What 'rs' (".eneral S.-.ntics?

Robert P. Pula

General s.-.ntlcs derives 1'1'011 the work of Alfred KOrBy"-Jel (1879...1950),a Polish think.r who 0&_ to the United States In 1915. 'ft). tera general s.-.n..tlcs (whlch should not be confuled1l1th ...nUc., .. 11.ite4 lift8\11.tlc dlscl...j;il'jie) ref'era to a .et of prop08itlon. propoaed by JCOl'Sy'bekl &Il4 or~nl.ed byhla into a .yetea, t;'e. II I.'-Pl" fit proposltion.. Slnc. Korsy'bekl publlahed his_jor work, "'~cl.nee .!!! Sanlti, .ln1933, aany ether writen trained ln -.ny fleldshave cOllUlMtnted on and added to his.orlu however, S91!9C! and. Ban1tl re_lns theJIlost 1;horoughly worJeed out .xpoaltiClft of' ~neral •••ntics.

Korzybakl was concerned wlth .tructttre. and how they interact. By .tructurehe lntended "a cOlll'plex of relation.," 1.e., how anything ls 'put together' ...ndwhat 1ts underlyln-: 1I!chanla.. nt1ght be. hOlt it worb. Everything we know,h.clal_d, shows .0.. structure and that structure ('!i!i the 'thing in ita.lf') i.all we can Imp". Anything we are conc.rned about c&n be .xaained for ita .true..ture. If"We relate two or aor.t already 1cnown etructurea.... are then 'XIUl11111'11another, broad'r ('higher ord.r') atl"UCture ..- but .t111 .tncture.

'our atructurea that J(oreybakl focus.ed on were I

structure1 -- the hUJl&ft n.rvous ayatea (braill, .te.)atructure2 -- lan~ (huan .yabol .yetl..)structure, -- the non-verbal wOJ;'ld ('rea1itY'1 whateftr 1. Rot syMbols

but 1••yaboll..d about) .structure4 -- beh&vlor, what ... sa- lncl\1diag so-called 'thlnklng'. .

These four structures can be seen a. sub (lowro.l\'l.r) structure. 0"1' a1ar~r (hl~.r order) strueture I th'y consil tute a ..coaplex of relatlens", theirinteractlol\8cu be exaJlln.d6to provid. in.ight. lnto btnt b--.na 'tick'. Tbi.•• x&JIllnat1on, 81Rce it Involves 'vall.tions, '.e.nt10 reacU..·, .tc•• i. whatl('onybsk1 calle4 ~neral ...ntics.

Structureo' Gelleral s.-.nticar ~--------_.--------Struo~1' nenoua .,.temoHStgcture2' la~~ture).'1'8"litY+'St~ture4Ibeha

But 1C0rzybaki 1nslsted that exall1natlon was and 1. not eft~. Havlll« lite.tra1ned &8 an engine.to, he ..a very .uch COllcemed with aPRJ:&et=lO!l!. Hl_ oon­.tant questiOll, .xpres.ed or net, ••, "So what?" IIl.ofar as he and hl. co-vc>rJcenhave tried to auwer the "so what" q.stion, besld•• expres.lng a theory of bowpeople, lan~ and non-verbal .tructures co. to@;ethet i.behanor, gene~.eraantic. a180 con.titutes a _thod, .pecifically, a tool for evaluating.

Since ~ne.ral ••_ntical draws on raany (if not 'all') area. of hUlllan knowlag,talk about it can ~t very cOllp11cated. But th&t 1.n't nece....ry, at l'a.t notfor starters. 'lbe central fOl'Jlulation. of ~neral se_ntlcs can be stated .1.plyand ~sped (by _ny) lal18dlately.

Central li'01'llulationa (li'or_l State.."ts) of Gen'ral S'raantic.

l('orzybski .. a ploneer 1n recognlzin~ that the h~ brain aodel. it.elt,what 1t tak•• to be 'outsld.' 1t.elf, and the relaUonshipbetwe.n the two('lnslde' and 'outsl".'). H. ChOd to call this modelling actlv1ty "1II&"pln,;".

2

We (we brains) map the world, ouraelves included.

