With no particular pleasure announcing one of the key troublemakers world-wide.The name is of a deceased person :
"Noe Klingbeil (1898 - 1985) Nadia Modiano (1894 - 1964) Jose Klingbeil ®512 b. 12 May 1929, Paris, France d. 17 Aug 1942, Ste Genevieve Des Bois, France, age: 13 occ. edu."
(http://www.farhi.org/wc126/wc126_450.htm)This alone might not indicate anything in particular — except suggest the possibility of somebody's using multiple "identities". (This I do not know anything about, the ambitious student of what is really going on might keep this in mind in case some other data would emerge).
Somebody presently acting under just such a name has usurped the work known as general semantics and publishes articles under that heading, parts of them true, parts of them the wildest distortions imaginable.
Some sorts of confidence artistry having been present, that author has been to an extent able to fool some persons or parties who should have known better.
Anyone who might disagree with the above, or such, assessment, might inquire with M. J.K. on such a question, for example : * * *
"On the limits of the Aristotelian systems",
"In the 30's, during the American great depression and on the verge of World War II, scientific conditions (non-Euclidean mathematics, Einstein's relativity, etc.) were such that the Aristotelian system clearly showed its limits. Observing the ailments of this epoch (between 1920 and 1933), Korzybski could formulate the goals of a non-Aristotelian system."
I do not see any mentions in this context of the three-valued ('non-Aristotelian') and the many-valued logics, first formulated by Jan Lukasiewicz in, respectively, 1920 and 1922, with some additional papers produced thereafter.
These were the sources of A. Korzybski's 'non-Aristotelian' formulations, in the main, Please examine Science and Sanity, Supplement, 'on the non-arstotelian system's etc., and the body of the work. (Co-authorship of these logics to another author has been mistakenly attributed therein, this item may be also worthy of clarifaction, by the way).
The fundamental multi-valued logics notion had been extended by Korzybski onto the logics of degree. (This, so far as I know, was not found with Lukasiewicz himself but it seems quite correct an application, as common-sense interpretation). This did (and does) include a notion of the human 'sanity' being a matter of degree (and not the aristotelian-type evaluation as its either being or not being present).
These, please note well, were exactly the data that some criminal persons or parties who had infiltrated the psychiatry in the USA in the 1940-50's, etc. had been sabotaging ever since. (Please make sure to check this out, the reader. If you should only take my word for it many a detail which I for one might not even know about could go overlooked).
This work was also sabotaged by Mr. Bertrand Russell, by a statement on the relations of the non-aristotelian logic and the concept of 'sanity', in a text published shortly after the departure of Korzybski himself. (Note an 'obedience of the corpse' case).
Those statements by Russell — who either did grow too old indeed to understand anything at all or, more likely, was making false statements deliberately — were later forwarded by Mr. Russell's sort of running dog by the name of Martin Garden, possibly also by some other writers.
This is not a light issue, the reader, any reader : when you have got to the point of entire theories of human sanity having been sabotaged (with significant contributions too from the Kremlin in the former USSR).
To Mr. Russell may also belong the credit of having sabotaged the Tractatus by L. Wittgenstein, twice. Note the corrupt 2nd "translation" of the Tractatus, shortly after the departures of Wittgenstein himself and of his original translator Ogden (more cases of the 'obedience of the corpse').
That translation was implicitly (but certainly so) endorsed by Mr. Russell himself, as evidenced in the acknowledgment by the "translators", for permission to use his (Russell's) early Introduction to the Tractatus (which Introduction was the first attempt by Russell at impeding the influence of that work).
The integrity of the work by Wittgenstein and his legacy may be exceptionally relevant in thie context.
Mr. Russell's dealings had extended for the better part of the 20th century, and had better been noticed by any people who can read (this might not necessarily, perhaps seldom, mean your university professor) — there being many a question lurking "between the lines".
Another running dog of Russell's by the name of I. Richards had in 1939 attempted to do some sabotage just as well (this found in some papers more recently published) — also note that just about that time C.K. Ogden had begun to disassociate himself from Richards, the timing of those events seemingly related.
I also find in M. J.K's site (esgs) some mentions of J. Dewey, implying that philosopher to be relevant to this work. That was not at all the case, please examine the historic notes, the reader (please do so on your own).
Dewey himself might be largely blameless (though I cannot say this with certainty). However, when you examine the records (please do so), you will probably find that he was only one of the notable American philosophers of the period, and you will probably find hardly any reasons to consider him the most significant one.
But that was just the opinion voiced by Mr. Russell — on no evidence at all : if you check out the historic records (and please do so, the reader). There seem to have been some ulterior motives, the simple plan of the sort could be to proclaim one person from within a milieu very important and repeat that over and over — so that every other would be forgotten in the process.
Mr. Dewey was the least critical one among his peers of the Communist regime in the former Soviet Union (Or so it seems, anyway, taking the mere Red agents within the USA out of consideration here). This may have something to do with his being later pushed so hard on the American people, etc., as a "great" philosopher, etc.
The counfounding of J. Dewey can be noticed in the works by M. Gardner (already mentioned), one A. Rapoport, from all appearances an agent of the Communist infiltration in the USA (please check this out, the reader), — also by M. J.K. of the esgs outfit. Yet any one who pretends to represent general semantics should know enough not to do so.
The Works of the Best
in the Hands of ...Some data found in the site esgs are true ; which has been a standard procedure, anyway, in any such projects.
One question : Who finances Mr. J.K.'s web-site (esgs) ? ; (just to make the story short).
That site contains numerous translations into several languages : such things have to be done by some competent translators. There are not hints of who the authors of the translations were.
Out of mere curiosity, there should be nothing improper in inquiring : who has done the translations found in that site ?
* * *
" Introduction to General Semantics prefaceJosé Klingbeil (French version) ... The objective of the ESGS is to encourage studies and to teach general semantics practice in European countries. ... www.esgs.org/uk/art/jk5.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages "