims to any
There is some more to this subject (or subjects) than (a) the plain "meaning or significance of words" definition. Re-Babelization of the Earth
There has been (b) Count Korzybski's 'general semantics', or, a theory of human evaluation and human orientation.
In brief (in my own words) : "what is that to you" — or say, what is the meaning (or significance) of this thing here to you, the reader : of any thing at all.
There has also been (c) a parasitic 'semantics' line entered into the Man's records, beginning sometime in the 1930's. Involved were some agents connected, more or less directly or indirectly, with the Kremlin (quondam USSR) orchestrated action of deceiving the mankind at large (for the purposes of the "revolution", which simply meant the destruction of anything those people did not like, with or without any reason).
Two of the names are alredy mentioned on this page (and I should spare me and the reader the disgust of enumerating others now).
The fact of the matter, arguably apparent, is : if you tamper with 'semantics' you tamper with any word (or symbol) that has ever been, is being, or will have been spoked or written, or heard or read by any human being at all.
Thus, DO NOT GET INTO THIS, the reader : because "this" has been the subject of some thousands titles by now : some of them, usually before the 1950's, very valuable ; some of them faulty because their authors did not know better themselves ; some of them plainly fraudulent (which, however, is seldom apparent on a casual glance).
Without getting you involved in anything, the reader, let me inform you that among the most notable 20th-century workers on such subjects were the mentioned Count Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) and the Englishman Charles Kay Ogden. (It was his term, 'de-Babelization' which I have alluded to in the title of this section here).
Neither author is but mentioned on a page re 'semantics' I have just found in the Internet :
http://www.lumii.lv/ngslt/Lexicology-TOC.pdf
This might be not the fault of the authors of the project ; beyond any doubt, however, this is the fault of some persons, somewhere at some time or times.
Please note that I have just happened on that page by an Internet search right now and there might be no particular reasons for singling it out at all.
WPT, Sept 07.