|
home :
about :
rss :
spamgourmet
: otherdog studio
animals : anything : elsewhere : food : music : reading : restaurants : tech |
| from science and sanity |
|
|
"Imagine that we are engaged in a friendly serious discussion with some one, and that we decide to enquire into the meanings of words. For this special experiment, it is not necessary to be very exacting, as this would enormously and unnecessarily complicate the experiment. It is useful to have a piece of paper and a pencil to keep a record of the progress. "We begin by asking the 'meaning' of every word uttered, being satisfied for this purpose with the roughest of definitions; then we ask the 'meaning' of the words used in the definitions, and this process is continued usually for no more than ten to fifteen minutes, until the victim begins to speak in circles --as, for instance, defining 'space' by 'length' and 'length' by 'space'. When this stage is reached, we have come usually to the undefined terms of a given individual. If we still press, no matter how gently, for definitions, a most interesting fact occurs. Sooner or later, signs of affective disturbances appear. Often the face reddens; there is a bodily restlessness; sweat appears--symptoms quite similar to those seen in a schoolboy who has forgotten his lesson, which he 'knows but cannot tell'. If the partner in the experiment is capable of self-observation, he invariably finds that he feels an internal affective pressure, connected, perhaps, with the rush of blood to the brain and probably best expressed in some such words as 'what he "knows" but cannot tell', or the like. Here we have reached the bottom and the foundation of all non-elementalistic meanings--the meanings of undefined terms, which we 'know' somehow, but cannot tell. In fact, we have reached the un-speakable level. This 'knowledge' is supplied by the lower nerve centres; it represents affective first order effects, and is interwoven and interlocked with other affective states, such as those called 'wishes', 'intentions', 'intuitions', 'evaluation', and many others. It should be noticed that these first order effects have an objective character, as they are un-speakable--are not words." - A. Korzybski UPDATE: What Al didn't mention is the sucktastic tedium that bursts forth as soon as the victim realizes how many words will need to be defined, as well as the tendency to use increasingly short definitions as the scale of the excercise unfolds. Maybe people in the 1930's had much longer attention spans and less other stuff to do, but nowadays, I think attention lapse (possibly accompanied by affective disturbances such as acute irritation) will set in long before one reaches the first order effects. It's cool to think about it, though. |
|
| /reading permanent link | |
Joey wrote
Nice!
Nice post. I giggled throughout.
Josey wrote
I'd like to try that experiment with you some time, Josh. I have t-mobile, so we can talk for free!!!!! On a related note, the experiment reminds me a little of when Inez was around the age of 7 years and questioned my every action, word, likes, and dislikes. She wasn't "challenging" me so to speak, but was learning by asking questions. (Which in 7th grade she found out from a series of questions (some might call a test or evaluation) that she does in fact learn by asking questions. I learn by doing.) I witnessed an "exasperated victim" (my sister) during this age of questioning for Inez at which she questioned my sister on the choice of eyeshadow she was wearing. Inez continued to ask question after question as to why her aunt was wearing it, etc., etc., the color, etc., etc. My sister got so flustered, it was amusing. I for one, LOVE words. One of my favorite classes in high school was a vocabulary class where we learned many of the latin and greek roots for our english language. It got me so interested in etymology that I wanted to find a career in it(not to be confused with entymology--which I also wanted to major in at one time). A great example is the word parasol from para-, to ward off, and sol = sun. A parasol is used precisely for this. You usually have to have the huge unabridged dictionaries to find the etymology, the college and desk dictionaries doesn't usually have it.
Tim Hall wrote
Dictionary.com usually will have the etymology of just about any word you can think of, including more recent ones, or more modern ones not yet found in thos rarely updated dictionaries. Long live the internet!
Rory wrote
I would like to put forth the suggestion that the Korzybsky excerpt is a better example of a staw-man. Better, in that it implies a formality as compaired to the artistic "Anthem" by Rand. Therefore, deserving of such. The staw-man is put together with the contradiction, "all non-elementalistic meanings" and the abiguity of "undefined terms." Furthermore, one might notice the vail of malace pointed at you as a man. One is not a bad person because one is in the process of thinking.
josh wrote
Perhaps I've been too selective with my excerpt - I'm not seeing malice toward man, more malice toward Aristotle. I'll try and dig up more stuff. One area where I believe Rand and Korzybski differ greatly is on the concept of identity. If I get through this, I plan to try and summarize the differences (I'm a long way off from that now)