A Critique and an Appreciation
(by me W. Paul Tabaka, March 2007)Speaking about Speaking Count Korzybski had never denied 'soul'. He could not make heads or tales of the language in which many such propositions had been formed —: (for that he could hardly be blamed, considering the majority of the publications on such subjects that were generally current during his period). "The numberless and endless �philosophical� volumes . . . which have been written about the �body-soul� problems, show the tremendous structural and semantic importance of the clearing up of this �plus� versus �non-plus� issue", quoth he (Science and Sanity, pages 605-6).
In Science and Sanity he also mentions immaterialism, which he attributed to Plato and which he was not "getting". The exact term seems to have been coined by Berkeley (this being probably a side-issue of less significance ; but the development of the language itself may be of interest and may be entirely relevant to the problems 2007).
A proposed fundamental revision : K spoke about the verbal levels and the non-verbal levels (which is extremely true). He also spoke about the 'sub-microscopic levels'. This looks something not unlike Herbert Spencer's 'unknowable' : some lurking question had to be put somewhere, from under one's foot — so that some more nearly certainly apprehended phenomena could be considered. (A personal opinion by me).
The knowledge of the submicroscopic levels had not got far ever since K's times. Since the 'sub-microscopic levels' tells us little about said levels and tells us hardly any more about everything else, I would propose Korzybski's structure to be supplemented by considering the immaterial levels in the stead of the 'sub-microscopic' levels.
(Looking on the historic precedents, answers have been often got by another route than initially supposed or expected). — (WPT).Note on a Traditional Error Concerning the Human Soul.
To say, 'your soul' implies there being two entities : (1) you and (2) 'your soul'.
It might be that no more crushing instance of elementalism (verbal splitting) could be found. This, it seems, was a sort of stumbling block which Korzybski had been bypassing (Manhood of Humanity, etc.)
You + 'your soul'. Or, he + 'his soul'. A fundamental simplicity became obscurus the obscurium due solely to the misuse of the language.
(These are my observations, occasioned by reading the literature of which much was presumably known to Korzybski. He himself does not specifically mention, in Manhood of Humanity, etc., this exact fallacy of you + 'your soul' in these exact terms — but it seems that was exactly what he was trying to work around in some fashion ; not altogether unsucsessfully he had created another langugage with the emphasis in it placed on the uniquely human characteristis of the humans).
The 'soul' was not entirely neglected by other rigorous writers : e.g. Wittgenstein touched upon it (.. "I" ... not part of the physical universe .. — in his Tractatus, although some parts of his statement seem redundant). Frederick Soddy had a rather definite notion of the soul, or, "I", so far as I have been able to find out.
But many (if not most) verbal statements in circulation could contain this error ; the verbal splitting of an entity which cannot be split (except on paper ; or in uninformed or careless speech).
By the way : I would offer that 'your mind', or, 'my mind', can make sense. These terms, 'mind' and 'soul', have been often used interchangably and some of such propositions could be accurate and some were not. The 'contents' of my mind include any bodies or abstracts I could care to consider or mention. 'Mind' can be interpreted as a sort of bridging term).PROPOSED REVISION :
"Entirely eliminate elementalistic terminology ; ... A rough test for non-elementalism is that terms should apply to 'senses' and 'mind'" (Korzybski, Letter to co-workers, September 1934).
In other words, a term which applies to 'senses' alone is elementalistic and should not be used (and if used then with quotation marks). A term which applies to 'mind' alone is elementalistic and should not be used (and if used then with quotation marks).
It seems nearly certain that part of the subject-matter were the often indifferent usages of 'mind' and 'soul'. I would propose the following :A rough test for non-elementalism is that terms should apply to 'soul' and 'senses'.
If we take 'soul' to represent the individual, or say, "I" (and there seems hardly any other way to understand the term 'soul'), then it can be said (accurately) :
The soul, or, the invididual, is minding something.
