Why is Korzybski's General Semantics not taught in schools?

[FinnAgain]

@Grey

But the building block of language are facts. Tonal inflections for each letter, or letters for each tonal inflection if you like that better. I don’t think you’re giving children too much credit, but I do think that their ability to abstract away from concrete images develops over time. I’m currently spending evenings with my son working on linking pictures to words. I can’t begin to image how to do that without making the direct reference that that picture of a cat is a cat. The added layers of abstraction would make it impossible to teach him. That, right there might be the biggest reason why people resist this methodology.

However, he is able to abstract “cat” away from a unique picture to multiple cats. My son, the platonist.

Now since I have you, how would general semantic write “X is True”?

Mmmm… having not had children of my own, or studied their cognitive development for that matter, I have to admit that I spoke from a position of ignorance…

I suppose it might be asking too much to teach a child “this picture may be modeled as a visual representation of one single cat and taken to represent the class of cats as a whole.”

I’m not sure if under Gen’ Sem’ you could say “X is True” but rather, “At point A in space-time phenomona X may be modeled as being true.”

but yes… the difficultly in wrapping our minds around this concept may very well get to the heart of just why it isn’t taught.

[erislover]

@FinnAgain

To my knoweldge E-Prime does not suggest that we do away with all ismorphisms, simply that we use language which makes us conscious of abstracting. Thus all quanta ‘are’ not waves, or particles, but all quanta may be modeled as x, y, z, etc…

I am dubious about what we expect to gain from this, however. I guess that’s part of my problem.

does OP mean orriginal poster?

Yep. Or original post, depending on use.

It elminates the ability to say what anything ‘is’, only what effects it has, what qualities may be modeled for a certain instant in space-time, etc…

This just seems convoluted to me. What affect what has, what qualities, etc…? The ones this model represents? While no realist myself, I am missing why this shift is important.

So the map is not the territory. May we ever discuss the territory? How? When? If not, what does the phrase, “The map is not the territory” supposed to indicate to a general semanticist?

[E-Sabbath]

@JRDelirious

Gardner, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. That is an almost 50 year old book!

And still darn good. But not the only book by Gardner I have… I was thinking it might be in Weird Water and Fuzzy Logic. Alternatively, it might have been in a SJ Gould book.

Note that Robert Heinlein used Korzybski’s work as a basis for much of his advanced social science in his books… unfortunately, humans are rarely as predictable as it claims.

And notice that little isomorphism dig that I put in the first post.

[E-Sabbath]

My apologies, posting from work, remove ‘little dig’ sentence from previous post, pressed enter by accident. Will treat with more seriousness later, current opinion is that while logic is both good and useful, Gen’Sem is not necessarially the most useful form of logic.

[bonzer]

@E-Sabbath

And still darn good. But not the only book by Gardner I have… I was thinking it might be in Weird Water and Fuzzy Logic.

You’re right. Aside from the chapter in Fads and Fallacies, he also wrote a piece on Korzybski for his Skeptical Inquirer column and it’s one of the ones collected in Weird Water and Fuzzy Water.
I’d suspect that the biggest obstacle any attempt to introduce General Semantics in schools would face is that while people continue to read Gardner from 50 years ago, that’s surely the only context they really come across Korzybski in these days. He’s otherwise (rightly or wrongly) been largely forgotten.

There’s also the amusing article about E-Prime by Cullen Murphy from The Atlantic in 1992.

[E-Sabbath]

My major question on the topic of General Semantics is, what use is it, compared to, say, standard symbolic logic? A solid course in logic and statistics generally should be enough to educate anyone on the topics GenSem covers, and really, the only other way it seems to benefit the world is to remove the concept of metaphor, and the idea of extending from one to many. Admittedly, if it is no longer possible to generalize, it is not possible to be a racist… but it is also no longer possible to be a humanitarian.

Really, the world has enough problems without willingly adding blinkers.

[JRDelirious]

@FinnAgain

Perhaps I’m reaching .Why is it you feel that E-Prime would somehow threaten or retard the future growth of language?

No, it’s the other way around: the “evolutionary pressures” (in the sense of not teleologically directed) at work in the development of language tend to hinder the optimal use of something like E-prime – or in general of any deliberate engineering of language.
Also, I’ll support cuauhtemoc, too many educators would get their minds blown by the concept – or would find it unnecessary for their mission. As Grey wrote, little children don’t have to have ceci n’est ce pas une pipe (ou un chat) explicitly deconstructed to them to figure out how to identify the objects known as a pipe or a cat when actually encountered independent of the picture/word… and for most teachers today that will be good enough. The “advanced common sense and critical thinking” of my earlier post are skills that many school systems FAIL to properly develop, somehow expecting you to have them knocked into you by life.
Also:

It seems, from where I stand, that certain mental diseases, such as racism, would be impossible if one were trained in Gen’ Sem’.

You could not longe say “All X are Y”

You do realize, that this raises in many people, rightly or wrongly, the spectre of socio-behavioral-engineering by modification of verbal reasoning through deliberate redesign of language. You say E-prime and they hear Newspeak. THAT will get you brutal resistance.