But. our 'apa' are (neoesearily and for cmvenienoe) so_what f1':'~en (static)representations of prOCess.s -- events, happenings, dyn&JR1c, an-going structure••lven la.n.gu&,d (say, English) can be seen as a relatively static structure (a.yetelll of .tatellenta, words, orenised representations) that ••rves to map'sil.nt (non-li~u1.tic) dynamic structures. 'Ibi. inevitabl. confiict between_pa and what th.y repre••nt ('territori•• ') can, if .... are not conscious of ourma-P-lllakin.e: activity, lea" to s.rious breakdowns -- even nervous on.s. Korsybski II

If el.t that most probl.em.s 1n cOllUlun1cating (to on.,'", eelf an" othe.rs) SWill fromour failure to recogn1.e a.nd re...'her that (1) our -fA are only repres.ntationsand (2) each of us -.pe un1q11817.

Everything we talk about, II' 1Il....-.ntlci•• a" i ••OM sort of proce.. -­an expression of underlying c~. "tFiin~' may aT>pear 'peranent' to those whodon't know physic•• but 'thin~' are in proceee n••rth.l.... Our ver.y u.ppin«involve. brain act.ivity called a~tract1ng. Th1s .ntails electing (leav1n,; out),tran.foraln! 1n our nervo,. sJllts. what .... have reacted t.o ( -••lected' ), .i!,2­'Fiett"! (confuasin-: or id.nt1Mng our blpressions with what i8 'out. there').and talkin!, frOJI silllple d.scrl'Pt1ons thro~ opin1eRS t.o theories. ill of' thisabetnct.ing, accord1n~ to Korsybeki, canst! tutes _pp1ng.

'rhe.. cen tn.l forlllula t1 ons ean be eum-.ri.ed.

'n1. _p i. not the territory. (ifOil-identity.) Since -''Pplng involve. ab­stractin,;, the con.truetin~ of relatively st....tic 1':'8'J)1"8s.ntatione of dynaaicevents, ....hould not Id.ntify (eanf.e l.vel. or at.tracting) what'. Inour head.1I with what's 'out there' or, 1f' ft're _p'P!.ng ourselves, 'ln here'.

The ¥p 115 not all the territory. (Nan-ahnllJss) Sinc••w1ng involve. ab­.traettn~. 1.e., partial. fOCuaMd reacting te countless act..l e.n~ 'Poten­tial stimul1; we can never 8&7 ill a.bout anything. All _1'8 lIlust be under­.tood a. tentative. eonven1ent, useful (1f' ....ll-.tructured) but tem.porag.

Mapa are self-refiexive, 1.e., s.lf-referr1~. Mapa _., or -7 not adeq\Btelyrepresent thelr intended terri torie.. (If t.t1e structure o'f the _p 1'i tathe structure 0'( the territory a. known at a -:iven date, .. can say thelIlap 1e adequate -- at that ti_. for that Purtloe•• ) But no utter howad.ql.te a, 11&1' may appear to be, the _'P-_ker 18 !l!.2 be1n~ mapped.'Built into his map are _ny of' hl. aSl!I\lllPtions, bias•• , ••11'-i.....present slt111 levels, etc. 'lb. _p-_k.r It&y pretend to ·tranaeend.' his.'P, but even i'" he _kas a Nta-_p (a _p about hi. Il&ppiDg), he isstill 'there'. It 1s he who _os his -PII. !'TOIl this there ls no e.cape,the cla1ms of .ysticar'fudge notwithstanding. (By th. -7, ~neral se_nticsnaY' be eonddered a lII8t&-aTlPlng aeUrlty. 'Ful1 y functionin~' ~neral

~e_nticbts reco~1ze' tha.t thes. fOTlftulatinns a'Pply to them, toe, and thate'eneral sema.nt1,cs is not '1t'.)

Can we learn, at least 'anently', to re-structure our langua~ so that 1tmore "neqlla,tel" f'1ta the territory of experience? Korzybeki made 80_ practical,sillple e\Ul'~et1ons along thls line. We can conclud. thla beter mapping of theterritory C8.l1ed ~neral semanUcs with th••e 8~~.tion•• They are ca'l Ied,~ten8ional devices.