In such a wise 'mind' itself becomes a non-elementalistic term. It applies to 'soul' and applies to 'senses' ; or sense-data which include the perceptions of the physical universe. — WPTNote on Will as Cause of Action
K's statements about causality could perhaps be described as half-baked. (That was what I actually wrote one of his followers -- hoping, at the same time, that my saying so would occasion no injury nor offense).
He did not know what final causes were supposed to be. (Who did, anyway ?) He had also considered W. Heisenberg's 'indeterminacy' -- which was a sort of half-answer to some half-understood phenomena on the area of the molecular physics.
There had also been present an earlier propaganda against causality (and against Humanity) by Mr. B*rtr*nd R*ss*l. This subject-matter may be one of the thorniest 'philosophical' problems on record. (The "problem" has been entirely man-made).
All in all, K did not treat causation in some definite fashion. His latest papers, however, do contain some hints of approaching answers.
One also notes, 'will' can be often considered as an exact equivalent of 'intention' ; there are some definitions on record which should clear this up.Note on Causation
Example : "He put his shoes on" rewrites quite exactly as, "He caused his shoes to be placed on his feet".
Any transitive verb can be approached in this way and the most of them could probably be defined as, '(not) cause x'.Note on 'identity'. In the Scientific Opinions (on Science and Sanity) has been observed, "no two things are identical" (H.S. Jennings). High credit has been given Korzybski for noticing the issue and for concentrating on it. This one had never gone quite unnoticed, but the authors who had seen it at all were few indeed ; and none had treated of it as fundamental.
The actual problem could have been rather termed 'identification'. Howbeit, 'identity' was that K had taken under his miscroscope ; 'the name should be entirely abandoned' concluded he (S & S p. 203 ; etc. etc.) It seems to me that he had made compelling arguments in favor of such a solution. There has also been a stasis of sorts present ; it seems to me that to follow him by way of insisting that the term should be abandoned may be sometimes impractical and perhaps after all not necessary.
One can yet do very well by being very carefully discriminating in the use of the term. In many cases it only represents an actual fallacy (in some branches of mathematics for example ; which for Korzybski was a key area of investigation). The mathematical propositions are identical (J. Bentham) ; this has been better stated, the mathematical propositions are tautological (Wittgenstein). This issue might warrant a separate article ; I would only mention that, by my observation, numerous titles have been published since, on or about 'identity', often with 'identity' in the title, which were almost all of them almost all wrong. Make your own way through all this, the reader, if you can, but be careful about anything too professorial else you might be led astray.
A curious question could be, how do other, especially non-Indo-European, languages treat of such propositions as those in the Occident on or about 'identity'. — (WPT).Korzybski's Science and Sanity The Text of the 1st Half of the 20th Century Should anyone take such a question very seriously, what was the text of the 1st half of the 20th century (or any such like question), the 'discussion' might lead exactly nowhere. (This would be a fertile ground for any troublemaker).
My own statement to such an effect has been made after about 2 decades of considering the matters ; its purpose is to point out to the reader, what may be worthy some special consideration, rather than assert a fact in a case which, if contested, would practically certainly occasion no better than moot wrangling.
Some arguments for (possibly) considering Korzybski's Science and Sanity as the text of the 1st half of the 20th century follow.
What could be the other candidates to such a title ; this may define the universe of discussion with some (relative) certainty. To the best of my knowledge (which I do not claim is complete, but has by now been enlarged by copious readings), other candidates to such a title (the text of the 1st half of the 20th century) could be :* Liber Legis by Frater Perdurabo (A. Crowley) ; penned in 1904 but published at later dates ;* Minkowski's and Einstein's papers on Relativity ;
* The Tractatus by L. Wittgenstein (1916 ; English translation by Ramsey, Ogden, Wittgenstein circa 1922).
* The papers on the 3-valued and the many-valued logics by Jan Lukasiewicz (1920, 1922, etc.).
* (At this I in fact cannot think of any other sure fire candidates ; this section may be expanded as I go. I am not considering here works which have been undeniably influential but which have proved destructive in their consequences).
