I realized the other day that I have tendencies towards General Semantics. I didn’t even know what it *was*. But I found myself excessively agreeing to it when I tripped over it.
Watched some videos, did some studying.
Realized that I’ve pretty much been indoctrinated into General Semantics by my interest in the science fiction writings whose authors were DIRECTLY influenced by General Semantics and by those sci-fi writers/tv producers who were influenced by THEM. PLUS the psychoanalytical schools of thought that stemmed from there as well.
SOOOO…
what to do?
Keep unraveling the self ’til I figure out what’s left that’s “me”. But at least I have ‘tag’ for … see.. tag… label. that’s general semantics right there. Part of my way of thinking/talking/expressing. I’m within the system itself. Lifetime.
The deconstructionalism of self continues…. which is part of yet another movement of its own. Oh well – I’m having fun at it.
Well the strange thing is, I’ve _been_ talking General Semantics for a lifetime (43 yrs old now)… and didn’t even KNOW IT.
Tried finding it under many other names. Didn’t know what ‘it’ was. I was looking at derivatives or predecessors in shadowy form.
I argued for it without knowing I was.
So, now I need to look at its influencers. I’m on a quest of self-discovery that’s harsh… one that is doing the OPPOSITE of what I’ve done for a lifetime: For a lifetime, I avoided “labels”, talked layers of semantics with people, multiple perspectives, differences of opinion. I’ve stopped MANY verbal and written battles between people using what I *just* found out today was Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy even though I hadn’t HEARD much of Albert Ellis before….
and I was like…
Shit.
Now, I’m looking for *all the labels* that suit me.
It doesn’t mean I’m -against- it. It makes up who I am, how I think, the way I communicate and believe about the world.
So I’m at a point where I need to comprehend its origins and its flaws, its assumptions, its drawbacks. I could write a book on General Semantics. I’ve lived it and didn’t even know it. I embody it. Frightens me a tad actually because what I thought was “me”, wasn’t. Isn’t.
I may end up finding “nobody” when I’m done. I’m ready for that possibility too. But, I need to know.
If you have information on the background of G.S. I’d appreciate it. It will help me. I’ve found some things, but the search is trickier than expected.
Well I read a little of the history of it. I saw how it had a promising beginning. Was extraordinarily successful for a time and influenced MANY great thinkers of the 50s/60s who wrote fictions and nonfictions alike that were directly influenced by GS… whose writings THEN influenced *other* people who were influencers as well.
It’s become part of everyday language. Part of our culture. It’s a success.
It’s akin to how the hippies in the late 60s/early 70s started doing guerilla theoretical physics because people STOPPED asking the interesting questions and were instead focused on the engineering aspects of QM.
But it’s because of them the field started up again, eventually leading to massive amounts of speculative research in QM.
There’s a great video about that somewhere online; pretty awesome to see how influences happen.
Anyway, I’ll keep digging. I’ve always been “that guy” who says, “I’M AN ORIGINAL”… just.. .like many people do. I won’t stop being ‘that’ guy’ but I want to -also- be able to say:
“I’m Kenneth Udut. I take a sociolinguisticculturalhistorical viewpoint focusing on the issue at hand and will utilize analogies for an attempt at clarity and comprehension of my perspective. My bias is that i am a fan of embodied cognition rather than a “brain in vats” view of the self.”
Now, I can say that. It’s true. But, I’m going deeper still. That’s as far as I’ve gotten pretty much.
Well, it’s been influential in other fields. Neurolinguistic programming for example, wouldn’t be what it is. Also fields of politics, deconstructionalism, perhaps even modern forms of anarchy – even the whole hippie movement have found great success using principles of general semantics.
Every time someone says, “The Map is Not the Territory” – it’s General Semantics. The levels of abstraction one might even say have infliuenced a majority of programming languages – database design which all about abstracting abstractions…
… I mean it’s mindboggling to me how influential it’s been.
“It’s just a label man”. = G.S.
Well, I believe the map and the territory are one because of us. The either/or ness expressed within GS was useful and continues to be…[I know he was striving for a both/and – and succeeded.. but not entirely] but I think there’s a way of synergizing it ; bringing the abstractions back together so that a cohesive whole can be formed which includes … well.. everything. Truths and lies, subjectivity and objectivity – an accurate integration of categorizations into a form that is no longer divisive but inclusive.
[GS wasn’t exclusive with the categorization… I was speaking in general about the overall problem GS was addressing]
This isn’t a knock against GS .. but having lived and breathed it unknowingly, I want to go farther.
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]