In 1979, before I even knew who Schopenhauer was, I had just finished my Honours Thesis in psychology, an essay called 'Evaluation and Health' that was mainly about 'Maps and Territories' -- focusing on a General Semantic model of the way the world works, and the way man's mind-brain-nervous system works, as created by Aflred Korzysbski, the founder of General Semantics, in his classic (albeit none too 'crystal clear' in itself) philosophical treatise, 'Science and Sanity' (1933).
Korzybski and Wittgenstein were operating in the same time period -- Korzsbski's first book (Manhood of Humanity, 1921) was published the same year as Wittgenstein published his famous 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus'.
Until this morning, I was not clear about who influenced who because their ideas about 'reality, language, and epistemology' at the 'bottom level of abstraction' were too similar 'in structure' not for at least one to have influenced the other.
It turns out that Koyrzybski in 'Manhood' quoted Wittgenstein from 'Tractatus' as I found out in the discussion 'Institute of General Semantics' (IGS) discussion forum below (See Wittgenstein and Korzybski on the internet as the relevant material didn't completely present itself below.):
.......................................................................................
IGS Discussion Forums: Learning GS Topics: Wittgenstein and Korzybski
| Author: Steve (stevierayd) Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 10:34 pm |        |
| I find John Searle, professor of Philosophy, to be a very good communicator. See a lecture series that feature him on "Philosophy of Mind". I found this old video in which he discusses Wittgenstein's writings. It provides a very clear, well articulated summary of his philosophy. http://methodsofprojection.blogspot.com/2008/03/ bryan-magee-interviews-john-searle-on.html A couple of notions discussed reminded me of general semantics: In Wittgenstein's early writings he was very interested in differentiating talk that made sense from talk that didn't make sense. His ideas included the notion of language as having a structural similarity with the world they were about. Later, his philosophy evolved the notion of language as a tool, that we should look at how the language is being used to understand the meaning. Please contribute any known connections between Wittgenstein and Korzybski | |
| Author: David Linwood (dlinwood) Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 07:36 pm | |
| Steve: Korzybski refers to Wittgenstein in "Manhood.." and in Science and Sanity. I have uploaded attachments which pinpoint most of these references. "What can be shown cannot be said." There is a discussion using Theory of Types between Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, quoted in S&S. David Linwood  There is another small internet piece that introduces Korzybski's ideas in very simple fashion. You can find it here: Science and Sanity by Flemming Funch, 30 Dec 94. ................................................................................................................ In a nutshell, Korzybski got around -- at least significantly -- the whole 'Kantian Split' problem between our 'noumenal-objective world' (outside our senses) and our 'phenomenal-subjective world' (inside our senses, perceptions, interpretations, evaluations, and choices...) in a way that none of the other German Idealists (partiicularly Fichte and Hegel) did. Fichte was too 'subjectively obsessed' -- he basically got rid of the notion of a 'noumenal-objective world' altogether; and Hegel got caught up -- and lost up -- in his ideal notion of 'The Absolute', the idea that man would eventually 'transcend' his 'finite imperfections' through the process of 'historical- dialectic evolution'. (In my opinion, Hegel didn't sufficiently take into account man's 'narcissistic- egotistic-greed-and-survival-oriented nature', a 'flaw' in Hegel's work that Schopenhauer would more than compensate for. Now, Schopenhauer's philosophical compensation for Hegel's 'over-idealism' could be used in a backhanded way to support the very theory that Hegel was promoting: again, 'historical-dialectic-evolution' with Schopenhauer compensating for Hegel's 'narcissistic oversight', Kierkegaard compensating for another 'Hegelian oversight' -- his 'global and historical abstractionism' -- and the world marching on to the beat of 'The Hegelian Historical-Dialectic-Evolutionary- Deterministic Drum'. Still, one wonders why -- some 200 plus years later -- we don't seem to be any closer to Hegel's idealistic vision of 'The Absolute' -- at least in an 'ethical', 'behavioral' and 'humanistic-existential' sense, and partly in an 'epistemological' sense, than we were in Hegel's time.... Indeed, we seem closer to Schopenhauer's much more pessimistic, narcissistic, Hobbesean, 'Lord of The Flies' world, than anything resembling Hegel's idealistic vision of 'The Absolute'... unless we are talking about 'Absolute Narcissism'... But that is a subject for another debate....and relative to the subject of epistmology, the only thing that we need to -- strongly -- concern ourselves with in this regard is the distortion of any 'objective' sense of the words 'knowledge' and 'epistemology', being 'subjectively manipuated' by narcissistic, human interests -- and the power and money to go with it... Indeed, just as Nietzsche proclaimed that 'God is dead!', so too...(and Nietzsche basically took us here as well, as did Marx and Engels, and Foucault and Derrida, and Erich Fromm...): 'Science is dead!', and 'Politics is dead!...and 'Any and every body of human knowledge and ethics is dead! -- just so long as these different areas of human culture are manipulated by money, power, survival, greed -- or in two words, 'Narcissistic Capitalism'. As long as we have politicians being 'bought off' by lobbyists of all types but particularly lobbyists for large corporatations -- democracy, whether it be 'representative democracy' and/or 'participative democracy -- remains impossible. The only ones being 'represented' are the 'corporations with the money'...at least until we get some form of 'democratic, metaphorical' -- 'Storming of The Bastilles' by private citizens -- united together -- who are sick and tired of being ruled by politiicans who have been 'bought' by corporate, and/or other lobbyist interests. I have gotten way ahead of myself here. Before we get back to the subject of 'ideal, ethical epistemology', let me just say that I am not necessarily a proponent of 'Socialism' -- particularly as it was practised in both (Mao Tse Tung) China and (Lenin, Stalin) Russia -- but rather what I am looking for here on a 'socio-economic-legal-political level' is some type of better 'dialectic engagement' between the philosophies of Adam Smith and Ayn Rand on the 'Capitalist' side of things, vs. the philosophies of Marx, Engels, and Erich Fromm on the 'Socialist' side of things, with the dialectic philosophies of Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Foucualt, Derrida, and Presidents like Jefferson and Eisenhauer... warning us of the dangers of narcissistic interests at the top end of the 'corporate food chain', and the destructive forces, that their 'collusion' with politicians, can have on so-called 'democracy', on civil, Western society... and on The Pursuit of The American Dream... for The Working Class Heroes... Of both sexes and all races, Not just a few members of The Corporate Elite... In essence, I am ideally looking for a more 'ethically and epistemologically transparent' form of 'Multi-Dialectic-Integrative-Humanistic- Existential-Ethical Socialist-Capitalism' -- a world where neither 'Corporate Owners' nor 'Big Unions' dominate, manipulate, and exploit; a world where politicians aren't 'bought off by lobbyists'; a world where all classes, races, religions, and both sexes of people can share in 'The Democratic, North American Dream'... No one is fed 'advertising lies' or 'fraudulent claims', and no one is 'pushed downwards' into 'the gutter of silent, economic desperation' so that others can 'push upwards' into their 'ivory, economic towers' that, in the most narcissistic cases, are basically built up from 'blood-money'... such as middle class people being forced out of their houses so that others can live in bigger mansions... The point I am making here is that you cannot have 'Objective Epistimology' in any idealistic Ayn Rand 'Atlas Shrugged' or 'The Fountainhead' sense of her Capitalist Ethics, in a world of manipulative, narcissistic, fraudulent Capitalism that defies any sense of an idealized 'Howard Roark'. You can't have any idealized vision of Capitalism when... All ethical behaviors are dead! And reversing this trend Starts with Senators and other Politicians Being equally vulnerable to the laws of the land And being charged, convicted, and sentenced... For taking bribes... From corporate lobbysts... The word 'lobbyst' comes from the fact that this breed of people 'worked the parliament lobbies' In England... We need to take lobbysts out of the lobbies Where politicians work... And if they want something... They will have to step into... A public forum... And speak 'transparently' in this forum... With cameras, microphones, Politicians, media, and the genral public... Watching and listening to their every word... No more 'collusions' in 'back rooms' and 'lobbyists'.... We need to take away the 'lobbies' from lobbysts.. Those of us who retain some semblance of 'ethical, political, and ecomomic idealism', need to come out of our hiding places And help us move 'upwards', Towards, A better form of... 'Ethical, Humanistic-Existential, Win-Win, Capitalism'.... as opposed to any brand or version of 'Exploitive, I win, you lose, Capitalism'... The type we are living under now... What I have stated above is a big part of my own idealistic dream and vision of what 'Hegel's Hotel' is... An 'ethical idealistic vision' where all people -- preferrably open-minded, democratic-minded, people Of both sexes, every race and nationality, Religious and non-religious people, Conservative and liberal people, Republicans and Democrats, Can gather together and Hopefully, both assertively speak, And compassionately listen... To all the diverging and converging... Ideologies... Like life itself... Dialectics engaging, unionizing... And then splitting apart... When they no longer work... To be replaced by other evolving, Newly engaging dialectics... Coming from every direction... The more different converging And diverging paradigms... We can learn to comprehend... And functionally use, The better equipped we are to meet... A multi-dialectic, pluralistic, Constangly changing, constantly evolving, World... Let's move out of the world of 'socio-economics, law and politics', And on to my main 'epistemological piece' here... (before I get waylaid by other 'contextual variables'...) -- dgb, Nov.29th, updated, Dec. 3rd, 2011.. -- David Gordon Bain | |
