Showing posts with label consciousness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consciousness. Show all posts

Monday, July 22, 2013

My MEA Keynote (If Not A Then E)

So, as I mentioned in my previous post, At MEA 2013, I gave a keynote address at the 14th Annual Convention of the Media Ecology Association, hosted by Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids, Michigan, June 20-23, 2013. My talk was on Thursday evening, June 20, and as it turns out, my friends at Grand Valley, the MEA convention coordinators Corey Anton and Valerie Peterson, had all of the featured presentations videotaped, so I was able to upload a copy to my YouTube channel (all of them can also be found on the MEA's channel).

My talk begins with some extended opening remarks, including my dedication of the address to my old undergraduate professor, Jack Barwind, who passed away just recently. Jack introduced me to much of what I later came to know under the heading of media ecology, including general semantics and systems theory.

Once I get into the address itself, the focus shifts to the PowerPoint presentation, thankfully I would think, because how long can you just look at my talking head?  But once it's over, it's back to me for the Q&A.






Anyway, this is a live presentation, complete with interruption from a Skype alert from Valerie Peterson's mom, as I was using her computer for the presentation.  So it's a bit on the rough side. 

At some point in the not too distant future, and hopefully with a little help from my friends, I would like to create a polished, direct to video version of "If Not A Then E" to put out there. But for now, I suppose that this will do.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Cyborg Devolution

So, the term cyborg was coined in the 1950s, as a short form of cybernetic organism, with the very serious-minded goal of creating a better type of prostethetic device for those who need one, one more like the biological body part it is meant to take the place of, one that actually involves a feedback mechanism, and can be adjusted and controlled.  Of course, this also introduced the idea of enhancements to an already healthy and whole body.

Marshall McLuhan didn't use the term cyborg in his 1964 classic, Understanding Media, but the same basic idea was there when he wrote about how all media and technologies are extensions of the body, and as extensions are also amputations, numbing the part that they replace, and functioning as prostetic devices.  This comes over two decades before Donna Haraway made the idea a commonplace in cultural theory with her "Cyborg Manifesto," and precedes the famous Six Million Dollar Man series of 1973-1978, which used the synonymous term bionic, but which was based on a 1972 novel by Martin Caidin called Cyborg; The Bionic Woman, a spinoff of the Six Million Dollar Man, ran from 1976 to 1978, and was the subject of a shortlived remake in 2007.  But perhaps more than anything, it was Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator in 1984 that popularized the term, although it's questionable whether a robot with organic components actually fits the definition; certainly, 1987's Robocop is a better representative example of the cyborg in science fiction.

But the point is that the basic goal of cyborg technology is to restore functioning where it is lacking, improve functioning that is already present, or provide functioning that has never been available.  But a new form of cyborg technology does not do any of the above, it's neither a restoration of an ability nor an advancement into greater capability, but actually functions as a kind of devolution (see my previous post, Evolution Now?) back to a more animal-like functioning, one in which nonverbal displays of mental states and feelings are produced.  This comes to us from Japan, where cosplay, short for costume play, is especially popular.  Here's a write-up from MCM BUZZ:

So you’re all set to cosplay as Dejiko from Di Gi Charat, maybe Ritsuka Aoyagi from Loveless, or Felicia fromDarkstalkers, but you’re missing one vital part – the cat ears. Worry not, as Japanese company Neurowear are here to save the day with their 

Neurowear’s Necomimi ears and believe us these are no ordinary cat earsNeurowear have developed cat ears that move depending on your mood. Sensors built into the headband supposedly detect brainwaves given off by the wearer, which therefore causes movement of the ears. Their website even questions limits on the human body, suggesting that maybe it’s possible to control organs on our bodies that don’t exist.</

According to Neurowear, “Necomimi is the new communication tool that augments a human’s body and ability. This cat’s ear shaped machine utilizes brain waves and expresses your condition before you start talking. Just put on Necomimi and if you are concentrated on [something], this cat’s ear shaped machine will rise. When you are relaxed, your new ears lie down. [If concentrated and relaxed] at the same time, your new ears will rise and move actively.


And here's the video:



And that's not all.  As Devo says, "they tell us that we lost our tails evolving up from little snails..."  And do we really miss having a tail?  Appaently so.  Again, let's hear from  MCM BUZZ about it:

Following on from the success of Neurowear’s brainwave controlled cat ears the Necomimi, the company have now unveiled their latest fashionable prototype that utilises brainwaves. Named Shippo, it is a tail that moves depending on your mood.

Showcased at the Tokyo Game Show, a concept video has been released (see below) which demonstrates how it works. If you’re feeling relaxed then the tail will swish slowly. If you happen to be concentrated on something then the tail will start to sway more quickly. But the tail is not the only thing.

Neuro Tagging involves wearing a brain reading sensor that is connected to a smart phone. A neural app will read your mood, with cute cartoony faces visualising how you are feeling. It will then tag your mood and location on a map which can be shared. So if for example you were inside Mr. Simms Olde Sweet Shoppe and the neural app read your mood as ‘excited’ then this would be recorded on a map for other users to see.

 

And once more, let's go to the video:





This does point out the interesting relationship between social media and geolocation, and the basic animal behavior of marking one's territory.  And while this video is all very sweet and charming, it does come down to basic nonverbal displays relating to sexual availability, interest, and mating.  I mean, this goes way beyond those old mood rings that were popular back in the 70s, that never seemed to work right anyway.

Neil Postman would pose the question, to what problem is this new technology a solution?  And I think that is a question we really need to ponder, not just in the sense of an old person (like me) saying to a youngster, what for?  That always had a bit of a dismissive quality to it, that being young and playful and having fun wasn't answer enough.  Sometimes it isn't, but sometimes it is.  But in this instance, I think Neil would pass the question on to Sigmund Freud, and say, Dr. Freud, what deep-seated need or conflict is this an attempt to resolve?  I think this speaks to the id and basic human drives, and the underlying need to allow for the return of the repressed. That's what technology unleashes, and that's something that requires a great deal of careful analysis. And I'm not just wagging the dog on this one.


Friday, September 28, 2012

Individualism vs. Personalization in the New Media Environment

So, this is a follow-up to a post from last month, Evolution Now?, which was about our understanding of evolution as a concept and a process, and especially as it relates to the media ecology perspective of Walter Ong.  The post was based on some discussion that went on over on Peter Montgomery's McLuhan-oriented email discussion list, and the discussion continued into a discussion of mind, self, and consciousness.

So, here are some comments on these topics:

Ong and McLuhan make passing reference to a growing awareness of the unconsciousness, which perhaps relates to Jung's notion of evolution of consciousness through the integration of the conscious and the unconscious. In this sense, the electronic media may fulfill the same function as psychoanalysis did in an earlier era, and may allow us to raise our consciousness to a higher level, collectively and individually. I do think you can see this happening, not uniformly, but certainly in large numbers.

It seems clear to me that individualism is in decline, but there is something going on that can easily be mistaken for individualism, which I think needs to be differentiated by using a term like personalization, to represent something quite different.  But to take a cue from Ong here, individualism had its contributions to make, it also had its price, and we now can take potentially move forward past that stage, onto something new.  The dichotomy, dialectic, opposition, or tension between individual and community is central to the American experience, with individualism, freedom, and capitalism on one side, and slightly favored, and community, equality, and democracy on the other.

So, maybe our new electronic networks have mediated the contradiction between the two, and taken us to a new dialectic of links and nodes?


Individualism is what we associate with literacy and typography, so I've adopted personalization to distinguish what is happening through the evolution of the electronic media environment, which many mistakenly, in my opinion, see as an extension of individualism.  Electronic media allow for a shift away from mass production and mass communication to technologically mediated personalized production, for example through Google search pages as opposed to reference book pages, or create your own textbooks where the teacher picks and chooses units, or using computers to order and produce shoes constructed to the exact fit of the individual's feet (which will become commonplace in the near future).

Some differences include the fact that the individual is split between public identity and private self, whereas the persona (to use a term borrowed from Jung) has the two sectors blurred and tends to not engage in compartmentalization. In some ways, this is a matter of confusion, but it also has the potential for integration.

Individuals tend to be anonymous. Personas pursue recognition, even if its on a small scale, by putting themselves out there, for example by posting on Facebook and Twitter.

