Showing posts with label Chapter 17 - Dear Dear Old Men. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chapter 17 - Dear Dear Old Men. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Chapter 17 - Dear Dear Old Men: Part 4 - Jacques Loeb

Korzybski: A Biography (Free Online Edition)
Copyright © 2014 (2011) by Bruce I. Kodish 
All rights reserved. Copyright material may be quoted verbatim without need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder, provided that attribution is clearly given and that the material quoted is reasonably brief in extent.

At the end of August, after having been in New York City only a few weeks, Alfred and Mira had moved from their first Greenwich Village apartment to another one nearby at 50 Washington Mews. After it became apparent that more work would have to be done on his book and that they were not going to leave immediately for Poland, they moved once again, in the beginning of October, to an apartment on 13 West 12th Street.(17) The new place became a source of ongoing troubles for them.

The previous tenant had left the place a mess and they had to wait an extra week while the manager of the building did what she could to clean it up. After they moved in they still found a mess: a filthy rug too disgusting to do anything about other than try to ignore it; ragged and dirty furniture which they dealt with by placing their own velvet covers on top; and a mattress blackened by bedbugs which they worked to clean as best they could. After they had gotten settled, they got robbed—the thief managing to gain entrance to the apartment with an extra key the owner of the building had failed to secure. The following May, after they had left and gone to California, the owner, a Mrs. Bonner, had the gall to have both her building manager and a lawyer write to them asking for extra money for cleaning, repairs, and lost items. Alfred fired back sharp letters—Mrs. Bonner actually owed them for their losses—and that apparently was the end of it.(18)

The bothersome apartment did not become the focus of their attention however. While Mira—looking for connections useful for her and Alfred—renewed acquaintances in the New York City art and social world, Alfred rallied his own tremendous enthusiasm and energy to promote the notion of time-binding and to try to get his book published. To some people he may have seemed like a “bull in the china shop of old theories.”(19) His liveliness, sometimes coming at “two hundred words a minute”(20), could overwhelm a listener (he gradually learned how to modulate this to some degree). Undoubtedly, some people got ‘turned off’ while others, like Keyser, felt charmed. Not surprisingly, soon after arriving in New York City, Korzybski had developed a circle of friends and associates interested in his work.

One of the people he became friendly with was biologist Jacques Loeb (1859-–1924). Indeed, Loeb became another “dear old man” who personally encouraged Alfred and whose work had a continuing influence on him. Born in Germany as Isaac Loeb, he had come to the U.S. in the 1890s, where he solidified his already growing reputation in the biological research world as a wide-ranging physiologist. By the time Korzybski met him, Loeb worked at the Rockefeller Institute in the Upper East Side of New York City, and was perhaps best-known to the general public for his successful efforts to artificially induce parthenogenesis (the development of a complete organism) from the unfertilized eggs of sea urchins, frogs, etc., some twenty years earlier. He had also done ground-breaking research on plant and animal tropisms and on the comparative physiology of the nervous system and comparative psychology. Utterly devoted to scientific research, in his earlier work Loeb had made himself a disciple of Ernst Mach and had developed an anti-metaphysical, engineering approach to his investigations. Loeb considered behavior as a legitimate part of physiological study, embraced the importance of studying the organism as a whole, and held a staunch belief in the unity of nature, which meant for him the necessity of demonstrating the physico-chemical nature of biological functions or, what he called in the title of his 1912 book of essays, The Mechanistic Conception of Life. He became a major advocate for that conception in the “mechanist-vitalist” debates, opposing those who believed a ‘vital’ element in life would always evade scientific explanations. Having suffered from antisemitism most of his life, he had also become an outspoken opponent of the biologically-based rationales for racism and discrimination becoming popular by the start of World War I. 

Jacques Loeb
By 1920, the time Korzybski met him, Loeb was studying the colloidal behavior of proteins, which he thought promised to reveal more of the underlying mechanisms of living phenomena. In 1922, the writer Paul DeKruif, a formally-trained bacteriologist who had worked as a junior colleague of Loeb’s at Rockefeller for a few years, wrote a portrait of Loeb which was published in Harpers, much to Loeb’s embarrassment. DeKruif, who later became famous for his 1926 book, The Microbe Hunters, collaborated with Sinclair Lewis in the writing of Lewis’s 1925 novel Arrowsmith, wherein the character Max Gottleib was modeled in large part upon Loeb.(21)

Alfred had first learned about Loeb from his friend Julian Grove-Korski, working at the Polish Consulate in New York, who recommended some of Loeb’s writings. Loeb’s approach supplied a clear, well-stated, scientifically-based rationale for some things Alfred had been groping to express in his writing, including one of Alfred’s main points: the zoological and mythological conceptions of humankind had harmful effects on the time-binding process, whilst his new definition enhanced it. Loeb’s work affirmed that life—including human consciousness and behavior—had to be understandable on a physiological and physico-chemical basis, and provided a plausible mechanism for how this harm or help might occur.

Loeb had written, “Since [Pavlov] and his pupils have succeeded in causing the secretion of saliva in the dog by means of optic and acoustic signals, it no longer seems strange to us that what the philosopher terms an “idea” is a process which can cause chemical changes in the body.”(22) In other words, correct or wrong ideas could promote or foul up the time-binding process in a directly physiological way.

Alfred expanded on this in a new Appendix II on “Biology and Time-Binding” begun at the end of the year. As he often did when trying to formulate more clearly, he drew a diagram—a spiral seemed quite fitting.(23) The “spiral theory” of time-binding became a major theme of his subsequent work. Korzybski considered culture, i.e.,‘thoughts’, ‘languages’,‘symbols’, ‘images’, etc., as the natural product of the “physico-chemical base...of the human time-binding energy” of individual nervous systems in association with one another. A ‘thought’ gets embodied in a language or some other symbolism. It represents a residual effect or product of time-binding. This effect provides a new incentive for action by modifying the physico-chemical base of the individual who created it or anyone else who interprets it. The physico-chemical base thus modified can produce a new ‘thought’ which may provide yet again some new incentive for action.

For Korzybski, this cyclical or spiral process of causality had serious implications for all aspects of human functioning:
…Every word has its energy and produces some physico-chemical effects in the time-binding apparatus in accord with the idea which we associate with the sound of the word. If we teach ideas which are untrue, then the physico-chemical effects produced are not proper—in other words the human mind does NOT WORK PROPERLY, that is, it does not work naturally or normally or true to the human dimension. There is every reason why the standards in our civilization are so low, because we have “poisoned,” in a literal sense of the word, our minds with the physico-chemical effects of wrong ideas. 
This correct natural approach to the “Time-binding” energies will make it obvious how unmeasured is the importance of the manner in which we handle this subtle mechanism, as the poisoning with wrong ideas or with careless or incorrect words does not in any way differ in consequences from poisoning with any other stupor-producing or wrongly stimulating poison. (24)

As he noted 13 years later in Science and Sanity, “Neural products are stored up or preserved in extra-neural form [various observable aspects of language, symbolism, media, culture, etc., e.g., books], and they can be put back in the nervous system as active neural processes”—for better and worse.(25) In his first book, he emphasized how this spiral process gives vital importance to how we define ourselves both as individuals and as members of the human race. As Korzybski only later realized, his “spiral theory” of time-binding required a nonlinear, ‘circular’ notion of causality, not well-formulated in 1920. (See Science and Sanity, p. 12.) His spiral theory preceded by some years the notion of negative feedback in control theory and cybernetics. (Indeed, control theory and cybernetics did not yet exist as discrete scientific disciplines.) When the notion of feedback began to be discussed in the late 1940s, Korzybski latched onto it at once.

By the middle of December 1920, Korzybski and Loeb had begun corresponding and had met. Loeb generously offered to look at the manuscript and helped Alfred with comments and support throughout its path to publication. Loeb also provided Alfred with names of people to contact for his trip to California the following year. And later, according to Alfred, Loeb’s encouragement more than anyone else’s got him to stay in the United States to do his work.

Their friendship and correspondence lasted until Loeb’s sudden death in Bermuda from a heart attack in early 1924. Ironically, Alfred—back in New York City by then and not knowing Loeb was away—had written to Loeb at his lab on the day of Loeb’s death, February 10. Alfred wanted to meet to discuss some important issues. Loeb’s secretary, still unaware of Loeb’s death the night before, wrote back on February 11 suggesting Alfred write another note to Loeb after March 1 when the biologist was expected home. Alfred attended the funeral and felt Loeb’s sudden death as a great blow. (26)



Notes
You may download a pdf of all of the book's reference notes (including a note on primary source material and abbreviations used) from the link labeled Notes on the Contents page. The pdf of the Bibliography, linked on the Contents page contains full information on referenced books and articles.
17. AKDA 4.349.

18. AKDA 11.453-456.

19. “Korzybski: Pole, Artilleryman, Logician”, by R. H. Allen. Boston Evening Transcript, Saturday, Oct. 27, 1923. AKDA 2.667.

20. Cora L. Williams to AK, Sept. 24, 1921. AKDA 6.478.

21. See Pauly 1987.

22. Loeb 1912, p. 62.

23. Korzybski 1921, p.233.

24. Korzybski 1921, pp. 250–251.

25. Korzybski 1994 (1933), p. 291.

26. AK to R.D. Carmichael, 4/29/1924. AKDA 14.759; AK to William Morton Wheeler, 3/30/1924. AKDA 14.632.

< Part 3 

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Chapter 17 - Dear Dear Old Men: Part 3 - How to Read a Book

Korzybski: A Biography (Free Online Edition)
Copyright © 2014 (2011) by Bruce I. Kodish 
All rights reserved. Copyright material may be quoted verbatim without need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder, provided that attribution is clearly given and that the material quoted is reasonably brief in extent.

Besides the manuscript of Keyser’s Mathematical Philosophy, which Alfred gobbled up with relish, Alfred read Keyser’s other published books. He then either bought or borrowed, and then read, Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica; Russell’s The Principles of Mathematics, The Problems of Philosophy, Our Knowledge of the External World, and Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy; Whitehead’s An Introduction to Mathematics, The Organization of Thought, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Natural Knowledge, and The Concept of Nature; and Henri Poincaré’s The Foundation of Science, a one volume compendium of three of Poincaré’s books, Science and Hypothesis, The Value of Science, and Science and Method. 

Poincaré’s style, even in translation, struck him as especially beautiful. In his notebook, Alfred copied a quote from Poincarés book: “To doubt everything and to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; each saves us from thinking.” (The Foundation of Science, p. 27).(13) In the clearest example in Korzybski’s writing of anything approaching plagiarism, Alfred paraphrased this as follows without attribution in his final published text: “There are two ways to slide easily through life: Namely, to believe everything, or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking.” (Manhood of Humanity, p. 4). Ironically, this remains one of the most widely-cited ‘Korzybski quotes’. In his later writings, he became much more careful with quotes and attributions.

How could anyone get through the above list of books in the period of only a few months—while reading other books as well—in addition to revising a manuscript, looking for a publisher, carrying on a large and lively letter correspondence, and meeting friends and associates throughout the city on a-not-infrequent basis? Someone who did not know Korzybski’s reading habits might find it unbelievable. However, during his years as an independent scholar, Korzybski had honed a consistent approach to reading, allowing him to rather quickly absorb large amounts of material in new and difficult fields. He freely shared this reading method with his friends and students.

His main habit, acquired as a schoolboy, consisted of opening himself to the presentation of the speaker/writer—at the start—with a minimum of criticism. His main aim consisted of “try[ing] to get what they wanted to say, not what they say, but what they wanted to say.”(14) In a letter he wrote in 1927 to his student, psychiatrist Phillip Graven, he detailed the method itself:
...I found that it is extremely useful to read [a] book many time[s], it is better to read them as wholes so that the whole configuration works. But to do so we must have some special means or otherwise we never could go through for lack of time. I use such [a] method. In reading the first time I mark with black pencil key words so that one glance at one paragraph tells me all about it the most important word in the paragraph or two or three, or a name. With this ready and one quick but honest reading I never need to read the book so laboriously again unless I especially want some material. Whenever I find in my first reading something which I like or something I dislike I mark it also specially with black pencil. I never for myself make any writings in the books simply because they ALWAYS are confusing and formal. I usually find in my own as well as other markings that they express something premature. If on my second reading, which usually takes 2-3 hours for the second reading because I glance only through my pencil marks, I use next a blue pencil and again make independent marking, namely what at the second reading I like or dislike I mark again blue, on a third reading I rapidly turn over the pages and read only the blue marks and if interested I mark them again in red, next comes green etc.[,] each successive reading is more rapid. It [is] extremely useful to glance books over [,] all over rather often although use very little time on it. Then you will have boiled down a book to perhaps 20 minutes reading, but all the time turning the pages over you will deal with the whole[,] the whole configuration and context which always better explains the words of a writer. (15) 
Sample of  Korzybski's marking of Eddington's 1920 Space Time And Gravitation, 

The last two paragraphs of these last two pages of the book contain one Korzybski's favorite quotes, which he regularly read aloud to his seminar classes

A number of the books suggested by Keyser became the objects of multiple and deep re-readings over the next few years. But Alfred’s initial readings and his contact with Keyser had some more immediate results. They helped inspire him to edit much of his discussion of mathematics in his manuscript and put some of this material into what became a rewritten appendix in Manhood of Humanity (“Appendix I -– Mathematics and Time-Binding”) where he consolidated some of his ideas about the role of mathematics in time-binding. Written in an admittedly “suggestive form,” this material presaged his entire life work: “As a matter of fact, scientific psychology will very much need mathematics, but a special humanized mathematics. Can this be produced? It seems to me that it can.”(16)

Notes 
You may download a pdf of all of the book's reference notes (including a note on primary source material and abbreviations used) from the link labeled Notes on the Contents page. The pdf of the Bibliography, linked on the Contents page contains full information on referenced books and articles. 
13. “AK Personal Notebook...Early 1920s”. AKDA 37.778. 

14. Korzybski 1947, p. 43. 

15. AK to Phillip Graven, 12/1/1927. AKDA 19.675. 

16. Korzybski 1921. p. 211. 

< Part 2     Part 4 >

Monday, September 8, 2014

Chapter 17 - Dear Dear Old Men: Part 2 - Cassius J. Keyser

Korzybski: A Biography (Free Online Edition)
Copyright © 2014 (2011) by Bruce I. Kodish 
All rights reserved. Copyright material may be quoted verbatim without need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder, provided that attribution is clearly given and that the material quoted is reasonably brief in extent.

Cassius J. Keyser, Adrain Professor of Mathematics at Columbia University, turned out to be just the man Alfred needed. Keyser had an abiding interest in the human aspects of mathematics and its connections to every aspect of education and life. For Keyser, mathematics constituted the prototype of rigor and excellence for human thinking. He sought as a teacher and writer, “…to engage in a dignified popularization of mathematics and science, to humanize and democratize them, to make the orientation of mathematicians and scientists available to the ‘educated layman.’”(3) When he got Alfred’s manuscript, Keyser quickly recognized someone who shared his aims and, furthermore, someone with an urgency and ability to put them into practice. 

Keyser was born in 1862 in Rawson, Ohio in a log cabin. Young Cassius appeared to have learned a great deal about the practical aspects of life from his father, a farmer. He entered academia at an early age—by 1920 he had spent most of his working life as a teacher, first in public schools, and then in universities throughout the United States, while pursuing advanced studies. In 1901, he received his PhD in Mathematics at Columbia with a dissertation entitled The Plane Geometry of the Point in Space of Four Dimensions. Since then he had been on the Columbia Mathematics faculty, heading the department from 1910 to 1916. His students had included distinguished mathematicians such as E.T. Bell and Edward Kasner (both of whom later became friends with Korzybski), and Emil Post, a Polish-born Jew raised in the U.S. who had just gotten his PhD in 1920 on a topic inspired by a seminar he took with Keyser on Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead’s recently published, three-volume Principia Mathematica. Post—whose writing on incompleteness and undecidability in mathematical systems (unpublished) predated the work of both Godel and Turing—gave credit to Keyser for the truth-table methods he used in developing his work.

Keyser had already published a number of books of essays on what Korzybski would call “the human, civilizing, practical life, point of view”(4) of mathematics including: Science and Religion: The Rational and the Superrational, The New Infinity and the Old Theology, and The Human Worth of Rigorous Thinking. When he got Korzybski’s letter, he was in the midst of preparing the manuscript of a book he had been working on for a number of years, Mathematical Philosophy: A Study of Fate and Freedom, Lectures for Educated Laymen.

