• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Turned Out Nice Again

neurolinguistic experiments

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Inspired by Alfred Korzybski's "e-prime" - a powerful linguistic device to clarify thinking by eliminating use of the verb "to be" in speech and writing:
https://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

has anybody tried to go "egoless", ie. avoiding wherever possible talking about oneself, one's experiences, anecdotes, beliefs, feelings etc?

instead only talking about stuff, ideas or encouraging others to talk about their own experiences.

Surely we've all heard enough of our own spiel to be be bored shitless with it.

Please try it for a day and report back.

Edited by Turned Out Nice Again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

Inspired by Alfred Korzybski's "e-prime" - a powerful linguistic device to clarify thinking by eliminating use of the verb "to be" in speech and writing:
https://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

has anybody tried to go "egoless", ie. avoiding wherever possible talking about oneself, one's experiences, anecdotes, beliefs, feelings etc?

instead only talking about stuff, ideas or encouraging others to talk about their own experiences.

Surely we've all heard enough of our own spiel to be be bored shitless with it.

Please try it for a day and report back.

I would report my experiences of the day, but that would involve talking about myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

I would report my experiences of the day, but that would involve talking about myself.

That's allowed in this thread.

I tried it 2 nights ago in a bar and came away with woman's telephone number.

Edited by Turned Out Nice Again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

Inspired by Alfred Korzybski's "e-prime" - a powerful linguistic device to clarify thinking by eliminating use of the verb "to be" in speech and writing:
https://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

has anybody tried to go "egoless", ie. avoiding wherever possible talking about oneself, one's experiences, anecdotes, beliefs, feelings etc?

instead only talking about stuff, ideas or encouraging others to talk about their own experiences.

Surely we've all heard enough of our own spiel to be be bored shitless with it.

Please try it for a day and report back.

I don't talk to anybody. Does that count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

Inspired by Alfred Korzybski's "e-prime" - a powerful linguistic device to clarify thinking by eliminating use of the verb "to be" in speech and writing:
 https://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

This sounds fine for technical writing but spoken in normal conversation it would make you sound like an extra-diffident Hugh Grant

Edited by Panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like rather tedious 1960s post modernism, desperately trying to negate any meaning outside language. It reminds me also of the 1930s logical-positivists who tried to cop out of any difficult philosophical questions by claiming it didn't make sense to ask such questions. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

Sounds like rather tedious 1960s post modernism, desperately trying to negate any meaning outside language. It reminds me also of the 1930s logical-positivists who tried to cop out of any difficult philosophical questions by claiming it didn't make sense to ask such questions. 

Meh, you're just not trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

Inspired by Alfred Korzybski's "e-prime" - a powerful linguistic device to clarify thinking by eliminating use of the verb "to be" in speech and writing:
https://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

has anybody tried to go "egoless", ie. avoiding wherever possible talking about oneself, one's experiences, anecdotes, beliefs, feelings etc?

instead only talking about stuff, ideas or encouraging others to talk about their own experiences.

Surely we've all heard enough of our own spiel to be be bored shitless with it.

Please try it for a day and report back.

Never really talk about myself and people find that very annoying, especially the GF who usually finds out what I am doing of have done from other people: "You never told me you'd done such and such"

Outside academia only about 4 close friends know what I do.

Although a lot 'know me' through the internet, although of course, they've never met me, just a face and a name.

And funnily enough, I do talk about myself here, perhaps it is the anonymity, see above for an example and other threads.

I think it probably stems from childhood, as one parent would criticse everything I did or said and if I did dare to talk would soon tell to "be quiet, little boys should be seen and not heard". I've probably been a nuiasance to soemone all my life xD

 

 

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Meh, you're just not trying.

Oh - er..sorry.Right, try again: It appears in general to resemble  those people known by some as logical-positivists in what appeared to be the 1930s but which may not be limited to any particular point in history, if indeed history itself exists. 

Is that better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"To be" is weird - students of Spanish language find it incredibly difficult to get to grips with the fact that Spanish has two different verbs for "to be" (for different sorts of being) rather than just the one which we have in English.

In the Russian language there is no equivalent verb "to have". You can't say wehave a cat or I have a dream. The form of words used instead is "to me exists a dream". My theory (but I have no idea) is that this is a holdover from the soviet union when private property was banned, everything being the property of the state.

Always liked Robert Anton Wilson especially the famous "Iluminatus!" trilogy but sometimes I think he just did too much acid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

Read the Robert Anton Wilson piece I linked to.

Actually that wasn't the piece I thought it was. Below is an archived dump of stuff (incl. the R.A.W. material) I snipped from a libertarian site years ago.

 

"On a night in September 1927 when he contemplated suicide at the age of 32, Buckminster Fuller decided to live the rest of his life as an experiment. He wouldn't believe anything anybody told him -- "golden rule," "dog-eat-dog," or any of it -- and would try to find out by experience only, what could be physically demonstrated to work.

 In the year following that decision, Bucky stopped talking entirely, like many mystics in the east. He insists that he had nothing "mystical" in mind. "I was simply trying to free myself of conditioned reflexes," he said. He had met pioneer semanticist Alfred Korzybski shortly before and was convinced that Korzybski was correct in his claim that language structures caused conditioned associations -- mechanical reactions that keep us locked into certain perceptual grids. Fuller tried to break these grids, to find out what a person "of average intelligence" could accomplish if guided only by personal observation and experiment...

 The language we use influences the thoughts we think much more than the thoughts we think influence the language we use. We are encased in fossil metaphors; verbal chains guide us through our daily reality-labyrinth.

 The above comes from the book Pragmatism and four essays from The Meaning of Truth. The entry in the index is worded, "Additions, human, to the given."

 

In his article 'Toward Understanding E-Prime' -- http://home.onestop.net/eprime.html -- Robert Anton Wilson says:

"It seems likely that the principal software used in the human brain consists of words, metaphors, disguised metaphors, and linguistic structures in general. The Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis, in anthropology, holds that a change in language can alter our perception of the cosmos. A revision of language structure, in particular, can alter the brain as dramatically as a psychedelic. In our metaphor, if we change the software, the computer operates in a new way."

 "Nobody likes me," "Women always betray me," and "You make me angry" are examples of psychological and emotional Slavespeak.

 Becoming aware that your mind is controlled by illusions is a major step in freeing yourself from Slavespeak.

 "The language we use influences the thoughts we think much more than the thoughts we think influence the language we use. We are encased in fossil metaphors; verbal chains guide us through our daily reality-labyrinth.

 "Physicists, for example, spent nearly three centuries looking for a substance, heat, to correspond to the substantive noun, "heat"; it took a revolution in chemistry and thermodynamics before we realized that heat should not be thought of as a noun (a thing) but a verb (a process) -- a relationship between the motions of molecules."

