DisinformationNote : below are some rather imperfectly stated results of an on-going research. The issues of the Stalinist and post-Stalinist actions of disinformation against the West are actual to this day. (WPT)
HISTORICAL NOTE ON THE STRUCTURAL DIFFERENTIAL By Alfred Korzybski [July 3, 1947, transcribed from a recording] Shortly after my Manhood of Humanity was published \1921\, I was invited for a symposium before the New School for Social Research in New York. To me the school was rather important because there were a lot of serious people there, educated, who took life seriously, and scientific research seriously. The school was then dominated by John Dewey and John Watson, the behaviorist. Both of those men heard something about my Manhood of Humanity, in which I claimed that man is not an animal, but in a category by himself. They followed the linguistic implication of the old theories; namely, that man is an animal, . . . They followed the old map and they simply would not revise their old opinion. In the meantime, as that group in the New School was so important and so intelligent, I was very eager to make good to that particular class in spite of Dewey and Watson, and I was eager to convey the difference between the reaction of man and dogs, cats, and so on, what are usually called 'animals'. [etc] ALFRED KORZYBSKI: Collected Writings 1920-1950, p. 593. International Non-Aristotelian Library 1990. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some Crimes Under the Name of "Science". (1) In 1952 "In the Name of Science" by Martin Gardner was published. The 2nd edition 1957 gives, among unusually numerous inaccuracies, that 'Science and Sanity . . . makes no mention, for example, of John Dewey . . , although few modern philosophers fought harder or longer against most of what the Count calls "Aristotelian".' (2nd edition 1957 titled "Fads and fallacies in the name of science") � (I have not seen the 1952 original so far, and do not know what changes may have been made). The facts: Korzybski mentions, in Science and Sanity and in other works, such men as Alfred North Whitehead, Jan Lukasiewicz, the mathematician Brouwer, as the pioneers in non-Aristotelian approach. John Dewey is listed in the bibliography of Science and Sanity (so much for 'not mentioned') ; he is not mentioned in the text � for which there would seem to have been no reason. What he (Dewey) had exactly fought against and what the Count had called what were not matters on which such a writer as Gardner had any competence to pronounce � otherwise, the works by Whitehead, Eddington, Keyser, Poincar�, Clerk Maxwell, Faraday, Liebnitz, Descartes, others, would have been mentioned when opining on Alfred Korzybski and philosophers and 'philosophers'. (2) In 1954 "Operational Philosophy" by Anatol Rapoport was published (copyright 1953). Among several blunders, it gives that Korzybski's definition of man was "identical" (?!) with that of John Dewey. "Reconstruction in Philosophy" (1920) by Dewey and "Manhood of Humanity" (1921) by Korzybski are mentioned, the definitions in the books are not identical and far from it. The cover of "Operational Philosophy" represents Rapoport as a 'prominent general semanticist', very prominently, in big block lettering. Such a mistake as 'identity'�of what was markedly different�by a 'prominent general semanticist' does not look like a mere slip of the pen. Rapoport had either understood nothing of Korzybski or was purposefully entering a falsehood or both. His having been sometimes considered as a follower, I can report no statements whatever [revised as below] by this Rapoport which would justify such a title for him. From all appearances we have had a case of the merest sabotage, Korzybski's term 'general semantics' misappropriated and abused, the true followers hoaxed. (23 Dec 02 : Bois, THE ART OF AWARENESS (1966), gives some statements by Rapoport of the early 1950's, highly laudatory.) (3) Whatever his respective merits or lack thereof, John Dewey seems to have been a relatively innocent party to those improprieties. His having passed in 1952, the appearances are that his figure has been used for a mere piece in a 2-person (etc?) game of the wretches. (rev. 9 Apr 03) 24 December 2002 : my present hypothesis can be stated as, John Dewey, whatever his own shortcomings, was used for a mere red herring after his parting in 1952, by the likes of Martin Gardner, Anatol Rapoport � also by the propaganda machine of the National Education Association. On having done some more research I note that Dewey was on relatively good terms with (a) A. F. Bentley � with some mutually acknowledged areas of non-concourse and (b) with Oliver Leslie Reiser. Both writers, though not infallible, can be considered as creditable. It seems that criticising Dewey may often be pointless, and may often amount to "biting the bait" prepared by the likes of Gardner, Rapoport, etc. The identifying by two different writers of the work by Korzybski, then departed, with the work of another, markedly dissimilar author then also (and recently) departed, for no apparent reason except arbitrary, does not seem explicable other than by there having been something sinister in it. 2 April 2003 : The subject clearly ungrateful, this page is a result of an on-going research and is not yet proposed as a well-stated opinion. This will probably be revised thoroughly, a task seemingly needful towards disentangling the 'general semantics' from the massive falsehoods manufactured after 1950. (WPT, rev. 9 Apr 08)
Please note http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/007532.php http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21878 http://korzybski.org/wraga.html |