Jacques Ellul makes the important point that the individual is separated from the traditional community, and being atomized in this way, become part of the crowd, the mob, the mass.  Individualism leads directly to mass society.  The persona is associated with retribalization, not necessarily with traditional communities and localities, but through networks of affiliations and homologies. Indeed, Neil Postman points out that actual communities involve people of disparate types who have to negotiate with each other to live together, while virtual communities are based on having the same set of interests and attitudes.

Individuals have integrity, which is the expectation of consistency, despite compartmentalization.  That's the basis of the character that is the subject of some longing among social conservatives.  Personas have been characterized by the decentering of the subject, the saturated self, by multiple roles, identities, selves, associated with a multiplicity of networks, with no expectation or concern for consistency.

Individuals are inner directed to use David Riesman's terms, while personas are outer-directed, and other-directed.  Individuals are constrained and have depth, personas are freely spread out across surfaces.  Individuals suppress and repress building the unconscious, personas let it all hang out, freely drawing on and perhaps draining the unconscious.


Some further elaboration:  Content is a function of medium, hence the medium is the message.  Industrial technology gave us mass production, one size fits all, replacing the handicrafts of organic, traditional life in the village and tribe, where everything produced, while formulaic, is tailor-made, and no two items are identical.  Individuals become isolated atoms in mass society, as I noted, and in their individuality, paradoxically, are under pressure to conform on a mass scale, rather than on the local level of the village and tribe, and mass production creates the ground for such conformity.  Electric technology opens up the possibility of feedback and technology that can be individualized but I shy away from using that term because it causes confusion, and upon reflection, personalization is a better map for that territory.  It's not the handicraft of days gone by, but it's a shift away from mass society and mass conformity into a have it your way approach and networked identities.
 

The term role comes to us from George Herbert Mead and symbolic interaction, and the idea from the beginning was that we play many roles, and this in fact constitutes many selves, that there is no true core self, but that we are the sum of the roles that we play, and they are not necessarily consistent, and rarely if ever are so in practice.  Erving Goffman's extension of this stresses the needed to keep front and back region, that is, public and private separate, in order to engage in effective performance of roles, what he called the art of impression management.  Joshua Meyrowitz's integration of Goffman and McLuhan indicates how, with electricity, the blurring of public and private change the dynamics radically, so that roles are no longer compartmentalized the way they were previously.  The blurring of boundaries is a major change of great significance from the previous era.  It's also true that, as Gregory Bateson commented, a role is half of a relationship, and Kenneth Gergen in The Saturated Self talks about how proliferating communication technologies have vastly increased the number of relationships we are involved in, and therefore the number of roles we play, and each role being a self, leads to saturation and a loss of that sense of integrity and centering of the self.
 

Individualism goes hand in hand with privacy, and mass society confers anonymity on all but a few.  The public face is a disguise to keep others from seeing what is felt to be the "true self" of the private individual (no such thing as true self in actuality according to symbolic interaction, it's just another role). The relatively few individuals who become public figures are known largely for their public roles, unlike today when private life is largely transparent for celebrities.  What's new is the change in relationships and dynamics and emphases and scale, and these are very significant indeed.  For example, while tribalism is not new, it was never possible to move from one tribe to another easily, or to be a member of numerous tribes at the same time, let alone the fact that the tribes are for the most part divorced from the constraints and demands of physical reality.
 

The idea that individualism leads to mass society involves much more than being a member of a mass media audience, but also being a part of a crowd in public gatherings, in mass transportation, in mass consumption of products, etc. 

Again, character is the idea that there can be consistency among roles, with the false assumption that there is some core lying underneath it all.  It's an idea that arose with literacy and the discovery of the inner world, and is an illusion that is being dispelled by electronic media, hence the nostalgic calls for "character education" (if you need to be educated to have character, in what sense is it natural?).
 

All of these points are generalizations about the culture, and of course there will be variation and exceptions, it's all a matter of whether you want to look at the big picture and general trends, or the details.  I'm talking here about not missing the forest for the trees. And that leads to some concern about preventing forest fires, or failing that, dealing with them once they've begun.



Sunday, August 26, 2012

Evolution Now?


So, not too long ago I got into an exchange over on Peter Montgomery's McLuhan discussion list about Walter Ong, technology, and evolution, and I thought I'd use that as the basis for a post.


Walter Ong is best known, in media ecology circles, for his scholarship on orality and literacy, on memory and mnemonics vs. the written record, on the differences between the oral-aural world and the visualism that has its origins in the alphabetic culture of ancient Greece and comes to dominate western culture in the typographic era, and on how the electronic media have granted us a new form of orality, one built on top of literacy and mediated by electronic technologies, different and distinct from the original form of primary orality, and hence designated as secondary orality.

Whew, that was a mouthful, wasn't it? Or at least it would have been, had I said it out loud. Which I didn't of course.  As Ong would put it, do you see what I say?

Ong was a Jesuit priest, as well as a professor of English literature, but he was also something of a biologist, and an early proponent and pioneer of incorporating the idea of evolution into a theological framework.  Another Jesuit, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, is better known for his philosophical work on evolution, and while Ong's ideas were arrived at somewhat independently, he lived together with Teilhard in France during the 1950s, when Ong was doing his doctoral research on Peter Ramus, and according to Thomas J. Farrell, Ong was favorably disposed toward Teilhard's notion of the noosphere, which is a move towards a collective consciousness of humanity, bringing us in closer communion with the divine, and in unity with all of creation.  In his view, evolution is moving inexorably towards an omega point.

Ong was much more down to earth, as he maintained that human consciousness evolves, and that it does so in response to technological innovation.  The shifts from orality to literacy to typography to electricity opened the door to new stages in the evolution of consciousness.  

My understanding is that Ong was working dialectically, noting that the same technologies that distance us from one another create new forms of human presence, and that using technology is natural for human beings. He used the metaphor of having die to our old selves to be born into a new self as an analogy to the fact that we lose something of value as we make technological progress. Ong acknowledged the agonistic nature of evolution, the struggle for survival, competition based on the fittest individuals within a species.  Ong had no romantic illusions about nature, but he did hold the ecological view that there is a natural tendency to seek balance and homeostasis.

Like other media ecologists, Ong recognized that technology has its costs as well as its benefits, negative as well as positive effects, or as McLuhan put it, disservices as well as services But his faith in God led him to believe that on sum, it was all for the best. In Ong's view, evolution is part of God's plan, technological progress is part of God's plan, the result being the evolution of human consciousness.

Ong's scholarship also extended to psychology and psychiatry, and both he and McLuhan made passing reference to a growing awareness of the unconscious in the electronic age, which perhaps relates to Carl Jung's notion of the evolution of consciousness through the integration of the conscious and the unconscious mind into a holistic self.

I think it's important to note that the religious, spiritual, and popular discourse on evolution has given it a teleological spin that Darwin never intended.  Gregory Bateson put it well, that the environment provides negative feedback that limits which individuals survive to reproduce, and how many offspring they produce.  It's also a bit of a tautology, in that the basic point is whatever survives survives, and whatever doesn't doesn't.  But mainly it's about the ability to survive and thrive within a given environment.  And environmental change, in requiring adaptation to an altered environment, speeds up the evolutionary process, hence Stephen Jay Gould's tweaking of Darwin in favor of punctuated equilibrium.  And then there's Richard Dawkins, who argues that it is neither the species nor the individual that is the natural unit of evolution, but the gene.  But we'll leave that genie in the bottle for now.

Adaptability does not necessarily imply evolution to some kind of higher state. Kurt Vonnegut expressed this quite well in his novel, Galapagos, where evolution amounts to devolution, with humans evolving downward, in a sense, towards a less intelligent, more peaceful state, something akin to a walrus.  This was also wonderfully conveyed in the brilliant opening to the movie Idiocracy:



From this point, the natural result over centuries is a dumbing down of the human race to the point of absurdity, making for great comedy.  This process, sometimes referred to as de-evolution, or devolution, was the theme of the new wave rock group popular during the 80s called Devo. Remember them? Their signature refrain was, Are we not men? We are Devo! 