 So scientists wasted nearly three centuries because their thinking was essentially entrapped by the word "heat," as they interpreted it.

 Two Tribes

Consider two different isolated tribes somewhere in the jungles of South America. Call them Tribe 1 and Tribe 2. Each has its unique language with its own structure. The language of Tribe 1 (Language 1) tends to be very literal. A man who fishes, for example, is called "man-who-fishes." The same man, while sleeping, is called "man-who-sleeps"; while talking, "man-who-talks"; while running, "man-who-runs"; while eating, man-who-eats"; while writing, "man-who-writes"; while making a chair, "man-who-makes-chair"; while giving orders, "man-who-gives-orders"; etc. In Language 1, distinctions are made between different kinds of words: "Thing-words," "Do-words," "How-words," "Story-words," "Funny-words," "Order-words," "Panic-words," "What-words," "Who-words," "Why-words," "When-words," "Where-words," etc. High-level abstractions are rare in language 1. To the people of Tribe 1, any word that doesn't refer to something physically perceivable, is highly suspect. Their test for reality is physical.

 The language of Tribe 2 (Language 2) is very different. A man who obtains his wherewithal mostly by fishing, is called "fisherman." (This system of nomenclature would seem absurd to the people of Tribe 1 -- how can you call someone a "fisherman" when he is not fishing, but sleeping?) Language 2 contains many high-level abstractions -- like "happiness." People from Tribe 2 can talk for hours about "happiness." (To someone from Tribe 1, this would be incomprehensible -- they only talk about "woman-who-is-happy" while she is happy, and "woman-who-is-sad" while she is sad. The notion that you could separate "happiness" from a real person being happy, and talk about "happiness" as if it existed by itself, would be completely unthinkable to someone from Tribe 1.)

To the people from Tribe 2, any word being used is automatically assumed to be part of existence, otherwise people wouldn't use it. (To someone from Tribe 1, the word "existence" would be a meaningless absurdity, because in their mentality only particular objects exist.) In Tribe 2, the test for reality is agreement. If other people agree with a word and the way it seems to be used, then that word is automatically accepted as valid and useful.

 One day a strange man arrives at the place where the people of Tribe 1 live. They ask him: "Who you?" He: "I King." They: "Your name King?" He: "No; my name John." They: "Why call self King if name John?" He: "I special person, agent of God." They: "You look different but not special; who God?" He: "God creator of world." They: "Where God?; How create world?" He: "God everywhere; God all-powerful." They: "How we see God?" He: "Can't see God." They: "You speak crazy." He: "No; I special; I show you." Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently making objects appear and disappear. They: "You clever man-who-tricks." He: "I special; I King." They: "You speak funny; you clever John-who-tricks." He: "I King; my word law." They: "What law? -- special word?" He: "Yes; my word law -- you must obey." They: "Ah! You mean order-word!" He: "Yes; I King; I make law." They: "No; you speak order-word?" He: "Yes; I special." They: "What special? -- Anybody speak order-word?" He: "You not understand." They: "No."

 Eventually John-the-stranger gives up trying to convince the people of Tribe 1 that he has a "special status" and that his words are different from the words of anyone else -- so he leaves, to search for more gullible and impressionable victims elsewhere...

 For many days and nights he trudges through the jungle before discovering the people of Tribe 2. They: "Who you?" He: "I King." They: "Your name King?" He: "No, my name John." They: "Why call self King if name John?" He: "I special person, agent of God." They: "You look different; what God?" He: "God creator of world." They: Where God?; How create world?" He "God everywhere; God all-powerful." They: "Show special?" Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently making objects appear and disappear. They: "You King, agent of God." He: "Yes, my word law." They: "What law?" He: "Law special word of God through me; you must obey." Whereupon the people of Tribe 2 bow down and kiss the feet of John -- they do not habitually test abstractions against reality, so they readily accept John-the-stranger as their "King" and his word as "law." Thereafter all he has to do to subjugate, control, and dominate them, is open his mouth...

 The One-Word Lie

In order to grasp the devastating power of Slavespeak words, it's absolutely vital that you understand that a word in itself can constitute a lie. You don't need a phrase or sentence to express a lie. One word by itself is enough.

 Some one-word lies, like "sunrise" and "sunset" are innocuous. They are lies because the sun doesn't really "rise" or "set." Because the earth spins and we spin with it on its surface, it appears as if the sun "rises" and "sets" -- if we think of ourselves as stable with the sun moving in relation to us. So the words "sunrise" and "sunset" probably go back to before people realized that the earth revolved. Nevertheless, using the words "sunrise" and "sunset" -- even if we realize they're not strictly correct -- doesn't cause any problems. They are innocuous.

 The words "King" and "Queen" -- and "Emperor" and "President" (in the political sense as "President" of a "country") -- are likewise lies -- one-word lies. Just by accepting the word "Emperor" and thinking and/or talking about someone else as "Emperor," you automatically put yourself in an inferior position in relation to him -- unless, of course, you call yourself "Emperor of Emperors" and others take you seriously!

 Robert Anton Wilson wrote as follows in his book Right Where You Are Sitting Now:

 "On a night in September 1927 when he contemplated suicide at the age of 32, Buckminster Fuller decided to live the rest of his life as an experiment. He wouldn't believe anything anybody told him -- "golden rule," "dog-eat-dog," or any of it -- and would try to find out by experience only, what could be physically demonstrated to work.

 In the year following that decision, Bucky stopped talking entirely, like many mystics in the east. He insists that he had nothing "mystical" in mind. "I was simply trying to free myself of conditioned reflexes," he said. He had met pioneer semanticist Alfred Korzybski shortly before and was convinced that Korzybski was correct in his claim that language structures caused conditioned associations -- mechanical reactions that keep us locked into certain perceptual grids. Fuller tried to break these grids, to find out what a person "of average intelligence" could accomplish if guided only by personal observation and experiment...

 The language we use influences the thoughts we think much more than the thoughts we think influence the language we use. We are encased in fossil metaphors; verbal chains guide us through our daily reality-labyrinth.

 The above comes from the book Pragmatism and four essays from The Meaning of Truth. The entry in the index is worded, "Additions, human, to the given."

 OK. So there are stars out there. They are the given. Looking at them from earth, some of them seem to constitute "groups" and we call such a "group" a "constellation." However, some of the stars in a supposed "constellation" are much further from earth than others. There's no basis in reality to regard them as a "group" or "constellation" -- as opposed to a flock of birds that actually fly together, or a galaxy of stars that actually move together.

