"My Dear Russell": Korzybski and Bertrand Russell Part III

Korzybski felt a deep indebtedness to Bertrand Russell for his theoretical insights (for years he kept a small photographic portrait of Russell, along with one of Einstein, on his office wall). The two men carried on an intermittent correspondence for years, eventually meeting face-to-face in 1939 when Russell, in Chicago, came for a brief visit to the Institute of General Semantics to see Korzybski there.

Afterwards, although, their correspondence remained polite, Alfred gradually began to vent more of his frustrations to Russell (it would have been out of character for him not to speak bluntly and Russell had demonstrated that he hadn't bothered much with Korzybski's work). In a lengthy letter to Russell in 1946 (perhaps the last one he wrote to him), Korzybski said: 

"Some of my students in London told me some amusing gossips that my Science and Sanity was so against your grain that you threw the book into the Atlantic. Should this be true, it would be sad news, because your great work in Mathematical Foundations is at the very core of a non-aristotelian revision...Well, my dear Russell, your bloody ‘types’ if translated…and applied in daily life do work…Your behavior and platonic verbal fictions, no matterhow clever, and ‘academic’, are read by few ‘intellectuals’, but they cannot be workable, and so cannot be applied in general education. Yet your ‘types’ gave a formulation in crisp terms. I worked it out in a language applicable to life, and when people are trained in it in childlike terms, which applied even to ‘mentally’ ill it works astonishingly…"(1) 

In a short note Russell told Korzybski that he had heard the story too but assured him but that he had not thrown Science and Sanity into the Atlantic. (2)

Notes

1.  A.K. to Russell, 7/27/1946. IGS Archives. 

2.  B. Russell to A.K., 8/9/[1946]. IGS Archives. 

"My Dear Russell": Korzybski and Bertrand Russell- Part II

At the end of his Introduction of Mathematical Philosophy (1919), Russell had presented no remedy for the misleading aspects of ordinary language other than to retreat into the use of logical symbolism. (1) Russell seemed to maintain this attitude throughout his life. Thus when he wasn’t ‘speaking mathematically’ he tended to fall into the ‘traps’ of ordinary language. On the other hand, Korzybski came to accept that language as behavior could be used with skill in order to formulate experience of the world in a different way. Mathematicians seemed notable to Korzybski for their creative use of symbolism and there existed no inherent reason that our everyday language could not be similarly amenable to purposeful change. Since Russell did not accept this, he never understood how Alfred made use of his (Russell’s) work to help people make their everyday language less misleading.

There we have the crux of Korzybski’s problems with Russell. The two men simply had their heads in different places. Korzybski ultimately made clear his rejection of Principia’s logicist program to derive mathematics from logic. On the contrary, he accepted that ‘logic’ derives from mathematics and indeed that all human knowledge and language has a mathematical structure. Methods and symbolism from the recognized discipline of mathematics (including mathematical logic) could be searched to yield baby-like ways to change the structure of ordinary language and experience. In Science and Sanity, he showed how Principia Mathematica’s theory of types fit into a broader theory of human evaluation, bringing Russell’s work down to earth. Russell, a brilliant but impractical theoretician, couldn’t do this, couldn’t recognize that Korzybski had done so, or even that it was possible. Philosopher Bryan Magee who got to know Russell toward the end of the great mathematical philosopher’s life, called him a genius for theory who “treated practical problems as if they were theoretical problems. In fact I do not think he could tell the difference.” (2) Korzybski, with a genius for the practical, even in relation to theoretical issues, didn’t have that problem.

Notes

1.  Russell 1919, p. 205. 

2. Bryan Magee, Confessions of A Philosopher (1997, 1999), p. 210.

Quote of the Day - "New Idea"

"New idea - An old idea that you are hearing for the first time." 
— Jules Berman

"My Dear Russell": Korzybski and Bertrand Russell- Part I

Korzybski had started writing to Bertrand Russell in 1921 right after Manhood of Humanity was published, having sent Russell a copy of the book. He continued writing to Russell on an intermittent basis for many years to come. In his letters to Russell, Alfred—who in a way revered the mathematical logician—always expressed his gratitude to Russell for his work, especially the work in mathematical foundations. [Notice the portraits on the wall behind Korzybski in his Chicago office—Albert Einstein on the left, Bertrand Russell on the right.] Korzybski would send Russell materials and ask for his opinion. Eventually Russell responded, mostly to apologize for not replying to letters in a timely fashion or for not having time to study Korzybski’s work further.

Prior to its 1933 publication, Korzybski had sent him proofs of Science and Sanity. Russell cabled back to him “Your work is impressive and your erudition extraordinary. Have not had time for thorough reading but think well of parts read. Undoubtedly your theories demand serious consideration.” (1) This testimonial was important for Alfred although he had been disappointed that Russell had not been able to study the book more.