The song "Jocko Homo" is by Mark Mothersbaugh, better known to younger generations for the theme music of the clever children's cartoon program and film series, Rugrats. The lyrics are a bit insensitive by contemporary standards, but here they are anyway:


They tell us that  
We lost our tails  
Evolving up 
From little snails  
I say it's all  
Just wind in sails  
Are we not men?  
We are DEVO!  
We're pinheads now  
We are not whole  
We're pinheads all  
Jocko homo  
Are we not men?  
D-E-V-O  
Monkey men all  
In business suit  
Teachers and critics  
All dance the poot  
Are we not men?  
We are DEVO!  
Are we not men?  
D-E-V-O  
god made man  
but he used the monkey to do it  
apes in the plan  
we're all here to prove it  
i can walk like an ape  
talk like an ape 
do what a monkey do  
god made man  
but a monkey supplied the glue  
We must repeat  
O.k. let's go! 

And this relates to and is derived from the idea of mutants, popularized by horror movies during the 50s, and more recently by Marvel Comics X-Men franchise:





Of course, these ideas are more fantasy than science fiction, as genetic mutation works in much more subtle and gradual ways, so no one is going to suddenly be born with wings, or skin made of metal, let alone the ability to defy the laws of physics.  Anyway, popular culture themes about mutant monsters and heroes reflects postwar fears and concerns about radiation, the bomb, nuclear energy, and technology in general as well as recent attitudes regarding stereotyping, prejudice, and scapegoating.

But getting back to the point that adaptation has no direction, no automatic movement towards a higher state, this fundamental point regarding Darwinian evolution was overlooked in popular discourse about evolution, where the assumption was that evolution moved from lower to higher states, from single-cell to multicellular organism, from invertebrates to vertebrates, from fish to reptiles to mammals, leading up to the ascent of man, as it once was called.

In this sense, the popular view of evolution has been associated with the concept of progress, which made for a good fit with social darwinism in the late 19th and early 20th century.  And in the postwar period, as our faith in progress was shaken to the core, evolution became something of an euphemism for progress, a point I make in On the Binding Biases of Time (see the link over on the side there and order a copy if you please).

More recently, however, complexity theory suggests that there is in fact a tendency under certain conditions to evolve towards greater complexity.  This is not exactly the same as evolving towards an omega point or final state of being that Teilhard imagined, nor is it exactly progress in the early 20th century sense.  But complexity theory does suggest that the universe evolves, that there is a natural tendency towards negative entropy and increased complexity that includes the evolution of amino acids into self-replicating genetic material, that is, the evolution of life from non-life, and possibly as well the evolution towards higher states of consciousness that humanity seems to be a product of.  In other words, this would make life and consciousness a natural function of the universe.

It seems that it's hard to escape the sense that evolution has a direction, its own arrow of time, pointing towards something higher, or as we sometimes put it, towards something more evolved. What that means is hard to say, but we can at least hope that the potential exists for evolution towards a higher state of consciousness, and that our technological evolution can provide the impetus for such an evolution of consciousness.  If nothing else, it's quite clear that the current state of the world requires us to evolve our consciousness now, if we are to continue to survive as a species, and preserve our ecosystem (or what's left of it).

In this, I certainly find comfort in Ong's optimistic outlook, that on the whole, there is a spiritual dimension to the world that helps to move things in the right direction, and will help us to evolve as we need to, if only we can be open to it.  So maybe this needs to be our battle cry:

Evolution Now!

What do you think?


Saturday, February 11, 2012

Reading, Writing, and Rearranging

So, as noted in my previous post, Orality and Online Writing, this is the 2nd of a 4 part series, where I'm posting here the lecture notes that I distributed in written form to the online class that I'm teaching this semester at Fordham University, on Writing for Online Media.  As I noted last time, my goal here is to provide an overview of the history of writing, in order to put online writing into a larger historical, and media ecological context.

In this second installment, I go over the origin and evolution of writing systems, and their impact.  Okay now, settle down, take your seats, and let's get started.

Comments on the History of Writing 
Part II: Writing Systems 

Back about 30,000-20,000 years ago, there was what some call a creative explosion, the appearance of primitive art, including the famous cave paintings you no doubt have heard about. Up to this time, there is little or no evidence of visual representation. This perhaps represents an important turning point in our capacity for symbolic communication, maybe also the development of language, or an expansion of oral tradition through the appearance of mnemonic devices such as meter and formulas. But it is important to stress that pictures are not writing. Pictures do not make statements, or arguments, and their meaning is rarely clear until words are used to explain them, and putting different captions to the same picture can change their meaning radically. Pictures can illustrate statements, can be used for evidence, they can describe in ways that words cannot, but they are concrete, they are what they are. 

Applied to blogs today, a rule for our class is, never let pictures stand on their own. Always provide words of explanation, introduce them, and provide some additional comments following them. 

Also back in prehistory, human beings developed identifying marks, like branding of cattle, iconic symbols that function as names, again on a very concrete level. And we developed means of counting by making notches or knots or marks. Systems of marks and notations eventually evolved into true writing about 5500 years ago, the first writing system being cuneiform, invented by the Sumerians in Mesopotamia. What I mean by true writing, based on the scholarship of Walter Ong, Eric Havelock, and others, is a system of visual marks or characters that are used to represent spoken language. By the translating an aural from into a visual one in this way, words gained a measure of permanence that they lacked in speech. Words could be preserved, viewed and reviewed, examined and analyzed. It was the most important development in all of human history, one that goes hand in hand with what we call civilization, as opposed to tribal society and culture. 

Cuneiform was invented by accountants, as a means of taking inventories and keeping records. No one thought to write down stories at first, oral tradition worked perfectly fine for that purpose. Writing was used for an entirely new purpose of making lists, an inventory, a census, a genealogy, a chronicle of edicts and events, a set of instructions to follow, etc. These were entirely new forms developed through a new medium of communication. 

The first writing systems used one character to stand for an entire word. This was the obvious way to represent language. The problem is that it requires thousands of different characters, tens of thousands to completely cover a spoken language. Obviously, this would make learning how to read and write a difficult and time-consuming task, one that could only be undertaken by small, elite groups, typically for vocational purposes. That's how it worked in Mesopotamia, and the same was true for Egyptian hieroglyphics (which means priestly writing). Similar systems later appeared in Crete, Greece, India, and China, and also Mesoamerica. Terms like pictographic, ideographic, and more generally logographic are used to refer to this type of writing, and Chinese writing is still largely logographic to this day. The reason for this is that Chinese dialects are actually different languages, as different as say French and Spanish and Portuguese are from one another, and while it is hard, sometimes impossible, to understand a different dialect when spoken, the written word can be understood across linguistic barriers. 

We ourselves use logographic symbols for numbers, and if you think about it, we don't really pronounce a 3 or 6 or 9, and you can put any language's sound to those characters, so a 3 can be a trois, or a tres, or drei, of shalosh, or san, or three. That's why we say that mathematics is an international language. We also use international icons that have been introduced over the past half century, for example those used for road signs, for restrooms, etc. And then there are the emoticons that are used in email and other forms of messaging, although there are some cultural differences between the west and eastern Asia in their use. 

Over time, logographic writing systems added characters and modifications with purely phonetic value, and also employed existing characters for a kind of rebus writing, and in some instances new, simpler forms of syllabic writing evolved, for example in Babylonia, where the shift to a syllabary was associated with the introduction of the first system of codified law, a written list of rules of conduct and punishments, which were connected to the ruler, Hammurabi. With a syllabary, you can go from thousands down to hundreds of characters. In Japan today, they use two syllabaries, totaling to under 100 characters, although they also learn our own Roman alphabet, and to some extent Chinese ideograms as well. 

The breakthrough in writing that pretty much set the west apart from the rest of the world was the alphabet, which brought the number of characters down to 20-something, so few that a child could learn it without too much trouble. The first version appears in the Sinai desert about 3500 years ago, and this Semitic aleph-bet may well be associated with the events represented by the Biblical story of Exodus. I'm not suggesting a literal interpretation of the Bible, just that an uprising against Egypt is associated with a new, more democratic form of communication, and this new possibility for literacy is associated with the first fully monotheistic religion (which requires the kind of abstract thinking associated with literacy in order to conceive of a deity that cannot be seen, is all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent, and above all singular), the first representation of the past as written narrative history (as opposed to oral myths and legends), one of the first systems of codified law (the 10 Commandments being the first of 613 laws and commandments in the Torah or 5 Books of Moses), nascent concepts of equality and individualism, and generally speaking the religious and ethical basis of western culture. 