 Hallucination essentially means allegedly "seeing" something that isn't there. In reality there are a number of stars. We "see" a supposed "constellation," where in reality there's no "constellation" -- only individual stars. We add or hallucinate the falsely-called "constellation."

 This phenomenon of adding to reality -- hallucinating what isn't really there -- is an essential aspect of Slavespeak. Thus an ordinary man is hallucinated as an "Emperor" or a "King." In our mind we add something "special" to an ordinary man, and we "see" him as an "Emperor" or a "King."

Similarly we add "something" to ordinary words, and as if by magic they become "the law."

 What Robert Anton Wilson Said

In his Introduction to the book The Tree of Lies (by Christopher S. Hyatt. Ph.D.), Robert Anton Wilson wrote:

 "I remember the first time I entered Alternate Reality and accepted a lie as fact. I was five or six years old at the time and my parents had taken me to see a wonderful movie called "The Wizard of Oz"...

 Only a small part of our brains, or our "selves," is able to resist the lies of a good artist. Nobody can sit through "Alien," I would wager, without at least one sound of fear or distress escaping their lips during that "ordeal" ...which consists only of looking at pictures projected on a screen...

 A movie theater is the best place to learn the true meaning of Plato's parable of the prisoners in the cave, who accept shadows as reality. Every artist who moves us, from a movie maker to Beethoven or Shakespeare, is a bit of a hypnotist.

 In this sense that seemingly stupid and mechanical contraption we call "society" must rank as the greatest artist on the planet. For instance, when I was seven or eight, and feeling superior to the kids who closed their eyes "during the scary parts," I was entering a deep hypnosis created by another Virtual Reality called language. This hypnosis was a worse nightmare than the Wicked Witch of the West or King Kong or the Wolf-Man or any of their kith and kin, but it made me a "member of society"...

 The hypnosis was performed by the good and pious nuns at the school to which my parents sent me... As a result of all the lies the nuns told me, I became a pretty good liar myself... At seventeen I became a Trotskyist. That was hot stuff in New York in the late 1940s. We Trots were more radical than anybody, or we thought we were. Of course, I was lying to myself again. Who the hell knows enough, at seventeen, to make an intelligent or informed choice among competing political ideologies? I had picked Trotskyism because one part of my mind was still Catholic and needed a hierarchy; the Central Committee made a good substitute for the Vatican. It allowed me to feel modern, scientific, "altruistic," brave, rebellious etc. and it did all my thinking for me.

 At eighteen I quit The Party just before they could expel me. I pledged allegiance to the principles of individualism, free thought and agnosticism. From now on, I said, I will not by hypnotized by groups: I will think for myself. Naturally, I then spent over 20 years following various intellectual and political fads, always convinced I had at last escaped group conditioning and finally started "really" thinking for myself...

 All this, mind you, occurred within the network of language--the Virtual Reality created by the strange symbol-making capacity of the upper quarter inch of our front brain. Language created God and Satan and Hell, in my childhood, and it created Liberty and Equality and Justice and Natural Law and other fictions that obsessed me at other stages of my "development." Language creates spooks that get into our heads and hypnotize us. [emphasis added]

 Is it is possible to use language to undo the hallucinations [emphasis added] created by language? The task seems impossible, but Zen riddles, Sufi jokes, the works of Aleister Crowley, and a few heroic efforts by philosophers such as Nietzsche and Wittgenstein seem able to jolt readers awake -- shake them out of the hypnosis of words."

  

The Ability of Reframing

In Open to Change, Vincent Nolan wrote:

 "Reframing means looking at a familiar phenomenon from a new angle. Any situation can be looked at in a wide variety of different frameworks, and each one is capable of throwing a new light on the subject... [T]he ability and willingness to set aside the conventional framework (temporarily) is one of the key skills of invention and discovery... [T]hese pigeon holes into which we classify things and situations, events and people, are themselves arbitrary and artificial: convenient and useful for some purposes -- but one, not the only way to view the world. The pigeon holes can be suspended (temporarily) and new ones brought to bear, without cost and with profit.

 

There is another important dimension to reframing. Once we accept that the same thing can be viewed in many different ways, all of them potentially useful, it is no longer necessary to impose our view of things on other people, we can accept theirs as alternative viewpoints, valid for themselves, and potentially enriching our understanding of the situation."

 General Semantics

To understand the importance of Slavespeak, we need to operate at the level of observing, analyzing, and evaluating the implications, effects, and consequences of language. How do words influence the perception of reality? How might people unjustifiably constrain their behavior because of the language they use? How might people take incorrect or destructive actions because of the words they take for granted? Like "going to war for God and Country!"

 General Semantics (GS), a discipline founded by engineer, mathematician, student of mental illness, and scholar Alfred Korzybski, addresses the same level Slavespeak does: How do our words influence the way we think, communicate, and behave? A basic understanding of GS cannot but help anyone to understand and transcend Slavespeak. The following excerpt from an article by the late George Doris, first published in 1983 in 'Self and Society: European Journal of Humanistic Psychology,' gives an idea of where GS fits into "the scheme of things" [edited into E-Prime]:

 "GRAMMAR deals with word-to-word relations. It embodies rules about how to put words together into sentences, and does not concern itself with how sentences relate to each other or how sentences relate to facts.

 LOGIC goes further. To a logician, sentences serve as assertions and he concerns himself with relations between assertions ("if 'A', then 'B'"). But for the logician, words need not have any meaning except as defined by other words, and the assertion need not have any relations to the world of fact.

 SEMANTICS goes further than logic -- to the semanticist, words and assertions have meaning only if they are related operationally to referents in the world of nature. The semanticist defines not only validity (as the logician does) but also 'truth.'

 GENERAL SEMANTICS goes furthest -- it deals not only with words, assertions and their referents in nature but also with effects on human behavior. For a 'general semanticist,' communication consists not merely of words in proper order, properly inflected (as for the grammarian), or assertions in proper relation to each other (as for the logician), or assertions in proper relation to referents (as for the semanticist), but all these, together with the reactions of the nervous systems of the human beings involved in the communication."

 Words Don't Have Meanings; People Have Meanings

Many people suffer from the basic linguistic illusion that "words have meanings." If a word has a meaning, where do you find it? Can it be found in the sound when you say it? Can you find it in the ink when you write it? Can you find it in the dictionary, or does the dictionary contain only words? What characterizes or distinguishes a meaning and how can you recognize it?

