Self-Reflexiveness Gone Wild

Dr. Kenneth G. Johnson, taught at Institute of General Semantics (IGS) summer seminar-workshops for many years. For various and sundry reasons, these courses are no longer given—a shame. But I attended many of them beginning in 1979, first as a participant, then as staff member. I cherish the memories of the time I spent with Ken in classes and just schmoozing.

Beside his masterful and entertaining lecture-presentations, he also 'led', or rather facilitated, the group process sessions (based on the National Training Laboratory T-Groups) that the IGS had made a part of its training process for developing an extensional (fact-directed), non-aristotelian orientation. The VERY open-ended group discussions encouraged self-reflexiveness (thinking about thinking, speaking about speaking, reacting to reactions, etc.) in participants with sometimes amusing, sometimes puzzlingresults. Ken observed what people said and said very little himself. Over the years he collected a number of priceless self-reflexive comments which he heard in the course of these sessions and elsewhere. (He may also have created a few himself, to represent some attitudes he had noted in observing what people say and do.) Now enjoy some of Ken Johnson's 'brain pretzels':

"I'll be happy to be the leader—as soon as I figure out where we're going."

"If I'm going to fail, at least I want to know what I'm failing at."

"Let's all spend our time observing what happens in this group."

(After a pause) "I love the silence. I just enjoy sitting her whether anyone is talking or not. Don't you?"

"I figure that if I don't do it I'll never know what would have happened if I had done it."

"You are being critical!"

"Now that I know myself better, I don't know who I am."

"All I have to say is I have nothing to say."

"I don't mind hurting. At least then I know I am alive."

"I don't know if I'm courageous or scared to chicken-out."

"If you look at it objectively, I'm certain you'll agree with me."

"This is all very exciting, but I'm bored"

"I don't want your attention and to prove it, I'm going to leave the room."

"I'm willing to reveal myself but I have nothing worth hiding."

"If you don't know, how do you know that I don't know?"

"I hate people with strong likes and dislikes."

"Of course I trust you. But you might tell someone I don't trust."

"Even wasting time isn't a waste of time."

"I'm not afraid to express my feelings. It just scares the hell out of me."

"As soon as I find myself I'll reveal who I am."

"One good thing about this D group: If we don't know where we're going we can't get lost."

"I feel much better now that I'm uncomfortable."

"I'd like to learn by doing without doing anything."

"I resent all the hostility in this group."

"I wouldn't be so paranoid if people weren't always talking about me."

"One thing I know for sure is that we can't be certain about anything."

(Hands folded tightly accross chest) "I have this outgoing feeling toward people."

"Have you noticed—we're more in the here-now today than we were yesterday?"

"Who gave you permission to give me permission?"

"I feel terrible when I feel something and I feel I shouldn't feel that way."

"I find this tension very relaxing."

"I don't know where we're going but we're making a lot of progress."

"I have nothing to hide but I don't want everyone to know my secrets."

"What am I feeling? I'll have to think about that."

"Try to be spontaneous."

"If Korzybski were alive today, he'd be turning over in his grave."

"I'm still searching for myself. Have you seen me?"

"I'm learning a lot about people—especially me."

"My major problem is that I am too critical of myself."

"I don't care what people think—but it bothers me when they don't agree with me."

"Let's take a vote to see if we want to take a vote."

"I'm not too sure about my facts but I have no doubts about my conclusions."

"I am not upset." (Tearing hair)

"Dammit. I am going to punch out the next bastard who calls me hostile!"

"Our whole purpose here may be to find a purpose."

"Stop yelling at me. Tell me how you feel."

"I don't know what the score is. I don't know what game we're playing."

"I feel depressed because I just can't express my feelings."

"We don't have to tell anyone that our sessions are confidential."

The Fable of the Amoeba

In 1933, Korzybski was preparing to publish his book Science and Sanity. As the epigraph for the book he chose the fable of the Amoeba from Appendix E of Ogden’s and Richard’s The Meaning of Meaning. The quotation had Ogden’s characteristic literary flair (even flamboyance) and playfulness.

In its favor as the epigraph for the book, the fable caught some of the concerns that Korzybski shared with Ogden, Lady Welby (who had first written about “linguistic conscience”) and others in the field of ‘semantics’. However, the quote did not bring out what distinguished Korzybski work, 'general semantics' from these others.

Some years later, many people’s confusion between ‘general semantics’ and ‘semantics' became quite apparent. Korzybski got interested in distinguishing between the two fields as sharply as possible. It didn’t help this to feature Ogden’s fable so prominently in his book. This probably explains why he dropped it in the 1941 Second Edition of Science and Sanity, replacing it with a long quote, “A Voyage to Laputa,” from Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels. This remained as the book’s epigraph in all subsequent editions.