When the Semitic alphabet was later introduced to the Greeks, and adopted about 2800 years ago, the result was the basis of western secular culture, including the beginnings of philosophy, science, secular history, theater, and democracy. The Greeks added the idea of vowels, which were only implied in the Semitic alphabet, and no further progress in writing systems have occurred since then, apart from the occasional addition of a letter or two (the original systems had 22 letters, we've gone up to 26, some others have a few more based on the use of accent marks). In addition to the Greek alphabet and our own Roman alphabet, there's the Cyrillic alphabet used in Russia, Ukraine, etc., the Hebrew and Arabic alphabets derived from the original Semitic version, an alphabet used in India that they adopted from the Semites, and a Korean alphabet whose characters look like Chinese ideograms. 

The alphabet made it possible for literacy to spread beyond an elite group. Children could learn how to read and write relatively easily, and could read relatively fluently compared to what was required to read logographic writing. Writing eventually made it possible to record the entire culture in this new form, rather than depend upon oral tradition, so knowledge could be preserved, and accumulated, making real progress possible. Ong notes that before writing there was no such thing as study. The first schools were founded in Mesopotamia to teach cuneiform, but it was especially in ancient Greece that the concept of study and schooling really coalesced. 

Along with education, widespread literacy went hand-in-hand with the development of a reading public, a readership who read not only as a vocation (as an accountant or priest might), but for pleasure or for edification. With writing, it became possible to edit narratives, and thereby tell stories that progress from beginning to middle to end in strict, linear fashion, whereas oral narratives were episodic, with the episodes relatively easy to rearrange, and the typical strategy being to begin in the middle of the action, in medias res, to grab the attention of the audience. Writing also made it possible to move away from flat type characters of mythic and legendary stature to more well rounded and realistic individuals. 

Writing was still a means of perfecting oral communication in the ancient world, used for rhetoric, oratory, poetry, teaching, dialogue, but the growing number of written works meant that a true literature was accumulating. Writing also made it possible to separate oneself from one's culture, and one's thoughts, as Havelock put it, to separate the knower from the known. Our thoughts, our knowledge, and our culture could be studied from outside of ourselves. With writing, knowledge could be viewed and reviewed, allowing us to criticize, analyze, and evaluate our traditions, and our ideas, and to think in more abstract terms than had previously been the case. 

Writing also put a new stress on vision that had not existed before, especially in Greco-Roman culture, a point that McLuhan emphasized back in the 60s, but it is only in recent years that neuroscience has shown that literacy actually rewires the brain, including its visual centers. Along with the visual came an emphasis on linearity, as letters are lined up to make a word, words lined up to make a sentence, sentences lined up to make a paragraph, etc. We remade our world in this image, so that everywhere you look, you see straight lines and right angles, like writing on a page, and these are forms that you do not find in nature. 



Saturday, May 7, 2011

Spirituality at the Speed of Light

So, a few months ago Allen Flagg, who is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Institute of General Semantics and the President of the New York Society for General Semantics, asked if I would be willing to come give a talk at the annual meeting of FIONS, the Friends of the Institute of Noetic Sciences--Allen is the Vice-President of FIONS, I should add. 

I agreed to do it, if we could agree on a date.  It had to be a Thursday evening in March, and as you may recall, I was in Italy for a McLuhan conference that month (see my previous post, The Fall of Nations).  But we were able to agree on March 31st, which was just a few days after I returned from Bologna.  It was quite the whirlwind, and I wrote most of the talk while I was in Italy.

Doing this lecture was a bit of departure from my usual academic activities.  FIONS is not an academic or scholarly group.  Here, take a look at their website if you want:  http://www.fions.org.  On their home page, they state the following:


Noetic is a great word, by the way, Walter Ong often used it in his discussions of the relationship between language, media, and consciousness.  Anyway, here is what they say on their About Us page:

Who We Are
Friends of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, (FIONS), is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization dedicated to exploring the meaning of consciousness in its many forms. Its founders were inspired by the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), the organization founded in 1973 by Apollo 14 astronaut, Edgar Mitchell, ScD, following his return to Earth from his historic 1971 walk on the moon. On the trip back Dr. Mitchell had an "epiphany", an experience of universal connectedness so profound that it altered his life from that point on. From the unique vantage point of the space capsule, the image of the earth floating gently in space radically altered his preconceived and pragmatic view of reality: What if reality was more complex than physical science had led us to believe? Might the study of "inner space" – mind, spirit, and consciousness yield a more thorough understanding of the human experience and might this study expand our concepts abut the possibility for humanity?

IONS was founded to explore and apply scientific rigor to the inner landscape of spirit and to help us broaden and deepen our understanding of the human condition and the world we live in.

In 1989, three New York-based IONS board members created Friends of the Institute of Noetic Sciences to provide a local forum for like-minded seekers to meet regularly to discuss the ideas being generated by IONS' research, and ponder its meaning in their everyday lives. From those humble beginnings, FIONS has grown to become a vibrant organization with hundreds of members from all walks of life and interests.

What We Do
We support the research of the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) and collaborate with other organizations engaged in similar transformative work. We serve those who are interested in studying and exploring consciousness, who fervently desire to bridge the gap between science and spirit, providing them with a forum for stimulating and open discussion. We honor and value open-minded approaches, rigorous inquiry, and diversity of perspectives.

How We Do It
FIONS is deeply committed to fostering community. We bring together groups of people, members and non-members alike, into community environments in a variety of ways: We offer lectures, workshops, courses, conferences, healing circles, focused discussion groups, film screenings, and book discussions.


 So, this is more of a New Age kind of group, interested in explorations and expansions of consciousness, and not surprisingly, it is a satellite organization of IONS, the Institute of Noetic Sciences--see http://www.noetic.org, which was founded in California.  I say this as a New Yorker, of course.

 I see the New Age movement as a natural outgrowth of the electronic media environment and, how shall I put it, I am not unsympathetic, aspects of it are quite appealing, others aspects not so much, but then again, it is fundamentally eclectic in nature.  But of course, I am fundamentally a media ecologist.

  Allen Flagg asked me to talk about spirituality, and I was happy to do so.  I have written essays about religion, and of course also been involved in organized religion, Reform Judaism specifically, presently as Vice-President of Congregation Adas Emuno in Leonia, New Jersey, where I've also taken a few turns as lay leader (and did you catch My Yom Kippur Sermon?).  There is a certain appeal for me in crossing over--no, not in the ghostly sense, in the sense of moving across different spheres of my life.  Admittedly, New Age spirituality tends to eschew organized religion, or at least those of the west, the Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic traditions, but interest in spirituality exists, and I believe is growing, in the old standbys as well as the eastern imports, pagan revivals, and new syntheses.  For me personally, this includes a certain grounding in the Kabbalah, which I first explored as a teenager, long before Madonna and Rosie O'Donnell made it trendy.

 I should add that media ecology is not at all disconnected from spirituality.  McLuhan especially had a strong sense of it, as did Ong, and Jacques Ellul.  So when Allen asked me to talk about how the electronic media have affected spiritual communication, I knew I'd have quite a bit to say on the subject, and in a broader sense that just looking at how we talk about sprituality.  And Alfred Korzybski and general semantics also come into play here, especially because of the fundamental concern with consciousness, but also because of the desire to create a way of thinking about the world that is consistent with the understanding of the world that is derived from science. 

 So, this talk goes over a great deal of familiar ground, but placed in a new context in considering spirituality in the age of electronic media, which of course means spirituality at the speed of light.

So, here it is:





And here's the write-up I included on the video's page over at YouTube:

An address given at the Annual Meeting of the Friends of the Institute of Noetic Sciences on March 31st, 2011, at St. Catherine of Siena Church, New York, New York. Allen Flagg gives the 5-minute introduction, and the talk is followed by a Q&A session. Videography by Mariusz Han, SJ. with just a few glitches.


In recent times, we have been experiencing a renaissance of spirituality that is closely associated with the electronic media environment that we occupy. Human consciousness and our understanding of the cosmos evolve, not only through the accumulation of knowledge, but through breakthroughs in our ways in our ways of knowing and relating to our world , to others, and to ourselves. We can experience the spiritual as part of a holistic, ecological view of the world, one that emphasizes the fluid over the solid, energy over matter, change over permanence, relativity over absolutism, patterns over things, verbs over nouns, sound over sight, and time over space.

That second paragraph was the blurb used to advertise the talk, and the lecture itself diverges from that a little bit, as I go over 7 key points about spirituality in our new age, but I'll leave that for you to see when you listen to it, or hear when you watch it, or whatever.  

The question and answer session at the end had some interesting moments as it got deeper into some of that New Age stuff, but I enjoyed it.  And after the talk, I did a book signing, which was great, and I thank Allen Flagg for setting that up, as well as including a nice plug for my new book at the end of his 5 minute introduction that opens this video, and since you were so kind as to bring it up, here we go once more:





And that's all for now from this ghostly realm of cyberspace, time for my digital double to return back to the ether from whence I came, until next time my friends, until next time...




Wednesday, November 10, 2010

The Lure of Bateson

So, another great event at the Institute of General Semantics-sponsored New Languages, New Relations, New Realities Symposium at Fordham University was the preview screening of Nora Bateson's documentary about her father, Gregory Bateson.  We had an earlier preview of the film at this past June's Media Ecology Association meeting in Maine, and I was very grateful that Nora agreed to come to New York City last month for the general semantics event.

Gregory Bateson gave the 1970 Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture, and his daughter, and Nora's sister, Mary Catherine Bateson, was last year's AKMLer.  Mary Catherine is the daughter of Margaret Mead, Gregory's first wife, and Nora is the daughter of his third wife, Lois, who we were also honored to have present for Nora's screening and Deborah Tannen's Korzybski Lecture.  

So, you can check out Nora's official website for her film, An Ecology of Mind, subtitled A Daughter's Portrait of Gregory Bateson, at http://www.anecologyofmind.com.  It includes an homage to Bateson written by systems theorist Fritjof Capra, and here's one excerpt from that essay:

He made significant contributions to several sciences — anthropology, cybernetics, psychiatry, and, most important of all, to the new interdisciplinary field of cognitive science, which he pioneered. But perhaps even more important is the fact that he championed a new way of thinking, which is extremely relevant to our time — thinking in terms of relationships, connections, patterns, and context. As we replace the Newtonian metaphor of the world as a machine by the metaphor of the network, and as complexity becomes a principal focus in science, the kind of systemic thinking that Bateson advocated is becoming crucial.

Nora's site also includes a trailer for the film, and there's a version on YouTube with Italian subtitle's that I can embed here for you (but by all means, check out http://www.anecologyofmind.com too, because there's a lot more to look at there):


And here's another excerpt found on YouTube:


Gregory Bateson's work cuts across many disciplines, and certainly adds an important dimension to general semantics, as general semantics emphasizes the relationship of the individual to the environment, whereas Bateson adds an emphasis on the relationship of one individual to another.  Along with his pioneering work in cybernetics and systems theory, he also set the stage for the study of relational communication, including family communication, through his contributions to psychiatry (e.g., the notions of codependency and enabling are derived from his work).  And his work is important for media ecology, in establishing a systems and ecological view on human thought and behavior.  

 

Neil Postman spoke highly of his book, Steps to An Ecology of Mind, back in the old days of the media ecology program.  And I would also recommend the follow-up volume, Mind and Nature.  Also significant in the fields of communication and psychotherapy is the volume he co-authored with Jurgen Ruesch (Bateson listed as second author), Communication:  The Social Matrix of Psychiatry.  His first two books were devoted to his anthropological research, Naven: A Survey of the Problems suggested by a Composite Picture of the Culture of a New Guinea Tribe drawn from Three Points of View, and Balinese Character: A Photographic Analysis, the latter co-authored by Margaret Mead.  Two more books have been published posthumously, Angels Fear: Towards An Epistemology Of The Sacred, co-authored by Mary Catherine Bateson, and A Sacred Unity: Further Steps to an Ecology of Mind, co-authored by Rodney E. Donaldson.

For a quick summary, there's always the wikipedia entry on Gregory Bateson, and the page devoted to him on the Institute for Intercultural Studies that he helped to found along with Margaret Mead.

Gregory Bateson's emblematic quote, taken from Mind and Nature, which appears on the IIS page and is highlighted in Nora's film, is

"What pattern connects the crab to the lobster and the orchid to the primrose and all the four of them to me? And me to you?"

Patterns that connect, that's what Gregory Bateson is all about, indeed, that's what everything is all about!





Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Notes on Teaching General Semantics


In a recent post, Promoting Health, Media Ecology Style, I posted the outline notes for a presentation I made at the recent MEA meeting, and I have to confess that I am not usually in the habit of making presentations based on formal outlines, although this is the typical method taught in public speaking courses across the USA.  

As a media ecology doctoral student, Neil Postman impressed upon me that the best way to prepare a formal presentation is to write everything out, writing for the ear, but having it all in front of you.  That doesn't mean reading from the paper and never looking up, however, as he also stressed the need to practice and prepare, so that all you need to do is glance down at the paper, and then back at the audience as you deliver your address.  This is, in fact, the method that politicians and officials often use, or used before the advent of transparent screens on which speeches could be projected, so the speaker need never look down.

So, for me, when I have a formal presentation, I usually follow the Postman method.  In other instances, say on a roundtable discussion, I will just jot down some informal notes, or maybe just speak off the top of my head.  But I did use formal outlines for many years when I started out teaching classes at Fordham University and elsewhere, and I had occasion to return to some of my old notes before the MEA convention, which put the idea in my head and prompted me to create a formal outline for my presentation on health and media ecology.

The reason for my return to my old lecture notes is also connected to the MEA convention, as I was asked to prepare a handout on teaching general semantics for the event. which I did.   I don't claim that they're anything special, many others teach the same topics in the same way as I do, but the handout could possibly be helpful to someone in some way, so for that reason I was happy to share it with folks at MEA, I understand it's also going to be distributed via the Institute of General Semantics website, and I am also pleased to be able to share it with you here on my blog (and hey, if nothing else, it gives me another blog post if you know what I mean).  So, here it is:


Lance Strate’s Lecture Notes on Teaching General Semantics
Prepared for Distribution at the 11th Annual Convention of the Media Ecology Association
University of Maine, Orono, ME, June 10-13, 2010


Martin Levinson, President of the Institute of General Semantics, asked that I share my lecture notes for teaching general semantics, and I am happy to do so.  For many years, I taught a basic course introducing students to the field of communication.  These courses are known by many names, Introduction to Communication (Theory/Studies), Process of Communication, Perspectives on Communication, Concepts of Communication, etc.  My approach has been to present general semantics on its own terms, as a separate topic and unit.  I should note that my approach to teaching general semantics in this context has also been to build upon material covered in other units, and otherwise point out interconnections with topics such as perception, rhetoric, linguistics (including Sapir-Whorf and Vygotsky), semiotics and symbolic communication, metaphor, symbolic interaction, information theory and cybernetics, systems theory, and of course, media ecology, but that has varied over the years, and across different contexts, and is an option, not a requirement.  In addition to the readings listed below, these notes are drawn, in part, on graduate courses I took with Neil Postman and Christine Nystrom in the late, lamented Media Ecology Program at New York University, and also on undergraduate courses I took with Jack Barwind as an undergraduate Communication Arts major at Cornell University.  Some modifications have been made to the notes over the years, and in the course of preparing them for distribution in this form.

For those looking to familiarize themselves with general semantics, or deepen their understanding, here are some recommendations.  Wendell Johnson’s classic work, People in Quandaries, was the required text in general semantics in Neil Postman’s doctoral program in media ecology, providing a comprehensive, well organized, and clearly written discussion (albeit with some dated material on stuttering and other therapeutical issues at the end).  Postman also used Harry Weinberg’s Levels of Knowing and Existence, which he used when he covered general semantics in a graduate class on Language and Human Behavior.  Both of these works can be purchased through the IGS, as can many other fine works in this area, more than I can mention here, including Korzybski’s original works such as Science and Sanity, and Kenneth Johnson’s Outline Survey of general semantics, which I would highly recommend as a concise summary of the field.  Also of particular interest in an educational context would be two anthologies edited by Mary Morain, Teaching General Semantics: A Collection of Lesson Plans for College and Adult Classes, and Classroom Exercises in General Semantics.  In preparing these lecture notes, in addition to People in QuandariesLevels of Knowing and Existence, I have drawn upon two works that are sadly out of print, John C. Condon’s short book, Semantics and Communication, and Postman’s own work, Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk, which is based in part on People in Quandaries, advances many of the ideas, and provides an important bridge to media ecology. and



General Semantics


I.    Founded by Alfred Korzybski
A.    Korzybski was a Polish engineer who immigrated to the US, and was motivated by experiences in WWI
B.    War—communication problem
C.    When engineers get together to build a bridge, they have no problems understanding each other or getting the job done. Why shouldn’t peace be as easy to build as a bridge?
D.    Language of science was the key, and general semantics founded on idea of scientific language.  As one prominent general semanticist, Wendell Johnson, a professor of speech pathology, put it, “The language of science is the better part of the method of science.”
E.    A product of early 20th century faith in science and progress, and continued appeal to American pragmatism
F.    Highly influential in mid-20th century, proponents include S. I. Hayakawa (US Senator), Wendell Johnson (and his son Nicholas, former FCC Commissioner), Stuart Chase (economist highly influential in FDR’s New Deal), William S. Burroughs (novelist), A. E. van Vogt (sf writer, Alien), Robert Heinlein (sf writer, Stranger in a Strange Land), Frank Herbert (sf writer, Dune), Robert Anton Wilson (sf and nonfiction writer), L. Ron Hubbard (dianetics and scientology), Albert Ellis (rational emotive behavior therapy), Richard Bandler (neuro-linguistic programming), and many more
G.    More close to home, had influence on Kenneth Burke (rhetoric), Gregory Bateson (anthropology), Buckminster Fuller (design), French poststructuralists such as Derrida and Foucault, German sociologists such as Niklas Luhman, communication theorists such as Irving Lee, Elwood Murray, Tom Pace
H.    Favorable mentions from Mumford, McLuhan.  Foundational to the media ecology of Neil Postman, who edited ETC:  A Review of General Semantics, for a decade.  Pervades much of his early, collaborative work, and his important book, Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk.  An ecological approach, Korzybski described it as an “organism-as-a-whole-in-an-environment” perspective, and also makes reference to neuro-linguistic environments, neuro-semantic, and simply, semantic environments (the latter used by Wendell Johnson and Neil Postman). General semantics and the non-Aristotelian approach represents a response to the postliterate, electronic culture that has been emerging over the past century, Aristotelian thinking being a product of writing, literacy, and the alphabet.

II.    From a scientific point of view, energy is fundamental
A.    Laws of thermodynamics, Einstein’s E=MC2
B.    Energy is fundamental substance of the universe
C.    Matter is a form of energy
D.    Energy is dynamic, not static; event, not thing
E.    All forms of life based on energy
F.    Categorized into 3 classes of life based on use of energy
1.    Chemistry-Binding—plants, completely dependent on chemical processes, photosynthesis for life
2.    Space-Binding—animals, ability to move around on their own
3.    Time-Binding—humans, transmit knowledge over time, make progress. “If I can see farther, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.” (Newton).  Knowledge is power, energy, most of which we inherit from previous generations
a.    progress through time-binding most apparent in science and technology—geometric advances
b.    progress in ethics, politics, economics, social and human relations, much slower—arithmetic advances
c.    given the superiority of science and technology in making progress, other sectors of society need to become more scientific in their thinking and communication
d.    scientific method, empiricism, reality-testing, use of precise language is essential

III.    Following Einstein’s non-Newtonian physics, and non-Euclidean geometry, Korzybski proposes a non-Aristotelian mode of thought and communication
A.    Not anti-Aristotle, but post-Aristotle
B.    Aristotelian Laws of Thought (rules of logic)
1.    Aristotle codified basic rules of logic, which we take for granted, seems natural to us
2.    Law of identity. A=A. A thing is what it is. A man is a man, truth is truth. A is always A; A is all A
3.    Law of excluded middle. A=B or AB, either/or. Either a man or not a man, either the truth or not the truth
4.    Law of non-contradiction. Not A=B AND AB. Not both a man and not a man, not both the truth and not the truth
5.    Laws implies permanence, static relationship, polarization, things are discrete, not process. Allows us to categorize things (no double counting to confuse inventories).
C.    Korzybki’s Non-Aristotelian Principles of Thought
1.    Principle of Non-Identity—A is not A. No identity relationships in nature. A map is not the territory it represents. The word is not the thing it represents. Whatever you say a thing is, it is not.
a.    Korzybski sat on a chair and it broke, hence a chair is not a chair.  Money is money--$100 check vs. $100 cash. Different attitudes towards money in rich, see it as symbol, not thing. Spinal tap amp “11.” Taboo words, curse words, bigot words, Lenny Bruce, body and sex words, death, disease—cancer; euphemisms
b.    Korzybski/IGS seminars.  Give out biscuits, people eat them, no problem, then show box of dog biscuits, some people feel sick, reacting to symbol or reality?  Same with chocolate/chocolate covered ants.  Cultural/symbolic prohibitions about food, kosher laws, insects (perfectly fine to eat, survival training), shell fish as insects of the sea.  Scenes from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Survivor reality TV series.
c.    Would you feel uncomfortable about drawing a mustache on a picture of your mother? Taking a pin and poking out the eyes?
2.    Principle of Non-Allness—A is not all A. By labeling, we leave out information. A writer, fine, also a criminal.
a.    A map does not represent all of a territory. Words do not say all there is to say about the things they represent. A person cannot say all there is to say about a thing. The word “is” does no mean “equals.” Johnny is bad.
b.    Danger of absolutism, universalism
3.    Principle of self-reflexiveness. An ideal map would include a map of a map, etc. It is possible to speak words about words, and words about those words, etc. It is possible to react to one’s reactions, react to those reactions, etc. Statements about statements, evaluations of evaluations. Metacommunication, recursion.
a.    Ask—describe what you are doing right now. Like mirror reflecting mirror. Infinite. Mead, consciousness and self-consciousness, imagine self as object, as others see us, and as we see them, etc. Carlyle, man is not unique because he uses tools, animals use tools. Man is unique because he uses tools to make tools. We use machines to answer and watch other machines. (VCR taping and not watching)
b.    Source of paradox.  Barber shaves every man in the village who doesn’t shave himself, who shave the barber?  To every rule there is an exception (as a rule itself).  This statement is false.
c.    Whitehead and Russell, Theory of Logical Types, class cannot be a member of itself
d.    Gödel, Incompleteness Theorem
e.    Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach; self-reflexiveness as basis of consciousness (self-consciousness)

IV.    Abstracting
A.    Key concept in general semantics
B.    Verb indicates process, as opposed to abstraction as a thing
C.    Understood in terms of levels or orders of abstracting
D.    Models:  Korzybski, Structural Differential; Hayakawa, simpler, more accessible ladder model
E.    Concept of abstracting unites perception and language/symbolic communication
F.    Levels of abstraction
1.    Event level, the reality we can never entirely know, where every phenomenon is a unique event in spacetime, no identity relationships in nature
2.    Object level, perception, organize chaotic sensory data, establish continuities, memory, recognition as basic form of identity
3.    Verbal levels, assign unique name, establishing identity over time; higher levels involve categorization
a.    Example:  Neighbor’s dog, Shirley. Shirley exists on the event level, out there in reality. 
b.    On the object level I know Shirley as a series of encounters, separate experiences, that I relate to one another.
c.    In giving these experiences a name, Shirley, I tie the experiences together to form a single identity, Shirley, as an unique individual.
d.    When I say that Shirley is a poodle, the world “poodle” here refers to a class of individuals, a category. All categories only exist in our minds. There may be a physical basis for our creation of the category, but first we must perceive and make the distinction. This is why we call such a category an abstraction, and place poodle on the second verbal level of abstracting. I may then say that a poodle is a kind of dog, and we place dog on the third level. I can go on to say that a dog is a mammal, an animal, a living thing, etc., moving higher and higher up in level of abstracting.
G.    Abstracting is a process of leaving out details, as we proceed from lower to higher levels, more details are left out
H.    Abstracting is a process of categorization, in leaving out more and more details, we put the phenomenon into categories or classes that are increasingly more general.  This is stereotyping, and one of the great successes of general semantics in the 20th century has been its contributions to educational efforts concerning stereotyping, prejudice, and scapegoating.
I.    Abstracting is a personal, subjective process where we project our evaluations onto reality. Instead of saying Shirley is a poodle, I could say that Shirley is a female.  Ask, who feels hot, who feels cold, who feels cold.  Differences in categorizing coffee as hot, pizza. Experiment:  put left hand in bucket, 35 degrees, right in 140 degrees, then both in 70 degrees. Left feels warm or hot, right feels cool or cold.
J.    The same words can have different meanings corresponding to different levels of abstracting.  This is called multiordinality.  For examples, the chair, in reference to one specific chair is on a lower level of abstracting than a chair, referring to the entire class of chairs.

V.    General Semantics Recommends
A.    Cultivate consciousness of abstracting, be aware of the process (consciousness raising).
B.    Employ an extensional orientation (inductive, gather data, check facts) rather than an intensional orientation (deductive, work off of assumptions, figure things out in your head without bothering to check).
C.    Employ a mutli-valued orientation rather than a two-valued orientation (shades of gray rather than black or white, dimmer switch rather than on or off, more than two sides to every issue).
D.    Avoid elementalism.  General semantics is a holistic, ecological approach, cautions against the way that words can separate phenomena that in reality cannot be separated, for example, space and time, mind and body, intellect and emotion.
E.    Don’t use allness words: always, never, nothing, nobody, everybody, everything, entirely, absolutely, of course, etc. (never say never).
F.    Deal in probabilities, not absolutes, use qualifying terms (probably, it seems to me, in my opinion, based on my previous experience, to the best of my recollection).
G.    Be conscious of your semantic reactions, and try to employ symbol reactions (reflective, delayed, mindful), rather than signal reactions (reflexive, immediate, kneejerk).  Traditional wisdom:  Look before you leap, count to ten, don’t count your chickens, stop, look, and listen.  Remember that there is always uncertainty, so don’t prejudge—check it out!
H.    Pavlov’s dogs. Dogs are not so bright, employ signal reactions. We need to delay reactions in order to make each reaction appropriate to the particular thing we are reacting to.
I.    Election, propaganda. React like Pavlov’s dogs to such words as abortion, welfare, taxes, inflation, war, peace.  General semantics has made significant contributions to the study, analysis, and criticism of persuasion and propaganda.
J.    Wendell Johnson, “To a mouse, cheese is cheese. That is why mouse traps are effective. To many humans being Right is Right, Wrong is Wong, Capital is Capital, and Labor is Labor. That is why propaganda is effective.”

VI.    Language and Extensional Devices
A.    Korzybski advocated the use of visual images because they are more concrete and specific than words, and favored mathematics because it is more flexible and less ambiguous than words.
B.    While general semantics typically recommends avoiding high level abstractions, Wendell Johnson cautioned against dead level abstracting, that is, staying on the same level of abstracting, rather than moving up and down the levels.
C.    Problematic nature of the verb “to be” identified by Korzybski.  When Bill Clinton said, “it depends on what the meaning of is is,” it sounded like weasel words, and was not a good thing to say under the circumstances, but actually makes sense from a general semantics perspective.  Look up “is” in the dictionary.  Actually quite complex.  Two particular problems. 
1.    One is the “is” of projection, associated with adjectives. We project all of the adjective’s qualities onto the noun it is describing. If we say that Johnny is bad, we are saying that Johnny equals bad, and thus is all bad, always bad. Influenced child psychology, don’t say you are bad; better to say, you did a bad thing; better still to say, what you did made me angry.
2.    The other problem occurs from the use of the “is” of identification. We confuse the word “is” with the word equals, and identify one noun with another. We may say that one and one is two, but do we mean the same thing when we say Joe is a criminal?  That everything there is to say about Joe is summed up by saying he is a criminal, and that everything associated with the term criminal applies to Joe?
3.    Not a problem to use “to be” as an auxiliary verb (It is raining), or to indicate existence (I am, I am that I am)
4.    Some in general semantics try to eliminate the verb “to be” entirely. E-prime (English-prime), English without the verb “to be” (several anthologies published).  Difficult, but improves writing, nothing more boring than is—It is raining vs. The rain poured down.
D.    Korzybski and others proposed the use of several devices to remind us of the non-Aristotelian laws of thought.
1.    Indexing—What is an index in a book? Use indexing—apartment numbers, street address, zip code, phone numbers, social security numbers, drivers license numbers, cataloging in Library. Algebra: X1, X2
2.    Johnny1 is not Johnny2 (people are different in different situations).  Chair1 is not chair2 (one may be cushioned, the other not, size may vary, one may break and the other not). Time1 is not time2 (things change over time).
3.    Dating—newspapers, magazines, documents, letters. Joe1980 is not Joe2010. Joe may have been a criminal then, but he could change and be a professor of law now. $22010 does not equal $21960.
4.    Et cetera—By ending every statement with etc. we are reminded that we cannot say all there is to say about anything, that there’s always more to be said, always much that we’ve left out.
5.    Hyphens: Space-time, mind-body, emotional-intellectual, to indicate that the separate terms do not exist in isolation of one another in reality
6.    Quotes: “Emotional” maladjustment, “intellectual” achievement.  In speaking, use of quotation marks gesture
7.    Plurals—Effect similar to indexing: instead of asking what is the cause of war, lower the level of abstracting by asking what are the causes of wars.  Instead of talking about falling in love as one thing, talk about fallings in loves
8.    Quantifying terms: Don’t say hot, say 95 degrees, or 70 degrees (weatherman)
9.    Qualifying terms: State exceptions, specify conditions—except, but, under conditions of, in our culture, of our time, to me, in my opinion, as I see it, from my point of view, etc. Watergate—“to the best of my recollection.”

VII.    Reification
A.    It is possible to use words that do not refer to anything in reality. The most extreme example would be nonsense words like grib and jabberwocky.  Some words refer to things that were thought to exist, but in fact do not, like phlogiston and ether.
B.    Take id, ego, supergo. They are ideas that Freud used to try to describe the way people’s minds work. But they are not things that are present in reality. Examine the brain, can’t find the id, ego, superego.
C.    High level abstractions do not refer to “things” in reality, although they seem to.  The concept of the nation is an example.  We talk about nations as if they were real things, but there is no agreement on how to define “nation” or what constitutes a nation, no objective test to determine whether some entity is a nation.  Benedict Anderson: nations are imagined communities.  Social construction.
D.    Sometimes, words that seem to refer to something real can be dangerous.  An example of this is the word “race.” One general semanticist, the anthropologist Ashley Montagu, delivered a lecture on race to the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in 1941. He used genetics as his basis for condemning the use of the term “race” among anthropologists, arguing that it concepts of race are nothing more than a product of statistical averaging.  In fact, the definition of race differs from one culture to another (in the US we traditionally defined white vs. black on an all or nothing basis of purity, whereas other cultures in the western hemisphere have at least one category of mulatto, and Brazil had 3 different races in between the extremes of black and white), and one time period to another (in the 19th century, Italians, Greeks, Jews, etc., were not considered white, and it was common to use race interchangeably with ethnicity).
E.    A similar problem occurs with the use of the word “intelligence” by social and behavioral scientists. Because the word exists, we assume that the thing it refers to exists, and we try to find it, to describe it, to measure it, to test it.  We’re not sure what it is, but we come up with a test for it anyway.  And in the end we mistake the score on an intelligence test for intelligence itself. The score is real, intelligence is not. The score is merely a measure of an individual’s ability to take the test. Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, has argued that intelligence testing has been used (perhaps unintentionally) to “prove” that white Americans are superior, in intelligence, to non-whites and immigrants.  People institutionalized for scoring a few points below the minimum legal requirement on intelligence tests, even though they are capable of taking care of themselves.  Howard Gardner, theory of multiple intelligences, extensional device of using plurals.
F.    Modern maps, north as up, top, arbitrary, ideological, vs. ancient orientation
G.    As we go higher up in levels of abstracting, we reach the point where there are words about words, and not things. But because the word exists, we believe that the thing must exist, we must thingify the word. This is called reification, to make real. When we try to find and measure abstractions like intelligence, patriotism, love, we are guilty of reification.