Something about Korzybski’s manuscript grabbed Keyser immediately. In a letter to George Brett of MacMillan Publishing Company written several weeks later, Keyser wrote about his first impressions:
I began the reading of it with indifference and misgiving. But it quickly aroused my interest, which grew deeper and deeper, and when I had finished reading I felt as I feel now, that the book is a timely one of great originality, great power and great importance.  
Physically it is small but spiritually—philosophically and scientifically—it is big, the biggest thing I believe in its fundamental conceptions, that our extraordinary times have evoked. As its ideas are reflected upon and developed (for they are here presented in the rough and raw) they will be found to penetrate every cardinal interest of human kind. (5)
Within two days Keyser finished his initial reading and wrote back to Korzybski to arrange a meeting. Both men quickly realized their shared aims and what they could do for each other. In the notions of “time-binding” and “human engineering” Keyser found a clarification of his own understanding of mathematics and science as human activities and a general program to apply this understanding to human concerns. He decided he would have to do some rewriting of his own work-in-progress in order to include the insights he was getting from Korzybski. Korzybski, in turn, had long felt but only recently begun to verbalize a view of the significance of a mathematical approach to thinking and living, already worked out in some detail by Keyser. Building on Keyser’s formulations, Alfred was later able to extend this view as he sought to understand the foundations of time-binding. Besides this, Keyser was able to suggest books for Alfred to read and people for him to meet. Through Keyser, Alfred became aware of a world of scientific, mathematical, philosophical, historical, and other formulators who had already worked on some of the areas he had stumbled upon more or less on his own.
Cassius J. Keyser
A look at Keyser’s particular and—in some people’s views—peculiar take on mathematics and the psychology of mathematics reveals some of the ground from which Korzybski further developed his work. For one thing, Keyser had reached the following conviction, based on long contemplation: “Logic is not a tool of mathematics—Logic is mathematics. All strictly mathematical propositions are propositions in logic and conversely.”(Keyser’s view of mathematics and logic as equivalent or coextensive should not be confused with Frege’s and Russell’s program of “logicism”, which sought to reduce all of mathematics to formal logic. Ultimately for him—and Korzybski—the field of mathematics was larger than, and included, formal logic.) (6) 

Mathematics, Keyser also held, could not be separated from psychology without impoverishing both mathematics and the understanding of human behavior. Instead, Keyser looked at mathematics, for him the prototype of rigorous thinking, as a form of mental phenomena “unsurpassed as means in the study of mind.”(7) In this, Keyser followed in the tradition of George Boole, whom Keyser considered to have started the modern revolution in mathematics with his Investigation of the Laws of Thought. In that book Boole had made clear, he intended his work to throw light on “the nature and constitution of the human mind.”(8) 

Subsequent mathematicians and logicians had focused on improving and refining Boole’s symbolical calculus, which later in the 20th century served as the basis of computer science. However, as Boole’s wife, Mary Everest Boole, wrote: “…nearly all the logicians and mathematicians ignored the statement that the book was meant to throw light on the nature of the human mind…”(9) Keyser appeared to be one of the few mathematicians in 1920 who continued to take seriously Boole’s opening statement from the Laws of Thought.

Keyser became Alfred’s mentor—if anyone could be called that—as Alfred developed his work. Both Alfred and Mira developed close friendships with Keyser and his wife Ella (and after she died in 1927, with Keyser’s second wife Sara). Within a year Keyser was beginning his letters, “Dear Korzybski,” which Alfred certainly preferred to “Dear Count” or “Dear Mr. Korzybski”. Alfred came to normally address Keyser in letters as “My dear dear old Man”, a greeting he reserved for Keyser. Until Keyser’s death at the age of 85 in 1947, he remained the man whose opinion mattered most to Korzybski.

After their first meeting, Keyser wrote a note to a former student of his, Arthur Harcourt, recommending the book—still entitled The Manhood of Humanity and Its Universal Language—for Harcourt’s publishing company, Harcourt, Brace and Howe. Korzybski sent Harcourt a copy of the manuscript along with Keyser’s note, but within a few weeks got back a rejection letter. The book did not fit Harcourt’s current publishing needs. Thus began the first round of queries to publishers. Alfred wrote to Open Court and MacMillan (where Keyser knew an editor), among other places. The chapter headings and Alfred’s accompanying explanation of the book seemed to elicit interest. But he had no takers. It was not really surprising, given his status as an untested new author writing in a new tongue for a general readership about the ‘esoteric’ subject of “human engineering or mathematical sociology” (as he was labeling it at the time).(10) 

When they first got to New York City, Alfred had thought he could get the publication of the book in English done quickly. He and Mira had originally planned to leave for Europe after only a couple weeks in the city. As reality began to sink in, they began to push back their departure time, first a couple of weeks, then another few weeks, then a month or two, etc. (This became a familiar pattern over the next few years.) Still, many people who heard about the book, saw the chapter headings, or who read a copy of the manuscript got excited about it. By the middle of September, Alfred and some friends met to consider starting a “Human Engineering Publishing Company” and getting out the book themselves. Keyser was encouraging but by then felt he had neither the time nor money to get involved. Nothing came out of the meeting and Alfred continued to contact people, make inquiries, and hope to find a publisher. He felt he had something good. But from his discussions and correspondence with Keyser and others, he also realized he would have to do some editing and rewriting to get the book into publishable shape.

As Keyser pointed out in a letter to Alfred at the start of October, despite the book’s “energy and pungence” the English needed polishing. Keyser apologized about his inability to do more to help.(11) Two months later Keyser, who had continued seeing and corresponding with Korzybski and wanted the book to succeed, offered some candid remarks on what he thought Alfred needed to do.(12) Among other things, he thought Alfred had obscured his central theme in a mass of unnecessary details. Besides that, Alfred had offered an appendix on mathematics which, among other things, went into some detail on the concept of the continuum. Keyser told him it contained insufficient explanatory detail for mathematicians to take it seriously and too much technical jargon and detail for laypeople to understand. Keyser had latched onto a central problem Alfred would confront throughout his career: how to communicate with the diverse audiences--—from educated laypeople to professional mathematicians and scientists—he felt he needed to address in order to promote the science and art of human engineering.

Keyser was also instrumental in helping Alfred update himself in the latest work in mathematics, mathematical logic, and physics. Since the start of the war, Korzybski had experienced a drought in his serious reading. He was now catching up with a vengeance. Before the war, Alfred had not had any awareness of the work on the foundations of mathematics being done by British writers such as Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, and others. He had only been able to peripherally follow Einstein’s work on general relativity. Now, as quickly as he could, Alfred began to obtain and consume a number of seminal books in mathematics and mathematical physics suggested by Keyser.


Notes 
You may download a pdf of all of the book's reference notes (including a note on primary source material and abbreviations used) from the link labeled Notes on the Contents page. The pdf of the Bibliography, linked on the Contents page contains full information on referenced books and articles. 
3. Carter 1953, p. 134. 4. Korzybski 1921, p. 222. 

5. Cassius J. Keyser to George Brett, 9/21/20, AKDA 6.624-625. 

6. Keyser, “Mathematics as a Career”. In Mole Philosophy & Other Essays, p. 105. Although enthusiastic about Frege’s and Russell’s work, Keyser’s broader view of the unity of mathematics and logic (with mathematics as the overarching framework) was not refuted by the subsequent failure of their program. 

7. Keyser 2001 (1922) , p. 412. 

8. George Boole, p. 1. 9. Mary Everest Boole, “Indian Thought and Western Science in the Nineteenth Century: A Letter to Dr. Bose”, in Vol. 3, Collected Works, p. 952-953. Frege and Russell had helped popularize the notion of the separation of logic/mathematics from psychology. Mathematics, according to this fashionable view, did not reveal anything about human thinking. Following Frege, “psychologism” became a term of disapproval wielded against those like Keyser and Korzybski who did not accept that mathematics/logic was completely ‘objective’ and independent of human ‘minds’. 

