Alec Nevala-Lee

Thoughts on art, creativity, and the writing life.

To be or not to be

with 6 comments

The Structural Differential

If you’re familiar with the science fiction of the golden age, you’ve probably come across the name of Alfred Korzybski, the Polish philosopher whose ideas, known as general semantics, enjoyed a brief but intense vogue with writers and fans in the late thirties and early forties. Korzybski’s work provided the backdrop for A.E. van Vogt’s The World of Null-A and its sequels; Robert A. Heinlein mentions him by name in “Coventry” and “Gulf”; and he pops up in such stories as “The Helping Hand” by Poul Anderson and “Day of the Moron” by H. Beam Piper. He was also an important influence on L. Ron Hubbard and John W. Campbell, although both of them would have denied this. (Campbell liked to say that he was never able to get through Korzybski’s most famous book, Science and Sanity, and it’s fair to say that Hubbard never did, either.) And it isn’t hard to see why the science fiction community found him so intriguing. General semantics was pitched as a kind of mental training program that would enhance the brain’s performance, allowing practitioners to think more clearly and move past the mental blocks that prevent us from accurately perceiving the world around us. Yet Korzybski remains relatively unknown today. Part of this is because Science and Sanity itself is such a daunting work: it’s long, repetitive, sometimes obscure, and often deeply weird. But there’s also a lot there that remains valuable to creative thinkers, if you’re willing to unearth it, and with certain qualifications, it’s still worth seeking out.

We can start with Korzybski’s most famous pronouncement, which a lot of people, including me, have quoted without fully understanding it: “The map is not the territory.” What he’s really talking about is language, which is the mental map that we use to orient ourselves as we make our way through the world. The trouble, he believes, is that the map we’ve inherited offers a flawed picture of reality. Language was developed when mankind was still in its infancy, and the inaccurate ideas that early humans had about the world are preserved in the way that we talk about it. We confuse words with their underlying objects; we take objects in isolation, when in fact they have meaning only in their relationships with others and in their place within an overall structure; we think in categories, when we’re invariably dealing with unique individuals; and we depend on preconceived ideas, rather than experience, to make our decisions. The primary culprit, Korzybski argued, was the word “is,” which always involves either a tautology or a falsehood. When we say that A is B, we’re either saying that it’s equivalent to itself, which doesn’t yield any useful information, or we’re falling prey to one of several fallacies. Either we’re saying that one unique object is identical to another; that an object is the same thing as the label we’ve given it, or to the overall class to which it belongs; or that it can be described in terms that can be agreed upon by all observers. And a moment’s reflection reveals that none of this is true.

Alfred Korzybski

Most of us, I think, will grant these points. What set Korzybski apart is that he attempted to train himself and others to systematically overcome these misconceptions, using a few misleadingly simple tricks. He advised his readers to be skeptical of any form of the verb “to be,” and that whenever they were told that something was the same as something else, they should reflexively respond: “This is not that.” The goal, he said, was “consciousness of abstracting,” or a constant, everyday awareness of how we think using different orders of abstractions. Words are not objects; objects are distinct from the inferences that we make about them; and the gap between the general and the particular means that no statement can be entirely true or false, but only probable in various degrees. To underline these points, Korzybski liked to use a model called the Structural Differential, a teaching aid made out of wooden pegboards and lengths of string that were supposed to symbolize the abstracting process of the human nervous system. Students were told to study and handle it in silence, which would nonverbally remind them of the difference between an event, an object, a label, and the levels of abstraction above it. If this all sounds like an unwieldy way of seeing the world, well, it is. But it’s all in service of what seems to me like a worthwhile goal: to insert a mental pause, or what Korzybski calls “the neurological delay,” before we unthinkingly respond to a statement or situation.

If we think of general semantics as an elaborate system for training us to pause to question our assumptions, it becomes a lot more comprehensible. It’s also worth noting that Korzbyski wasn’t opposed to abstraction, which he saw as a necessary tool and shortcut, but to its misuse. The ability for one generation to build on the abstractions developed by its predecessors, which he calls “time-binding,” is what separates human beings from the animals—but only if we’re good at it. Conventional language, which Korzybski associated with the followers of Aristotle, just makes it harder to pass along useful information; his non-Aristotelean approach was pitched as a more accurate reflection of reality, as well as a practical tool for generating and conveying ideas. And it’s probably worth a try. (If you don’t feel like plowing through all eight hundred pages of Science and Sanity, Korzybski advises readers to start with the shorter, self-contained section “The Mechanism of Time-Binding,” which includes most of the book’s practical advice.) Pausing before you think, interrogating your assumptions, and being conscious of your abstractions are all worthwhile goals, but they’re easier said than done: one of Korzybski’s followers later estimated that “about thirty” people had mastered it. You could argue that Korzybski overstated his case, that he exaggerated the benefits of his approach, and that he cloaked it in a lot of unnecessary pseudoscience. But he was right about the basic problem. And it’s easy to wish that we lived in a society in which we responded to all disagreements by pausing, smiling, and asking sincerely: “What do you mean?”

Written by nevalalee

October 11, 2016 at 8:39 am

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Good job👍👍

    kakulanex

    October 11, 2016 at 12:39 pm

  2. Heinlein goes into some detail about Korzybski in his first WorldCon speech “The Discovery of the Future.” Heinlein and Leslyn were big fans. Korzybski’s ideas also get good play (although I don’t think his name was mentioned) in “Gulf” (via the Newspeak of the “supermen”) and in Stranger in a Strange Land (see especially any mention of the Martian language). K even gets a nod in the opening chapter or two of The Number of the Beast. These ideas stayed with Heinlein throughout his life.

    marieguthrie

    October 11, 2016 at 4:49 pm

  3. @marieguthrie: Thanks for the tip! I just finished reading Robert James’s articles on Leslyn, which talk about her interest in general semantics. And the connection to the Martian language in Stranger in a Strange Land is a nice one.

    nevalalee

    October 11, 2016 at 9:04 pm

  4. Thanks for this post, gives me another idea to research (if I ever have the time). Interestingly one of things I have to do as a teacher is disentangle students from their fixation with (their version of) reality in order for them to understand mathematics. The words simply get in the way.

    Martin

    October 12, 2016 at 1:33 am

  5. Korzybski! Good lord, you’re being thorough. Well, I admire your indefatigability.

    Pardon me if I’m being intrusive, but when’s the cutoff point in history when you’re going to bring the main coverage in your book to a halt? At Campbell’s death, after a brief gloss of his preceding decade and 1960s-era ANALOG?

    It’s easy to dismiss that as Campbell’s Late Senescent Period. Yet of course that’s when the great looming edifice of DUNE materializes and also when Campbell’s magazine was — especially while Conde Nast let ANALOG have the large format — arguably the most beautiful looking SF magazine there ever was, with those amazing Schoenherr and Freas covers.

    Of course, Campbell’s politics became even more appalling. What a fucking character..

    Mark Pontin

    October 12, 2016 at 2:06 am

  6. @Mark Pontin: I’m currently planning to end the book with Campbell’s death in 1971, with an epilogue for Hubbard, Heinlein, and Asimov. The bulk of the book will focus on the years 1937-1951, but I absolutely intend to take a good, long look at the last two decades of Campbell’s career.

    nevalalee

    October 12, 2016 at 6:23 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: