People in quandaries

Back in the 1930s, [a:Alfred Korzybski|63523|Alfred Korzybski|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1500150938p2/63523.jpg], a Polish engineer, wrote a book [b:Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics|18747369|Science and Sanity An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics|Alfred Korzybski|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1383369094l/18747369.SX50.jpg|105796] which I found unreadable the few times I tried. But back then it was a big deal. Nowadays, most people have never heard of him and if you google his name, you'll find he is mainly known for having said "The map is not the territory."

My introduction to Wendell Johnson was a quote I liked (can't remember where I saw it) "A similarity is a difference that doesn't make a difference." It turns out it comes from the book I am reviewing (not verbatim but close). Before I started to read it, I was unaware that Mr Johnson was a "follower" of Korzybski, and that he wrote a book that I was capable of reading which covers the gist of what Korzybski had to say. (Korzybski read this book and it has his blessing.)

I put "follower" in quotes because Korzybski's movement, known as "General Semantics" is not exactly a cult but has a following like one. For him and Johnson, they were doing science but it never quite made it into the main stream, not because it was wrong, so much as because it was different. At any rate, a lot of what they have to say is both instructive and should be better known if you could separate it out from some of their more cult-like utopian beliefs. I will try and do some of that here in this review.

Basically, General Semantics is an attempt to make language less ambiguous and reflect reality, or failing that, to make speaker and listener aware of how it neglects to do so. It is an attempt to create a technology that would make arguments that are actually not arguments at all but misunderstandings more easily detectable and resolvable. This is extended to arguments within ourselves--i.e. mental confusion, and even to a form of psychotherapy to systematically unconfuse us. The underlying idea is that most (all?) quandaries exist not in reality (the territory) but in how we talk/think about them (the map).

Another way to say this is that sanity will come if we approach the world as scientists and insanity is there because so often we don't. If we are confused or disagree about the world, there should be some sort of experiment we could perform to find the truth, at least in principle (some experiments would be impractical or physically impossible in which case we could agree there is no possible answer to disagree about). And if there were not such an experiment, that the source of confusion/disagreement is "merely" semantic. Or else the statement of the problem is ultimately meaningless.

If this sounds to you like the philosophy known as logical positivism or its practical application, you'd be right. The timing (1930s) matches nicely too.

As a method of psychotherapy, General Semantics is similar in spirit to CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy). In this form a treatment, one is taught to recognize and give up ones cognitive distortions--false beliefs about the world leading to unnecessary bad feelings.

There are (at least) two problems with this solution, the first being that it presumes all difficulties are cognitive.

Enough difficulties are cognitive that general semantics techniques (and CBT techniques) should be more widely known.
The problem arises when these techniques are expected to solve those difficulties which are outside their scope, especially when the fault of the difficulty is assigned to the persons on whom it fails to work. (e.g. "You are being irrational!") Johnson understands this and thus his treatment of stutterers is directed on lowering their anxiety and self blame.

The second problem, one that has gotten much attention in philosophical circles yet I rarely see addressed outside of them, is the belief that values can be derived from facts. In actuality, people can agree on all the facts but differ on what is morally right or wrong. General Semantics could still make it clear that the argument isn't resolvable.

Similarly, you can agree with the facts I present about this book yet disagree with me about its worth.

On yet another note, one thing I enjoy about reading books like this is to marvel at the certainty with which its understanding is expressed and think about all we're similarly certain about eighty-something years later.