 Consider the possibility that:

Meanings reside in the individual brain;

Individuals create, maintain and update their meanings;

Meanings consist of a "neural-patterns-of-instructions-and-associations";

A "neural-pattern-of-instructions-and-associations" can be compared to a computer program that essentially tells the user how to use a particular word;

In order for an individual to use a word in a manner such that he or she can think and communicate effectively, using that word, requires a brain program vastly more complex, than the "brief-user-instructions" in the dictionary;

Even if you claim that the "brief-user-instructions" constitute the meaning of a word, an individual couldn't use that word effectively without integrating at least the meanings of all the words used in the "brief-user-instructions";

In order to use a word effectively, the "brief-user-instructions" have to be "enriched" a thousand-fold, maybe a million-fold;

Operating on the basis that you personally create all the meaning in "your universe" greatly increases your control over your mental processes, enabling you to think, communicate, and act much more effectively.

 Corresponding to the word "chair" I have in my brain a generalized picture or template of a range of kinds of objects that qualify as chairs. This forms part of my meaning for the word "chair." I also have links to other patterns and memories I relate to "chair." All of this complexity constitutes my meaning for the word "chair" -- a meaning unique to me and vastly greater and more complex than any "meaning" to be found in a dictionary -- yet similar to the meanings others have for the word "chair." My meaning (brain-program) for using the word "chair" includes a module enabling me to determine, when others use the word "chair," whether they use it more or less the same way I do. (No such "meaning" can be found in the dictionary.)

 We can communicate because (we have to assume that) when I say "chair," you trigger, engage, or "boot up" in your brain a meaning similar to mine. Through observing responses to communication we discern whether or not we refer the same object when we say "chair."

 Most importantly, we individually create, maintain, and update our personal meanings. Over time, we can improve our ability to use any particular word more effectively. We can learn vastly more about any given word than can be found in the dictionary. For example, I utilized a variant of English called E-Prime to write the portion of this report dealing with GS. E-Prime does not contain the verb "to be" or any of its variants; otherwise E-Prime mirrors standard English. (You'll find the reasons for writing this way, below.) You'll also find below, that my meaning for "to be" and its forms varies dramatically from any "meaning" you can find in a regular dictionary.

 Now, what if our meanings constitute our most important creations by a long shot? If so, to what extent do we render ourselves oblivious of our most important creations? Can we create anything physical, without first creating it internally in a form that includes meaning?

 If we render ourselves relatively oblivious of creating our meanings, how do we affect our awareness of our physical creations and how much control do we have? How much responsibility can we demonstrate?

 If we ascribe the creation of our meanings to agencies outside ourselves ("words have meanings"), do we perhaps disown a most important part of ourselves? Do we perform most of our "meaning-processing" more or less unconsciously?

  

The Map Differs from the Territory

The word differs from the thing. In our minds we make all kinds of maps and models of how we think the world works. Our concepts (basic ideas) and words constitute maps or models which represent or reflect (we hope) aspects of the world. Our models and maps can be more or less useful, measured by the results we produce using them.

 Our models and maps -- including our words -- can never do more than approximate the actual world or the actual phenomena they seek to represent. Our maps, models, and words (symbols) constitute incomplete abstractions -- condensed, simplified, and approximated. Ultimately, the actual territory defies verbal description. Ultimately, the word cannot describe the thing. The world (territory) has its form or nature. Our description of it (map) includes at best incomplete details. Hense the GS aphorism (converted into E-Prime): "Whatever description you give something differs from the thing itself!" The word differs from the thing it tries to describe, reflect, or represent.

 Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), describes three basic ways in which our models or maps differ from the territory:

Deletion -- at best we use partial maps; they can seldom (if ever) include all the details of the territory.

Distortion -- our maps often include minor or even major inaccuracies; one person "sees" a red car with two people, another "sees" a brown car with three people; one tennis player "sees" the ball as "in," the opponent "sees" it as "out."

Generalization -- we often have one generalized map that represents many different parts of the territory. For example, my generalized "cow" map might represent cows in general. If someone asks me what breed of cow I saw, a Jersey, Guernsey, Hereford, etc.?, I reply, "What do I care! All cows look the same to me!"

 A fourth way in which our maps may differ from the territory, we've already covered briefly: addition or hallucination. We "see" and put into our map what does not exist in the territory. We "see" a "constellation" where only individual stars exist. Our map contains more than what can be found in the territory -- addition or hallucination.

 When scientists tried to find a substance corresponding to the way they "understood" the word "heat," they attempted to add to the territory an expected "substance" they could never find. Of course, scientists eventually discovered their error because they require physical evidence which they could never find.

 Preponderance of Means over Ends

As far as I know (a GS qualification), Hans Vaihinger first enunciated this principle in his book The Philosophy of As If. He said that our means tend to become more important than our ends. For example, we want to become happy. We figure if we make lots of money we'll be happy. Money becomes the means to achieve the end of happiness. Many of us then focus on making money (means), to the extent that we lose sight of becoming happy (end). The money becomes more important than the happiness; means preponderate over ends.

 

Hypostatization

"Mankind in all ages have had a strong propensity to conclude that for every name, a distinguishable separate entity corresponding to the name must exist; and every complex idea which the mind has formed for itself by operating upon its conceptions of individual things, had to have an outward objective reality answering to it." [converted into E-Prime]

 -- J.S. Mill, A System of Logic

Hypostetization basically refers to construing a word as a thing, or regarding a purely conceptual idea as a real existent or concrete thing. Hypostatization closely resembles reification -- regarding something abstract as a material thing.

 In his book The Comforts of Unreason: A Study of the Motives behind Irrational Thought, Rupert Crayshaw-Williams has a chapter on hypostatization, where he analyses hypostatized abstractions like "England," "Germany," "country," and "nation." He uses the phrases "collective abstraction" and "empty linguistic convenience."

 Hypostatization, reification, personification, deification, and intensional evaluation may all have their roots in the more primitive forms of a phenomenon called "participation mystique" by anthropologist Lucien Levy-Bruhl in his book How Natives Think. Participation mystique can have various elements:

The belief that objects or animals have magical powers.

The belief that an object (sometimes considered sacred) contains part of oneself, and has magical powers. (Some Australian aborigines had "churingas" (a piece of wood or stone) they rubbed when ill in order to try to heal themselves.)

The belief that the individual didn't create the meaning; disowning the meaning and projecting it into something external.

The unconscious projection of all kinds of powers into the environment.

The loss of personal identity and rationality when in a crowd (as described by Gustav le Bon in The Crowd).

The sports fanatic who talks of the team he supports as "we."

The "patriot" who refers to his supposed "nation" as "we."

The "citizen" who refers to the "army" of his supposed "country" as "we."

A lack of psychological, emotional, and intellectual independence.

Feeling lost without the approval of others.

Identification of self with objects like cars and houses.

Identification of self with a career or company.

The willingness to kill or be killed for unobservable or unprovable "causes" and "reasons."

The demand that "society" must provide us with whatever we need.

The belief that certain words have magical powers.

Accusing others of causing your emotions.

Patriotism, "pledges of allegiance," "anthems," "national flags," and the like.

Religious beliefs, rites, and practices.

Idolatry of all kinds.

Etc.

 Note the correspondence and overlap between the above elements and the slave-mentality described earlier. Note also where (1) deletion; (2) distortion; (3) generalization; and (4) addition and hallucination occur in the above. [M. Esther Harding's book The 'I' and the 'Not-I' includes a chapter on participation mystique.]

Semantic Reaction

Korzybsky talks about "semantic reactions" (also "neuro-semantic" or "neuro-linguistic"), where one reacts more or less automatically and unconsciously to one's "interpretation" of an event or situation, rather than responding in a deliberate, calculated, and rational way to the event or situation itself.

 Semantic reaction refers to the whole reaction of an organism: a biological-verbal- emotional reaction which could include changes in adrenaline levels, muscle tension, digestive fluids, thoughts, feelings, as well as verbal utterances.

 Examples of F-Prime -- English sentences translated into E-Prime and F-Prime

[Adapted from <http://www.extropy.com/~exi/faq/eprime.html>.]

 ENGLISH: Marty is an asshole.

 E-PRIME: Marty frequently says things that make me angry.

  F-PRIME: Marty frequently says things to which I react by getting angry -- I haven't yet learned to handle his statements rationally. [Placing emotional causation outside yourself constitutes Slavespeak and an aspect of participation mystique.]
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 23:40, Turned Out Nice Again said:

Inspired by Alfred Korzybski's "e-prime" - a powerful linguistic device to clarify thinking by eliminating use of the verb "to be" in speech and writing:
https://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

has anybody tried to go "egoless", ie. avoiding wherever possible talking about oneself, one's experiences, anecdotes, beliefs, feelings etc?

instead only talking about stuff, ideas or encouraging others to talk about their own experiences.

Surely we've all heard enough of our own spiel to be be bored shitless with it.

Please try it for a day and report back.

Interesting, though speaking personally I'm not sure about it. In my experience stuff like this can be useful, but I remember a friend of mine telling me about something similar that just didn't work, it's my belief he was right. I feel like it could even be counterproductive. 

9_9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 15:32, Hopeful said:

 

I think it probably stems from childhood, as one parent would criticse everything I did or said and if I did dare to talk would soon tell to "be quiet, little boys should be seen and not heard". I've probably been a nuiasance to soemone all my life xD

 

 

In my case it was because I was constantly praised and complimented for being quiet and reserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

In my case it was because I was constantly praised and complimented for being quiet and reserved.

What happened?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, could not resist. xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

Actually that wasn't the piece I thought it was. Below is an archived dump of stuff (incl. the R.A.W. material) I snipped from a libertarian site years ago.

 

"On a night in September 1927 when he contemplated suicide at the age of 32, Buckminster Fuller decided to live the rest of his life as an experiment. He wouldn't believe anything anybody told him -- "golden rule," "dog-eat-dog," or any of it -- and would try to find out by experience only, what could be physically demonstrated to work.

 In the year following that decision, Bucky stopped talking entirely, like many mystics in the east. He insists that he had nothing "mystical" in mind. "I was simply trying to free myself of conditioned reflexes," he said. He had met pioneer semanticist Alfred Korzybski shortly before and was convinced that Korzybski was correct in his claim that language structures caused conditioned associations -- mechanical reactions that keep us locked into certain perceptual grids. Fuller tried to break these grids, to find out what a person "of average intelligence" could accomplish if guided only by personal observation and experiment...

 The language we use influences the thoughts we think much more than the thoughts we think influence the language we use. We are encased in fossil metaphors; verbal chains guide us through our daily reality-labyrinth.

 The above comes from the book Pragmatism and four essays from The Meaning of Truth. The entry in the index is worded, "Additions, human, to the given."

 

In his article 'Toward Understanding E-Prime' -- http://home.onestop.net/eprime.html -- Robert Anton Wilson says:

"It seems likely that the principal software used in the human brain consists of words, metaphors, disguised metaphors, and linguistic structures in general. The Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis, in anthropology, holds that a change in language can alter our perception of the cosmos. A revision of language structure, in particular, can alter the brain as dramatically as a psychedelic. In our metaphor, if we change the software, the computer operates in a new way."

 "Nobody likes me," "Women always betray me," and "You make me angry" are examples of psychological and emotional Slavespeak.

 Becoming aware that your mind is controlled by illusions is a major step in freeing yourself from Slavespeak.

 "The language we use influences the thoughts we think much more than the thoughts we think influence the language we use. We are encased in fossil metaphors; verbal chains guide us through our daily reality-labyrinth.

 "Physicists, for example, spent nearly three centuries looking for a substance, heat, to correspond to the substantive noun, "heat"; it took a revolution in chemistry and thermodynamics before we realized that heat should not be thought of as a noun (a thing) but a verb (a process) -- a relationship between the motions of molecules."

 So scientists wasted nearly three centuries because their thinking was essentially entrapped by the word "heat," as they interpreted it.

 Two Tribes

Consider two different isolated tribes somewhere in the jungles of South America. Call them Tribe 1 and Tribe 2. Each has its unique language with its own structure. The language of Tribe 1 (Language 1) tends to be very literal. A man who fishes, for example, is called "man-who-fishes." The same man, while sleeping, is called "man-who-sleeps"; while talking, "man-who-talks"; while running, "man-who-runs"; while eating, man-who-eats"; while writing, "man-who-writes"; while making a chair, "man-who-makes-chair"; while giving orders, "man-who-gives-orders"; etc. In Language 1, distinctions are made between different kinds of words: "Thing-words," "Do-words," "How-words," "Story-words," "Funny-words," "Order-words," "Panic-words," "What-words," "Who-words," "Why-words," "When-words," "Where-words," etc. High-level abstractions are rare in language 1. To the people of Tribe 1, any word that doesn't refer to something physically perceivable, is highly suspect. Their test for reality is physical.

 The language of Tribe 2 (Language 2) is very different. A man who obtains his wherewithal mostly by fishing, is called "fisherman." (This system of nomenclature would seem absurd to the people of Tribe 1 -- how can you call someone a "fisherman" when he is not fishing, but sleeping?) Language 2 contains many high-level abstractions -- like "happiness." People from Tribe 2 can talk for hours about "happiness." (To someone from Tribe 1, this would be incomprehensible -- they only talk about "woman-who-is-happy" while she is happy, and "woman-who-is-sad" while she is sad. The notion that you could separate "happiness" from a real person being happy, and talk about "happiness" as if it existed by itself, would be completely unthinkable to someone from Tribe 1.)

To the people from Tribe 2, any word being used is automatically assumed to be part of existence, otherwise people wouldn't use it. (To someone from Tribe 1, the word "existence" would be a meaningless absurdity, because in their mentality only particular objects exist.) In Tribe 2, the test for reality is agreement. If other people agree with a word and the way it seems to be used, then that word is automatically accepted as valid and useful.

 One day a strange man arrives at the place where the people of Tribe 1 live. They ask him: "Who you?" He: "I King." They: "Your name King?" He: "No; my name John." They: "Why call self King if name John?" He: "I special person, agent of God." They: "You look different but not special; who God?" He: "God creator of world." They: "Where God?; How create world?" He: "God everywhere; God all-powerful." They: "How we see God?" He: "Can't see God." They: "You speak crazy." He: "No; I special; I show you." Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently making objects appear and disappear. They: "You clever man-who-tricks." He: "I special; I King." They: "You speak funny; you clever John-who-tricks." He: "I King; my word law." They: "What law? -- special word?" He: "Yes; my word law -- you must obey." They: "Ah! You mean order-word!" He: "Yes; I King; I make law." They: "No; you speak order-word?" He: "Yes; I special." They: "What special? -- Anybody speak order-word?" He: "You not understand." They: "No."

 Eventually John-the-stranger gives up trying to convince the people of Tribe 1 that he has a "special status" and that his words are different from the words of anyone else -- so he leaves, to search for more gullible and impressionable victims elsewhere...

 For many days and nights he trudges through the jungle before discovering the people of Tribe 2. They: "Who you?" He: "I King." They: "Your name King?" He: "No, my name John." They: "Why call self King if name John?" He: "I special person, agent of God." They: "You look different; what God?" He: "God creator of world." They: Where God?; How create world?" He "God everywhere; God all-powerful." They: "Show special?" Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently making objects appear and disappear. They: "You King, agent of God." He: "Yes, my word law." They: "What law?" He: "Law special word of God through me; you must obey." Whereupon the people of Tribe 2 bow down and kiss the feet of John -- they do not habitually test abstractions against reality, so they readily accept John-the-stranger as their "King" and his word as "law." Thereafter all he has to do to subjugate, control, and dominate them, is open his mouth...

 The One-Word Lie

In order to grasp the devastating power of Slavespeak words, it's absolutely vital that you understand that a word in itself can constitute a lie. You don't need a phrase or sentence to express a lie. One word by itself is enough.

 Some one-word lies, like "sunrise" and "sunset" are innocuous. They are lies because the sun doesn't really "rise" or "set." Because the earth spins and we spin with it on its surface, it appears as if the sun "rises" and "sets" -- if we think of ourselves as stable with the sun moving in relation to us. So the words "sunrise" and "sunset" probably go back to before people realized that the earth revolved. Nevertheless, using the words "sunrise" and "sunset" -- even if we realize they're not strictly correct -- doesn't cause any problems. They are innocuous.

 The words "King" and "Queen" -- and "Emperor" and "President" (in the political sense as "President" of a "country") -- are likewise lies -- one-word lies. Just by accepting the word "Emperor" and thinking and/or talking about someone else as "Emperor," you automatically put yourself in an inferior position in relation to him -- unless, of course, you call yourself "Emperor of Emperors" and others take you seriously!

 Robert Anton Wilson wrote as follows in his book Right Where You Are Sitting Now:

 "On a night in September 1927 when he contemplated suicide at the age of 32, Buckminster Fuller decided to live the rest of his life as an experiment. He wouldn't believe anything anybody told him -- "golden rule," "dog-eat-dog," or any of it -- and would try to find out by experience only, what could be physically demonstrated to work.

 In the year following that decision, Bucky stopped talking entirely, like many mystics in the east. He insists that he had nothing "mystical" in mind. "I was simply trying to free myself of conditioned reflexes," he said. He had met pioneer semanticist Alfred Korzybski shortly before and was convinced that Korzybski was correct in his claim that language structures caused conditioned associations -- mechanical reactions that keep us locked into certain perceptual grids. Fuller tried to break these grids, to find out what a person "of average intelligence" could accomplish if guided only by personal observation and experiment...

 The language we use influences the thoughts we think much more than the thoughts we think influence the language we use. We are encased in fossil metaphors; verbal chains guide us through our daily reality-labyrinth.

 The above comes from the book Pragmatism and four essays from The Meaning of Truth. The entry in the index is worded, "Additions, human, to the given."

 OK. So there are stars out there. They are the given. Looking at them from earth, some of them seem to constitute "groups" and we call such a "group" a "constellation." However, some of the stars in a supposed "constellation" are much further from earth than others. There's no basis in reality to regard them as a "group" or "constellation" -- as opposed to a flock of birds that actually fly together, or a galaxy of stars that actually move together.

 Hallucination essentially means allegedly "seeing" something that isn't there. In reality there are a number of stars. We "see" a supposed "constellation," where in reality there's no "constellation" -- only individual stars. We add or hallucinate the falsely-called "constellation."

 This phenomenon of adding to reality -- hallucinating what isn't really there -- is an essential aspect of Slavespeak. Thus an ordinary man is hallucinated as an "Emperor" or a "King." In our mind we add something "special" to an ordinary man, and we "see" him as an "Emperor" or a "King."

Similarly we add "something" to ordinary words, and as if by magic they become "the law."

 What Robert Anton Wilson Said

In his Introduction to the book The Tree of Lies (by Christopher S. Hyatt. Ph.D.), Robert Anton Wilson wrote:

 "I remember the first time I entered Alternate Reality and accepted a lie as fact. I was five or six years old at the time and my parents had taken me to see a wonderful movie called "The Wizard of Oz"...

 Only a small part of our brains, or our "selves," is able to resist the lies of a good artist. Nobody can sit through "Alien," I would wager, without at least one sound of fear or distress escaping their lips during that "ordeal" ...which consists only of looking at pictures projected on a screen...

 A movie theater is the best place to learn the true meaning of Plato's parable of the prisoners in the cave, who accept shadows as reality. Every artist who moves us, from a movie maker to Beethoven or Shakespeare, is a bit of a hypnotist.

 In this sense that seemingly stupid and mechanical contraption we call "society" must rank as the greatest artist on the planet. For instance, when I was seven or eight, and feeling superior to the kids who closed their eyes "during the scary parts," I was entering a deep hypnosis created by another Virtual Reality called language. This hypnosis was a worse nightmare than the Wicked Witch of the West or King Kong or the Wolf-Man or any of their kith and kin, but it made me a "member of society"...