VIII.    Idealization and Operationalism
A.    Wendell Johnson believed that mistaking high-level abstractions for things often leads to the IFD disease. The IFD disease refers to the following process: Idealization. Frustration. Demoralization.
B.    For example, most people have the same goals: success, happiness, love, peace, fulfillment. Counselors and therapists are constantly finding patients who have been demoralized in their search for these goals, because they have idealized the terms, and therefore have no concrete indicators for having reached the goals.  Love is often idealized, so much so that no one seems to be good enough.
C.    Success is a good example.  Ask just about anyone who is a part of American culture if he or she wants to be a success, and he or she will say yes (indeed it’s an act of courage to say otherwise).  But how do you know when you are a success?  Therapists say that it’s not unusual to find people coming to them who are making a good living, their children are healthy, they have a summer home, their wives or husbands are agreeable, loving people, and yet, somehow there is something missing, something else, but they don’t know what it looks like or where it is. The problem is that they have idealized the word success. In idealizing success, you have placed it forever out of reach. This leads to frustration, and eventually to demoralization.  Take the even more basic example of rich.  Many people would like to be rich, but few think about how to determine if someone is rich or not.  What does it take to be rich? 
D.    The answer to this problem comes from science. Science teaches us that all terms must have operational definitions. Operational definitions are concrete definitions.  An experiment that calls for water specifies exactly what type of water is to be used, from what source (specific lake, river, rain), what type (distilled, demineralized, condensed steam), etc.  So, for example, if you say that being rich is having a million dollars in the bank, then your goal becomes measurable, and attainable.  When you reach the goal, you can feel a sense of satisfaction, pat yourself on the back.  You still can set new goals, of course, you don’t have to stop there. 
E.    If you say you want to be a rock star, operationalize it.  How would you define it.  Playing a concert for a certain number of people?  Releasing a recording?  A certain level of sales?  Signed by a label or going on tour?  Once you set a concrete goal, you can also outline the steps it would take to get there, the operations required to reach the goal.  This is how career counselors help people, by getting them to set goals, decide on whether they are realistic and obtainable (if not, you need to revise your goals), and then figure out the steps you need to get there.  This way, you have a plan to follow, and can also determine if you are not going to meet your goal and it’s best to move on.

IX.    Facts
A.    A fact is not so much a truth as it is a statement about truth.  Facts are commonly thought to be true, but actually are statements that can be proven true of false.
B.    A fact, is also know as a statement of fact, as a statement of description, and as a proposition (as in, this is proposed to be true).
C.     Scientific language uses propositions.  Simple statements of description are relatively low level abstracting, and can be proven true or false based on observation. “It is raining outside right now,” is a proposition. We can look out of the window or go outside and determine its validity.
D.    Generalizations represent a higher level of abstracting, for example, whenever dark clouds gather, rain follows.  We can test the generalization and see whether it holds true in this particular instance.  If it doesn’t, we have proven it false.  If it does, however, we have not proven it true, because we cannot text for every possible instance, past, present, and future.  Karl Popper.  All swans are white.
E.    No statement, no idea, no concept, no theory can be called scientific if it does not allow the possibility of being proven false.
F.    “He has $100,000 is a proposition, if we can gain access to the appropriate information, and prove it true or false. “He is rich,” is not a proposition, unless we give the word “rich” an operational definition that allows for testing.
G.    Not all statements are propositions.  Most are not.  Most statements cannot be proven true or false, or falsified.
H.    Truth in Advertising laws only go so far.  If the ad says the price is $100, and they charge you $200, that’s a false claim.  If the ad says the product does the job better than its competitor, and there is an objective test to determine whether that is so, the ad is factual, propositional.  If the ad says the product is cheaper and better, works faster, etc., without making a comparison, there is no statement that can be tested, therefore no false claim.  How can you prove true or false a statement like, “You’re in good hands with Allstate”; “Drivers wanted”; “I love New York”; or “Got milk?”
I.    Some statements are simply definitions, axioms, and in this sense tautolgies (it is what it is because I say it is).  Let x=3.  A dog is a four-legged mammal that barks.  A sentence is a complete thought.  You cannot prove a definition true or false, you can only accept or reject it.
J.    Some statements are judgments or opinions, expressing values and emotions.  He is evil is a value judgment, as opposed to saying he has been arrested and convicted of a crime.  Ethics and aesthetics are based on judgments.  You cannot prove that anything or anyone is bad or good, beautiful or ugly, etc.
K.    Some statements are inferences, which are assumptions (and what happens when you assume?).  They resemble propositions or facts, in that they are statements that could be proven true or false under the right conditions.  But they are deductions or leaps made without access to the need evidence.  I say it’s raining outside right now, there’s a window, so you look out and see that it is, that’s a proposition.  I say it’s raining outside right now, there’s no window, you know it was raining when you came in, so you figure it must still be raining, that’s an inference.
L.    Distinguishing Between Facts and Inferences
1.    Based on the information you have available to you right now, without further investigation, is the statement “I am standing here” a fact or an inference? Is the statement “I am wearing underwear” a fact or inference?
2.    In detective stories the hero finds clues and solves the crime by making inferences based on the clues.  Using inferences is a sign of intelligence, often tested for in grade school standardized tests for language/reading (which is the best title for this story?).  But distinguishing between facts and inferences is a more advanced form of intelligence, appears on IQ tests and LSATs.
3.    Exercise:  Fact/Inference Test
4.    Inferences are used in persuasion and propaganda.  Misleading association—actual association—implied association. Presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson worked in state department at the same time as Alger Hiss, who has been convicted of conspiring for communism. US corporation profits doubled in 1968, US casualties in Vietnam doubled in 1968.
5.    Inferences used in politics.  News leaks, background briefings, pseudo-events.  The president said, X.  This reporter was also told Y.
6.    News reporting, especially based on government or political sources, full of ambiguous language, suggesting inferences, but with deniability.
7.    Columnist has someone else do interview for him, write it in passive voice so he never says he asked the questions.
8.    General semantics, understanding of propositions and inferences, scientific approach, very useful for journalists, problem of objectivity similar to that in science, reporting the facts
9.    Images make no statements (Susanne Langer, Philosophy in a New Key), are not propositional or discursive, cannot be proven true or false.  The can be used as evidence to support a claim, but make no claim of their own.  As opposed to me saying, it is raining outside right now, if I show you a picture taken outside of rain, it makes no statement, it is what it is, a concrete image of a moment in time.  Only if I add the words, this is what it’s doing outside right now do we have a proposition.  A picture of a bombed out building can be accompanied by a caption that says it was a military target, or a civilian residence.  The same picture can be used to make contradictory statements, used by opposite sides.  That’s why we need to read the caption on an illustration, check the title card of a painting in an art museum.  The words tell us what we’re seeing.  Pictures are not worth a 1,000 words, not translatable, apples and oranges.  Case of Rodney King, first trial, prosecution let the video recording of the beating stand on its own, major mistake, as defense deconstructed the images.
10.    Ability to recognize the difference between facts and inference important in the legal sector, reading contracts, understand what they say, and what they don’t say
11.    Robert Heinlein in the science fiction novel Stranger In a Strange Land introduces the concept of the fair witness. A fair witness is a person who is specially trained to only report facts and make no inferences. For example, someone would ask a fair witness what color is that house. The fair witness would answer,” it is white on this side.”
12.    A colleague of mine served on a jury once, and got into an argument with her fellow jurors over a piece of evidence. The jurors all believe that the suspect was wearing a green army jacket. This evidence was based on a black and white photograph. The jurors could not distinguish between fact and inference, and this distinction is especially important in a trial.
13.    General semantics does not say “Never make an inference.” Inferences are a necessary part of our lives. What General Semantics does say is know the difference between an inference and a fact, and be aware of the fact that when you make an inference or an assumption, you may be making a mistake.

X.    Conclusion
A.    The major assumption of general semantics is that we have a constant need for a constant evaluation and constant re-evaluation because time is constantly flowing and change is constantly occurring.
B.    How we label things determines how we react to them. Power over how we label things is power over our reactions.
C.    The ability to change definitions, to not be tied to one definition, and also to be able to change levels of abstractions, is called reframing, and is an essential skill.
D.    Sanity, individually and most importantly collectively requires that we create and utilize maps that are as similar as possible to the environment that they represent.  Our maps may be subjective, and a product of social construction (intersubjectivity), but all maps are not alike, not equally valid or useful.  Some maps will leave us lost, others will allow us to arrive at our destination safe and sound.