For those who haven't seen it, I include here the fable of the amoeba from The Meaning of Meaning:

Realize thyself, Amœba dear,” said Will: and Amœba realized herself, and there was no Small Change but many Checks on the Bank wherein the wild Time grew and grew and grew. And in the latter days Homo appeared. How, he knew not; and Homo called the change Progress, and the How he called God. . . . for speech was ever a Comforter. And when Homo came to study the parts of speech, he wove himself a noose of Words. And he hearkened to himself, and bowed his head and made abstractions, hypostatizing and glorifying. Thus arose Church and State and Strife upon the Earth; for oftentimes Homo caused Hominem to die for Abstractions hypostatized and glorified: and the children did after the manner of their fathers, for so they had been taught. And last of all Homo began to eat his words.

Now, after much time, there appeared Reason, which said, “Wherefore hast thou done this thing?”
And Homo said “Speech bewrayèd me.”

To whom Reason “Go to now and seek the Doctrine of Symbolism which showeth that the bee buzzeth not in the Head but in the Bonnet.”

But Homo hearkened not, and his sin was the greater in that he was proud and obstinate withal. For as Philosopher and Economist he said—“We will tend to give the matter our careful consideration.” And as Returning Warrior, he asked: “What, grannie, didst thou say in the Great Wars?” And as Plain Man he continued to splash solemnly in the Vocabulary of Ambiguity—and all the while the Noose was tightening and Homo began to grow inarticulate.

Then had Reason compassion on him, and gave him the Linguistic Conscience, and spake again softly: “Go to now, be a Man, Homo! Cast away the Noose of Words which thou has woven, that it strangle thee not. Behold! The Doctrine of Symbolism, which illumineth all things. What are the Laws of Science? Are they not thine own Conceptual Shorthand?
And Man Blushed.

And Reason asked again, “What is Number? Is it not a class of classes: and are not classes themselves thine own convenient Fictions? Consider the Mountain Top—it Hums not neither does it Spin. Cease then to listen for the noise of the humming. Weary not thyself in unravelling the web that never hath been spun.”
And Man replied “Quite.”

Then sang Reason and Man the Hymn 1923, “Glory to Man in the Highest for Man is the Master of Words”—nineteen hundred and twenty-three.
And the sound of the Hymn ringeth yet in our ear.

Thus the Realization of Amœba ended in the Realization of an Error.

“God laughed when he made the Sahara,” says an old African proverb—but Man may yet discover the uses of Dust.

Johnson's Corollary of Murphy's Law

Kenneth G. Johnson was also the originator of what I call Johnson's Corollary of Murphy's Law:
"To communicate is to be misunderstood!"

"Never Ask a GSer About Maps"

I [Bruce Kodish] haven't had much time to blog. Since last Thursday I've been at Read House, the home of the Institute of General Semantics in Fort Worth, Texas. Read House is located in the Fairmount Historical District of town, full of historic residences and within walking distance an up-and-coming urban area that includes one of the best vegan restaurants I've ever eaten in.

Read House now houses the complete [as far as I know] Institute of General Semantics archives. Steve Stockdale, who just resigned as Director of the Institute, put together materials, digitized at least some of the most important ones including some of the old reel-to-reel tapes of interviews with people like M. Kendig, one of the leaders in the early days with Korzybski, and other interviews that Steve conducted himself. Various archival materials, like letters, manuscripts, library books were previously scattered in various places and relatively unorganized. Thanks to Steve's tremendous efforts, the history and legacy of Korzybski and General Semantics has never been in as good a shape or as accessible.

Looking through a box of materials labeled "Ken Johnson," I found this gem from a good friend and teacher of mine, now gone. Kenneth G. Johnson, PhD was for many years a professor of Mass Communications at the University of Wisconson-Milwaukee. Here is his poem, "Never Ask a GSer About Maps" which Ken wrote and presented at the IGS Seminar-Workshop in 1990. His poem was inspired by reading Shel Silverstein's Never Ask a Zebra About Stripes.

"Never Ask a GSer About Maps"
by Kenneth G. Johnson

I asked a GSer why he was so concerned about maps.
And the GSer asked me:
Does your 'enquiring mind' feast on the National Enquirer?
Or seek answers to "What do you mean?" and "How do you know?"
Do you claim to see things as they really are?
Or do you know that you abstract?
Do you lock in on first impressions?
Or do you use your process brain to process a process world?
Do you polarize your choices using simple either-ors?
Or recognize possibilities in degrees and probabilities?
Are your abstractions free-floating hot-air ballons?
Or firmly anchored in experience?
Do you trap yourself in word-made boxes?
Or prize your own uniqueness?
Do you climb mountains of seductive abstractions?
Or avoid the peak-a-boo-boo?
Are you looking for a white-robed guru?
Or a time-tested crap-detecting system?
Are you bound by the tyranny of agreement?
Or will you settle for the warmth of understanding?
Do you react categorically and dogmatically?
Or do you leave that to your pets?
Are you seeking Truth with a capital T?
Or prediction value with a small p?
And on and on and on and on
And on and on he went.
I'll never ask a GSer about maps
Again.

Godzilla Discovers Korzybski !!!

Click On Picture Above
A cartoon by Maru from the fan art page of Ryan North's charming Dinosaur Comics

The Black Swan and Godzilla

From the fan art page of Ryan North's charming Dinosaur Comics

I happened to start reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book The Black Swan one night while flipping channels (yes, I confess to sometimes watching television while reading), and saw that the 1998 American remake of Godzilla was on. I watched the movie while I read the book—an interesting juxtaposition.

Taleb's book title comes from a famous example used by Karl Popper to illustrate his notion of falsifiability. If you say that "all swans are white" no amount of white swans will prove the statement as true. You need to see only one black swan to disprove or falsify the statement. Indeed Europeans apparently did believe that all swans were white, until the first black swan was sighted in Australia. Taleb uses the black swan as a prototype for every kind of anomolous life 'territory' which take us by surprise because our 'maps', expectations, theories haven't accounted for them. A 'black swan'—often unwelcome—'bites' us when we don't expect it.

Many scenes from Godzilla illustrate the 'black swan' phenomenon beautifully. I'll mention two but since the movie is basically about a big 'black swan' Godzilla just about every scene provides an example. Near the beginning of the movie, Matthew Broderick's character, a young scientist has been brought to a disaster scene in Panama, the aftermath of a Godzilla sighting. He stands on a bit of ground clueless until he sees that he is standing inside the clue, a giant reptilian footprint. 'Black Swan' time.

Once Godzilla has landed in Manhattan, an obnoxious newsman played by Harry Shearer is in his high-rise office complaining on the phone to someone about problems with finding interesting stories for the evening news. While he complains, Godzilla's tail is seen to sweep by the newsroom's picture window. The biggest story has walked right by him and he is oblivious to it. 'Black Swan' time.

I understand that the 1998 movie didn't do very well in the box office. But I liked it.

The world is actually full of 'black swans'. When we begin to look for them, expect the unexpected, perhaps we can be better prepared to deal with them. At least perhaps we won't feel so shocked when we see some Black Swan Godzilla walking down the road our way.

Another Description of General Semantics

From the notebooks of Robert P. Pula:

" General-semantics [he liked to write it with a hyphen to emphasize its use as a unitary term for the system that Korzybski formulated] offers a way for people to size things up, including themselves, in a way more compatible with what's outside their heads (so-called 'reality') so that they can better learn, better communicate with their companions, do sharper research, tell themselves less nonsense and, by being more present to those they're dealing with, experience enhanced degrees of affection."

I remember that Bob also used to say "General-semantics doesn't do anything!"

Describing General Semantics

From the notebooks of Robert P. Pula:

"General-semantics is a method for challenging yourself. How do you know what you 'know'? Do you have the guts to self-challenge? What effect will this have in how you come across in the laboratory, in the office, in the gymnasium—in the bedroom?"

The Black Swan

Korzybski's famous 'aphorism'—"A map is not the territory" has become ubiquitous in some parts of the culture.

The analogy seems so compelling and has become such a common part of people's 'mental furniture', that many people like Nassim Nicholas Taleb, use it as part of their own formulating without any indication that they know that it came from Korzybski or constituted an important formulation of his system of 'thought'.

That's not necessarily a fault of Taleb's yet I believe that his own excellent writing would probably benefit from his knowing about Korzybski and reading his work.

At any rate, the difference between map and territory appears as a repetitive motif throughout his wonderful book, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Indeed, it constitutes very much part of Taleb's theme of expecting the unexpected:

"What I call Platonicity, after the ideas (and personality) of the philosopher Plato, is our tendency to mistake the map for the territory, to focus on pure and well-defined "forms," whether objects, like triangles, or social notions, like utopias (societies built according to some blueprint of what "makes sense"), even nationalities. When these ideas and crisp constructs inhabit our minds, we privilege them over other less elegant objects, those with messier and less tractable structures (an idea that I will elaborate progressively throughout this book.)" (p. xxv)

Taleb's The Black Swan goes onto my list of highly recommended 'reads' for aspiring non-aristotelians (or non-platonists).