 The hypnosis was performed by the good and pious nuns at the school to which my parents sent me... As a result of all the lies the nuns told me, I became a pretty good liar myself... At seventeen I became a Trotskyist. That was hot stuff in New York in the late 1940s. We Trots were more radical than anybody, or we thought we were. Of course, I was lying to myself again. Who the hell knows enough, at seventeen, to make an intelligent or informed choice among competing political ideologies? I had picked Trotskyism because one part of my mind was still Catholic and needed a hierarchy; the Central Committee made a good substitute for the Vatican. It allowed me to feel modern, scientific, "altruistic," brave, rebellious etc. and it did all my thinking for me.

 At eighteen I quit The Party just before they could expel me. I pledged allegiance to the principles of individualism, free thought and agnosticism. From now on, I said, I will not by hypnotized by groups: I will think for myself. Naturally, I then spent over 20 years following various intellectual and political fads, always convinced I had at last escaped group conditioning and finally started "really" thinking for myself...

 All this, mind you, occurred within the network of language--the Virtual Reality created by the strange symbol-making capacity of the upper quarter inch of our front brain. Language created God and Satan and Hell, in my childhood, and it created Liberty and Equality and Justice and Natural Law and other fictions that obsessed me at other stages of my "development." Language creates spooks that get into our heads and hypnotize us. [emphasis added]

 Is it is possible to use language to undo the hallucinations [emphasis added] created by language? The task seems impossible, but Zen riddles, Sufi jokes, the works of Aleister Crowley, and a few heroic efforts by philosophers such as Nietzsche and Wittgenstein seem able to jolt readers awake -- shake them out of the hypnosis of words."

  

The Ability of Reframing

In Open to Change, Vincent Nolan wrote:

 "Reframing means looking at a familiar phenomenon from a new angle. Any situation can be looked at in a wide variety of different frameworks, and each one is capable of throwing a new light on the subject... [T]he ability and willingness to set aside the conventional framework (temporarily) is one of the key skills of invention and discovery... [T]hese pigeon holes into which we classify things and situations, events and people, are themselves arbitrary and artificial: convenient and useful for some purposes -- but one, not the only way to view the world. The pigeon holes can be suspended (temporarily) and new ones brought to bear, without cost and with profit.

 

There is another important dimension to reframing. Once we accept that the same thing can be viewed in many different ways, all of them potentially useful, it is no longer necessary to impose our view of things on other people, we can accept theirs as alternative viewpoints, valid for themselves, and potentially enriching our understanding of the situation."

 General Semantics

To understand the importance of Slavespeak, we need to operate at the level of observing, analyzing, and evaluating the implications, effects, and consequences of language. How do words influence the perception of reality? How might people unjustifiably constrain their behavior because of the language they use? How might people take incorrect or destructive actions because of the words they take for granted? Like "going to war for God and Country!"

 General Semantics (GS), a discipline founded by engineer, mathematician, student of mental illness, and scholar Alfred Korzybski, addresses the same level Slavespeak does: How do our words influence the way we think, communicate, and behave? A basic understanding of GS cannot but help anyone to understand and transcend Slavespeak. The following excerpt from an article by the late George Doris, first published in 1983 in 'Self and Society: European Journal of Humanistic Psychology,' gives an idea of where GS fits into "the scheme of things" [edited into E-Prime]:

 "GRAMMAR deals with word-to-word relations. It embodies rules about how to put words together into sentences, and does not concern itself with how sentences relate to each other or how sentences relate to facts.

 LOGIC goes further. To a logician, sentences serve as assertions and he concerns himself with relations between assertions ("if 'A', then 'B'"). But for the logician, words need not have any meaning except as defined by other words, and the assertion need not have any relations to the world of fact.

 SEMANTICS goes further than logic -- to the semanticist, words and assertions have meaning only if they are related operationally to referents in the world of nature. The semanticist defines not only validity (as the logician does) but also 'truth.'

 GENERAL SEMANTICS goes furthest -- it deals not only with words, assertions and their referents in nature but also with effects on human behavior. For a 'general semanticist,' communication consists not merely of words in proper order, properly inflected (as for the grammarian), or assertions in proper relation to each other (as for the logician), or assertions in proper relation to referents (as for the semanticist), but all these, together with the reactions of the nervous systems of the human beings involved in the communication."

 Words Don't Have Meanings; People Have Meanings

Many people suffer from the basic linguistic illusion that "words have meanings." If a word has a meaning, where do you find it? Can it be found in the sound when you say it? Can you find it in the ink when you write it? Can you find it in the dictionary, or does the dictionary contain only words? What characterizes or distinguishes a meaning and how can you recognize it?

 Consider the possibility that:

Meanings reside in the individual brain;

Individuals create, maintain and update their meanings;

Meanings consist of a "neural-patterns-of-instructions-and-associations";

A "neural-pattern-of-instructions-and-associations" can be compared to a computer program that essentially tells the user how to use a particular word;

In order for an individual to use a word in a manner such that he or she can think and communicate effectively, using that word, requires a brain program vastly more complex, than the "brief-user-instructions" in the dictionary;

Even if you claim that the "brief-user-instructions" constitute the meaning of a word, an individual couldn't use that word effectively without integrating at least the meanings of all the words used in the "brief-user-instructions";

In order to use a word effectively, the "brief-user-instructions" have to be "enriched" a thousand-fold, maybe a million-fold;

Operating on the basis that you personally create all the meaning in "your universe" greatly increases your control over your mental processes, enabling you to think, communicate, and act much more effectively.

 Corresponding to the word "chair" I have in my brain a generalized picture or template of a range of kinds of objects that qualify as chairs. This forms part of my meaning for the word "chair." I also have links to other patterns and memories I relate to "chair." All of this complexity constitutes my meaning for the word "chair" -- a meaning unique to me and vastly greater and more complex than any "meaning" to be found in a dictionary -- yet similar to the meanings others have for the word "chair." My meaning (brain-program) for using the word "chair" includes a module enabling me to determine, when others use the word "chair," whether they use it more or less the same way I do. (No such "meaning" can be found in the dictionary.)

 We can communicate because (we have to assume that) when I say "chair," you trigger, engage, or "boot up" in your brain a meaning similar to mine. Through observing responses to communication we discern whether or not we refer the same object when we say "chair."

 Most importantly, we individually create, maintain, and update our personal meanings. Over time, we can improve our ability to use any particular word more effectively. We can learn vastly more about any given word than can be found in the dictionary. For example, I utilized a variant of English called E-Prime to write the portion of this report dealing with GS. E-Prime does not contain the verb "to be" or any of its variants; otherwise E-Prime mirrors standard English. (You'll find the reasons for writing this way, below.) You'll also find below, that my meaning for "to be" and its forms varies dramatically from any "meaning" you can find in a regular dictionary.