 10. AK to C. J. Keyser, 8/8/1920. AKDA 4.539. 

11. C. J. Keyser to AK, 10/9/1920. AKDA 4.342-343. 

12. C. J. Keyser to AK, 12/3/1920. AKDA 4.754. 


< Part 1     Part 3 >

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Chapter 17 - Dear Dear Old Men: Part 1 - Introduction

Korzybski: A Biography (Free Online Edition)
Copyright © 2014 (2011) by Bruce I. Kodish 
All rights reserved. Copyright material may be quoted verbatim without need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder, provided that attribution is clearly given and that the material quoted is reasonably brief in extent.

As Korzybski would insist throughout his life, without Mira’s encouragement and help he would not have written his first book nor developed his work afterwards. Indeed, as he often stated, he wrote primarily for her. Without her to motivate him, he said he would have likely gone back to Poland and—at most—possibly written a book in the style of “Let the Dead Be Heard”. Perhaps.

But Alfred was clearly not indifferent to his own formulations. His enthusiasm comes through in his writing, his letters, and the reports of other people. It seems clear; he too was struck with the implications of what he had come up with. At a certain point, he developed his work not only because of Mira’s pushing but because he had his own, not inconsiderable, internal push as well.

He wanted a science of man, more specifically a science and art of human engineering. Although his formulation of time-binding was certainly not without precedents, it seemed to him he had made a genuine advance toward such a science and art—an advance in the mathematical ‘spirit’. The sharp term “time-binding” pointed to what seemed the main distinction between the separate classes of humans and animals. His exponential formula for human progress seemed to quantitatively show the entirely different dimension of life humans lived in. But he knew he needed help—not only with editing his English prose.

Perhaps he recalled his final exam back in engineering school, when he and his professor belatedly discovered his theoretical machine, devised on the blackboard, couldn’t possibly work. He wanted someone competent to check what he had done. Through contacts—perhaps by way of Amy—Alfred got a letter of introduction to the University of Chicago mathematician E. H. Moore. By the beginning of July 1920, having completed his manuscript, he and Mira left Lees Summit for New York via Chicago.They checked into the Morrison Hotel there and Alfred went to see Moore.

A world-renowned mathematician, Moore had served as Vice-President and President of the American Mathematical Society. Korzybski seemed to have no difficulty getting an appointment. Moore glanced through the manuscript quickly, immediately taking note of the 
PRT formula. Though Moore seemed intrigued, he honestly told Alfred he had no time to read the whole thing, so Alfred spent the next half hour explaining human engineering and time-binding to him. Moore found it interesting but protested he was not competent to judge Alfred’s idea. He did refer Alfred to Professor Cassius J. Keyser at Columbia University in New York, and wrote a letter of introduction. Alfred felt encouraged. (1)

While in Chicago, Alfred and Mira also met a man named Murray Schloss who had organized something called the “Hilltop Club” where Alfred gave a talk. The club’s purpose was to provide “An interchange, propaganda place, and clearing house for all manner of movements, Philosophies, Organizations and Practical Projects that AIM FUNDAMENTALLY at a Better Age.”(2)  As Alfred and Mira had already discovered, post-World War I America was full of educated people trying to make sense of the war and its aftermath and looking for answers to social problems. Indeed for several years, beginning in 1919, Mira had a “black book” where the two of them kept names and clippings of anyone who seemed to have ‘ideas’ related to Alfred’s. Eventually they stopped bothering with this, since they found many of these individuals had little interest in Alfred’s work. But the people at the Hilltop Club certainly seemed interested and gave him his first public forum to speak about time-binding.

At the end of July, Alfred and Mira, with their multiple trunks and suitcases, took a train to New York City. In a few days, they had found a simple apartment at 1 University Place in Greenwich Village. On August 6, within a week of settling in, Alfred sent a letter to Cassius Keyser—together with Moore’s introduction and a copy of his manuscript
.

Notes 
You may download a pdf of all of the book's reference notes (including a note on primary source material and abbreviations used) from the link labeled Notes on the Contents page. The pdf of the Bibliography, linked on the Contents page contains full information on referenced books and articles. 
1. Korzybski 1947, p. 216. 

2. The Hilltop Club, “Purposes, Principles, Procedures”. AKDA 32.697. 

Part 2 >