It appears to be an email from someone called Dick Jones to someone at "wetheliving.com"—evidently, a website devoted to Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

The email seems to be part of a continuing debate. In it, Dick Jones defends Korzybski and his system of thought called "General Semantics" (GS), while ridiculing Ayn Rand and her philosophy called "Objectivism".

***

I appear as part of an email exchange between myself and someone called Thomas Johnson:

I don't recall the email attributed to me—but it is one I could have written. I had engaged in such discussions in more than one email forum. Interestingly, any rejoinder on my part (and there would certainly have been one) is ignored. So, here it comes.

To Johnson’s Sentence 1: My statement is derived more from my interest in science, and a philosophical position going by many names, but I prefer to call "realism" (however, the little-used "objectivism"--note the small-"o"--would fit nicely). Despite, Johnson's use of the small-"o", he actually seems to be confining me to Ayn Rand's Objectivism as if he wasn't aware of the distinction.

To Sentence 2: Which is why my email is in the first person. I leave Korzybski to Korzybski.

To Sentence 3: This seems to be a quote from Korzybski which echoes certain controversial interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (QM). A statement by Jones later in the email seems to corroborate this. Let me restate sentence 3: "In this universe, there must always be an object and an observer." Think about it. Was there an observer at the Big Bang? Or the millions or billions of years before sentient life appears somewhere in the Universe? Amazingly, some modern physicists manage to say "yes"—and they’re not invoking God! However, the jury's still out on whether an observer is required for this universe to function—but Johnson doesn't seem to know it.

***

Earlier in the email, to demonstrate that Korzybski received "universal praise and acclaim", Dick Jones quotes Bertrand Russell’s letter to Alfred Korzybski regarding his book.

Undoubtedly, Russell was just being gracious for (as Martin Gardner points out in a book mentioned below) in a 1958 letter appearing in the book DEAR BERTRAND RUSSELL, Bertrand denies admiring Korzybski and General Semantics.

***

In the email, Dick Jones assesses the reputations of the two principles:

I guess Jones forgot about the Korzybski warnings about generalizing—but that probably isn't as bad as getting it wrong. His conclusions appear anecdotal (ie, they’re his personal, non-scientific assessment). Here’s my anecdotal assessment: Korzybski was once widely recognized but his reputation and fame has declined to almost nil in philosophical and cultural discussions. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, is still widely known, even if she not admired in academic cloisters.

BTW, in WEIRD WATER & FUZZY LOGIC, Martin Gardner lists some respected names in philosophy & logic who rejected General Semantics.

(I keep pondering the possible explanations for Dick Jones ’ elaboration of the names. I bet he’ll claim it was harmless fun to include Korzybski’s title, "Count", and include Ayn Rand’s birthname, "Rosenbaum". I hope he wasn’t aiming for something more shallow. Yes, Korzybski was a real Polish Count and Ayn Rand was a real untitled Russian Jew. Nothing could be more irrelevant—except to small minds.)

Dick Jones also stated:

Naturally, Korzybski, an engineer, had a far greater grasp of science than philosophy student Ayn Rand. However, any reading of Rand reveals a fervent atheist who detested mysticism and other traits of the Dark Ages, cheered scientific and technological advances, promoted reason and radical political changes. In view of this, Dick Jone's appraisal that she knew nothing "beyond the mysticism of the Dark Ages" reflects badly on his fact-finding and his judgement. Ironically, his emotionally-charged statement seems to be a prime example of thalamic thinking.