 Now, what if our meanings constitute our most important creations by a long shot? If so, to what extent do we render ourselves oblivious of our most important creations? Can we create anything physical, without first creating it internally in a form that includes meaning?

 If we render ourselves relatively oblivious of creating our meanings, how do we affect our awareness of our physical creations and how much control do we have? How much responsibility can we demonstrate?

 If we ascribe the creation of our meanings to agencies outside ourselves ("words have meanings"), do we perhaps disown a most important part of ourselves? Do we perform most of our "meaning-processing" more or less unconsciously?

  

The Map Differs from the Territory

The word differs from the thing. In our minds we make all kinds of maps and models of how we think the world works. Our concepts (basic ideas) and words constitute maps or models which represent or reflect (we hope) aspects of the world. Our models and maps can be more or less useful, measured by the results we produce using them.

 Our models and maps -- including our words -- can never do more than approximate the actual world or the actual phenomena they seek to represent. Our maps, models, and words (symbols) constitute incomplete abstractions -- condensed, simplified, and approximated. Ultimately, the actual territory defies verbal description. Ultimately, the word cannot describe the thing. The world (territory) has its form or nature. Our description of it (map) includes at best incomplete details. Hense the GS aphorism (converted into E-Prime): "Whatever description you give something differs from the thing itself!" The word differs from the thing it tries to describe, reflect, or represent.

 Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), describes three basic ways in which our models or maps differ from the territory:

Deletion -- at best we use partial maps; they can seldom (if ever) include all the details of the territory.

Distortion -- our maps often include minor or even major inaccuracies; one person "sees" a red car with two people, another "sees" a brown car with three people; one tennis player "sees" the ball as "in," the opponent "sees" it as "out."

Generalization -- we often have one generalized map that represents many different parts of the territory. For example, my generalized "cow" map might represent cows in general. If someone asks me what breed of cow I saw, a Jersey, Guernsey, Hereford, etc.?, I reply, "What do I care! All cows look the same to me!"

 A fourth way in which our maps may differ from the territory, we've already covered briefly: addition or hallucination. We "see" and put into our map what does not exist in the territory. We "see" a "constellation" where only individual stars exist. Our map contains more than what can be found in the territory -- addition or hallucination.

 When scientists tried to find a substance corresponding to the way they "understood" the word "heat," they attempted to add to the territory an expected "substance" they could never find. Of course, scientists eventually discovered their error because they require physical evidence which they could never find.

 Preponderance of Means over Ends

As far as I know (a GS qualification), Hans Vaihinger first enunciated this principle in his book The Philosophy of As If. He said that our means tend to become more important than our ends. For example, we want to become happy. We figure if we make lots of money we'll be happy. Money becomes the means to achieve the end of happiness. Many of us then focus on making money (means), to the extent that we lose sight of becoming happy (end). The money becomes more important than the happiness; means preponderate over ends.

 

Hypostatization

"Mankind in all ages have had a strong propensity to conclude that for every name, a distinguishable separate entity corresponding to the name must exist; and every complex idea which the mind has formed for itself by operating upon its conceptions of individual things, had to have an outward objective reality answering to it." [converted into E-Prime]

 -- J.S. Mill, A System of Logic

Hypostetization basically refers to construing a word as a thing, or regarding a purely conceptual idea as a real existent or concrete thing. Hypostatization closely resembles reification -- regarding something abstract as a material thing.

 In his book The Comforts of Unreason: A Study of the Motives behind Irrational Thought, Rupert Crayshaw-Williams has a chapter on hypostatization, where he analyses hypostatized abstractions like "England," "Germany," "country," and "nation." He uses the phrases "collective abstraction" and "empty linguistic convenience."

 Hypostatization, reification, personification, deification, and intensional evaluation may all have their roots in the more primitive forms of a phenomenon called "participation mystique" by anthropologist Lucien Levy-Bruhl in his book How Natives Think. Participation mystique can have various elements:

The belief that objects or animals have magical powers.

The belief that an object (sometimes considered sacred) contains part of oneself, and has magical powers. (Some Australian aborigines had "churingas" (a piece of wood or stone) they rubbed when ill in order to try to heal themselves.)

The belief that the individual didn't create the meaning; disowning the meaning and projecting it into something external.

The unconscious projection of all kinds of powers into the environment.

The loss of personal identity and rationality when in a crowd (as described by Gustav le Bon in The Crowd).

The sports fanatic who talks of the team he supports as "we."

The "patriot" who refers to his supposed "nation" as "we."

The "citizen" who refers to the "army" of his supposed "country" as "we."

A lack of psychological, emotional, and intellectual independence.

Feeling lost without the approval of others.

Identification of self with objects like cars and houses.

Identification of self with a career or company.

The willingness to kill or be killed for unobservable or unprovable "causes" and "reasons."

The demand that "society" must provide us with whatever we need.

The belief that certain words have magical powers.

Accusing others of causing your emotions.

Patriotism, "pledges of allegiance," "anthems," "national flags," and the like.

Religious beliefs, rites, and practices.

Idolatry of all kinds.

Etc.

 Note the correspondence and overlap between the above elements and the slave-mentality described earlier. Note also where (1) deletion; (2) distortion; (3) generalization; and (4) addition and hallucination occur in the above. [M. Esther Harding's book The 'I' and the 'Not-I' includes a chapter on participation mystique.]

Semantic Reaction

Korzybsky talks about "semantic reactions" (also "neuro-semantic" or "neuro-linguistic"), where one reacts more or less automatically and unconsciously to one's "interpretation" of an event or situation, rather than responding in a deliberate, calculated, and rational way to the event or situation itself.

 Semantic reaction refers to the whole reaction of an organism: a biological-verbal- emotional reaction which could include changes in adrenaline levels, muscle tension, digestive fluids, thoughts, feelings, as well as verbal utterances.

 Examples of F-Prime -- English sentences translated into E-Prime and F-Prime

[Adapted from <http://www.extropy.com/~exi/faq/eprime.html>.]

 ENGLISH: Marty is an asshole.

 E-PRIME: Marty frequently says things that make me angry.

  F-PRIME: Marty frequently says things to which I react by getting angry -- I haven't yet learned to handle his statements rationally. [Placing emotional causation outside yourself constitutes Slavespeak and an aspect of participation mystique.]
 

TLDR: bollocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

..................

One day a strange man arrives at the place where the people of Tribe 1 live. They ask him: "Who you?" He: "I King." They: "Your name King?" He: "No; my name Jonathan." They: "Well you can fuck right off for a start".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.