Imperfect as S & S might be at places, one notices that it does contain treatment given, a largely satisfactory treatment that is, to the three other positions mentioned above. That is, The Theory of Relativity (Minkowski, Einstein), the Tractatus by Wittgenstein, and the 3-valued and many-valued logics by Jan Lukasiewicz.
It can be very briefly remarked that the Theory of Relativity as stated by Minkowski and Einstein is of little use to any reader who is not familiar with the higher calculus. Any of its general implications have been considered by Korzybski, and given by him, including some of his earliest papers. They may have been weighty ; but in order to "get" what it was about, the reader who has no interest in the higher mathematics might glean some, perhaps very much, knowledge from Korzybski which he would not otherwise be able to appreciate without several years of study of the higher calculus ; whether he need or not need such things.
It can be also remarked that (a) one of the relatively novel points in the Minkowski-Einstein work was the disposing with the theory of ether, an immobile 'substance' postulated (Lorentz) in order to create some mathematical models of the physical universe which would hang together. One notes that the theory of ether could have been got by without — outside any technical mathematics and some earlier authors did in fact so ; (although Korzybski did not consider them). The Relativity was not something new in the 20th century ; it was only that some contexts were new that had in the meanwhile been created.Other Possible Candidates (to the above-mentioned Title).
* Recherches sur les Substances Radioactives par Mme Sklodowska Curie, Paris, 1903. (Soon translated into German, Polish, English, etc.),* The work of Sun Yat-sen, overall (published mainly in the 1920's and 30's),
* The work by C. K. Ogden, overall.
One quickly notes, of the authors themselves, there can be a sort of messianic quality present with some of them ; and it was not present with some others.
Wittgenstein did not expect more than one hundred (100) readers for his Tractatus. Sklodowskia Curie (and husband Pierre Curie ; I am just partial on this one) started a new epoch in science but this was rather a "pure science" attitude, apparently of somewhat introverted sorts, even. Minkowski had a high plane of thought but he did not suggest either, applications of his propositions outside the 'exact' science. Einstein may have been slightly more ambitious but not by very far. Lukasiewicz was modest regarding the applications of his logics (Further progress was mainly due to Korzybski, others; please note that these articles were fundamental simplicities but of broad range of applications).
The Occidental reader might easily overlook the Chinese Sun Yat-sen ; which would be unwise in the long run. This man had grand ideas ; although he primarily meant the development of the Chinese nation. He was however capable of good generalised statements of which many could be use to any body politic.
The exceptionally voluminous output of C.K. Ogden, as translator, writer, editor, cannot be disregarded. Outside his Basic English, which I for one do not particularly promote, there has been his responsibility for a number of volumes by other writers in the first ranks of importance.
Of Aleister Crowley's quantity of the messianic quality his contemporary authors there had been none (statement to be qualified).
The may have been other Prophets, for example the Armenian/Greek (or Greek/Armenian) Gurdijeff ; a person who might be partial to the man would probably not omit him from such evaluations as these here. His key datum was "work", so far as I know. There will be few contraditions found among the talented authors ;
An argument for giving priority to Korzybski's work would consist in that it probably was the most broadly applicable one (in spite of his own "ruts", which he had sometimes acknowledged). "Warts and all", in his works will you find more keys to understanding other authors than in any other's work of the period.
He was probably not any less 'messianic' than even A. Crowley (K was more modest in the self-promotion). All in all, by my, somewhat extensive studies, the scholar who really wants to get the 20th century history of developments, can in no way miss by having (a) K's work, (b) Ogden's complete volumes of Psyche, (c) Crowley's complete Equinox (which is somewhat similar to Psyche in its format and scope) and any such of his writings as he/she can make sense of ; and by finding similarities between those and by proceeding thence.
What followed after 1950 can then be evaluated with some more certainty (and it was not very good, for the most part).
I do not know it all and there may be authors I have not heard about who might be important. But these mentioned are certain to have been relevant.
If you do not believe me, Professor, you go ahead and just wait for anything and everything mentioned here (also some other parts of this page) to be attacked even more than it has already been ; Then will come your turn, Professor ; (this is being addressed to any person who is no part of any criminal "scientific" establishment). WPT (May 2007).