Subsequent correspondence years later makes clear that Russell never did take time for a thorough reading. In 1939 he wrote to Korzybski “I should like very much to know about the semantic definition of number that you mention [in a previous letter to Russell].” (2) If Russell had read with any care either the page proofs or the published copy of Science and Sanity that Korzybski sent to him, then he would not have missed Korzybski’s suggested improvement upon Russell’s definition of number, discussed in detail in Chapter XVIII of Science and Sanity and mentioned in various places throughout the book.

Notes
1. B. Russell to Alfred Korzybski (telegram), 4/7/1933. Alfred Korzybski Digital Archives 25.2551
2. B. Russell to Alfred Korzybski, 1/14/1939. Institute of General Semantics Archives.

From The Stray Thought Bin - Glibness

Glibness can be a gift that masks superficial thought. If you find writing easy, you may not be doing it right.

July 2010 Update on Korzybski Biography

My wife Susan and I just completed the editing of the first draft of the Korzybski biography that I've been working on for the last six years. That hasn't left me much time for blog posting, for which I apologize. We have some pruning to do as I've written a massive book filled with detail and I want to shorten it as much as I can, without sacrificing the details that people will want, to make it as unintimidating as possible to interested readers. So we are working very hard and hope to have the book out, certainly by this time next year if not earlier.

After reading the first draft manuscript Susan gave a very capable summary of Korzybski's life in two sentences:

"He had a very busy, sometimes too busy, exciting and exhausting life. Then he died."

Measured by today's lifespans he wasn't that old when he died, a few months short of his 71st birthday. But he packed a helluva lot of living into those years. I think readers will be pleasantly surprised about what they learn about Korzybski, what he was aiming for, and his incredible accomplishments. I'll keep you posted on the books progress toward publication, which will be soon.

From the Stray Thought Bin-'Medium and Message'

The medium is the message.
The message the medium.
It's all message, all medium.
All 'happy' and tedium.
Call the media ecologist.

Call the media ecologist.
And watch the show.
Call the media ecologist
And watch the commercial.
What's the show? the commericial?
And how do you know?
Call the media ecologist.

Symbolic environments.
Artificial plants?
Call the media ecologist.
Is it 'real'?
Is it Memorex?
How bad am I hexed?
Call the media ecologist.

Show me the garden.
Show me the bricks.
I'm going to start digging.
I'll build something with sticks.
I'd like to stop talking, the computers, blackberry,
The deluge of info seems all the more hairy,
I'd like it to stop if just for a minute.
There's no way out though,
but just getting through with it.
Call the media ecologist.

I've got to get conscious of what I'm about.
About it about it,
No other way out.
And so in the meantime
Best give out a shout:
CALL THE MEDIA ECOLOGIST!

General Semantics Glossary - 'Multiordinality'

Multiordinality; Multiordinal Terms: recognition that terms can be assigned different 'meanings' depending on the level of abstraction on which they are used; terms can be applied to themselves at different levels of abstraction, taking on different 'meanings'; terms as variables until level of abstraction is specified.

When 'Art' Becomes 'Science' and 'Science' 'Art': Charles Biederman and Alfred Korzybski

In October 1948, Charles Biederman’s long-awaited, lavishly illustrated, 710 page Art As The Evolution of Visual Knowledge appeared. Some people might feel puzzled to find Alfred Korzybski’s ‘general semantics’ linked with ‘art’. But when Biederman gave a copy of his book to Korzybski signed, “To my teacher Alfred Korzybski I dedicate this volume [signed] Charles Biederman”, he didn’t exaggerate; his attendance at Korzybski’s 1938 seminar had made a profound influence on his art and his theory of art. Following Korzybski, he had taken as his motto “Nature is not words.” According to Biederman’s biographer and friend Niel Larsen,

Korzybski’s thinking was far more sophisticated than this simple example suggests, and he proved enormously influential to Biederman, more so than any other single individual save Paul Cezanne...Korzybski’s seminar not only opened Biederman’s eyes to semantics and the scientific method, but it focused his thinking regarding the evolution of western art and started him on the path to writing his own ambitious book,...a project that he anticipated would take him a year or two to complete. It took ten. [Neil Larsen, Dec. 2000. “Charles Biederman: A Brief History.” http://www.charlesbiederman.net/biography.html]

John W. Barnes and Joan Waddell Barnes, husband and wife students of Korzybski, wrote an extensive 18-page review of Biederman’s book, which the Institute printed and distributed as its April 1949 membership mailing. In their analysis, Biederman had presented the function of ‘art’ as a series of statements about and means of orientation toward ‘reality’ and had pointed to the ultimate possibility of a merger of ‘art’ and ‘science’ with other aspects of human culture:

Biederman’s work suggest...the first basic extension which Korzybski’s theories have yet received...‘art’ and ‘science’ must eventually function (and can to a degree, now function) as related methods for our orientation to reality, hence for sanity. (The issues are of course extremely complex. Thus, in one way, when ‘art’ becomes a ‘science’ it will function as another related system within the non-aristotelian-system-as-a-whole. Perhaps this is the significant consideration.)