With the word intensional J(orsybski described the JlI'rBan who i. overOcoJUt1tted til

to def1n1 tl01t8 and th.orie., the peraOl'l' who pIa•• Inordinate faith In hl. _pa.'the extensional penon, while quita call1Lble of dennlng and theorislng, recOfr-nizes that the territory should be as.i~ed priority, that our _.". (bcludin,those expressed ia lall~~) .hould be revi..d when Ilece.eary to fit the terri()rya. known at a Id:vell date.

Iadexlng, dating and the ueeof .u cetara are d.slg1l.~ to aake .ur la~a.ad, therefore. oltt' 'thinkirut' 110ft &Otional. more proce••-ref'lectInFt. morewrritory-ilke, thus the dIst,.;naUon, "extensional d.vices. It

Illd.xin!. (N_-Identity.) NO.Ufta in Ingll.h are clas. (~rou,) teru. Th.,are often us.ful for na1l1ng large nobara o'f individual. (people and other­wi•• ) who a'Dpear .i1l1lar b ... respecta. But nouns group indivldualslIolely on the 'tasia of ailllIarltl, often us-percelved as _mene.s. Kor­sybsk1 borrowed the _th••tic1ans' .ubscript index nuaeral to help usbreak up our llonolith1c respon.e. to noun., to rell1nd .. that aloag witbthose pre.U.Il8d .iJl1larlUe. are any ineylt&ble d\f'fere!ce.. Onc. wea8sl~ a naae (nO\lll) to sOileone or sOMthing, ... tead to aot .!! U .... know'all' about the person or object so na_d, the index re1l1nd. us that e"._members o'f the same cIa.. (group) are not ld.ntical.

borrower1 Is m bmnrowerz i. not borrower), etc.lendert 18~ lender2 1. not lender), etc.adJll1nlstratort is lli adrdnistratoI'2 lsaot ad.inl.trator) ••tc.poliUc1aJll i. m polltlo1an2 ls aot politic1aD3 ' etc.

Dating. (Proce... ffm-identi ty.) In a proc•••• s1*08-tl- world..... the.oat .oUlld e.luaUon can only be pro tellJ!Or8t 'fine for now (hopefully) butnot autOllatieally expected to .erve irfdef'1nit.ly. Cit, Managert or Clty X1980.y be qulte dl'frereat frOIl that '.alM' Clty Manapr1 of Clty X1981• J..tbecause he appeared hard-nosed (or coo-pen.tiY8) ln 1980 doe.n't gtal'ft.ateethat he will appear thus in 19811 We don't have to .prlnkl. our wrltin«and talkln.~ with th••• d.vic•• , J(orsybeltl ••rely .~.ta that we lncory>oratathe. a. attitude. In our evaluatln~.

it cetera. (Proc•••• Non-a' In•••• ) In a -proce•• wprld., we cannot .rpectour.tatelll8ntB to cOYer 'all' about anythlng. So we inCOrPOrate (lnterna11")an attitudinal !! c.tera to our overt and covert .'Ppiag. 'ftle.!! c.terarellind. us that we alwaY! 'leave out' sOIl.thlng aad that wIlat we have 'l.ftin' 1s greatly personalis.d (••If reflexivene•• ). Behanorally, the in­temallsed etc. mlght best _l'llr••t 1taelf in the avoldaJlce of absolute('allness') state_nu. Us. of quant1flers and quali1'1era cal'l be h.lpfulh.re • .!.2!!!!. !!!!I' for now. often••tc.

The other ext.nsional devlces (hYPhens. Quote.) need not detaln us h.re --a1 though you've no doubt notic.dthat l8ve used s1ngl. quotes to 'f'lap;' spec1alterJll8, includln~ teru that .eemed "Proble1lRtical for 801118 reaeon. Enough has bee.presented, I trust. to 'PA.rtly an.wet' the question. "What 1. ~neral sem&ntics?"and. to shOll 1ts &l'J)11cabl1ity at the heart of that 1I0st hUlllll'l activl ty. COMunl­cating.