Really enjoyed your summary, I have just started science and sanity and your commentary was worth watching, you have a good understanding of the principles and I imagine you apply it to good effect.
Ok, i will start right now, i have my dictionary and i will set forth erasing all the definitions. What then shall i do with this book list or random letters placed together in short groups that lack any rhyme nor reason nor pattern other then an alphabet order. How will i use this other then to keep a door closed or papers with other scribbles and no definitions from blowing in the winds. And to think it was once only used to keep the meaning of words from blowing in the winds of time.
I think what you are saying is only possible not as a non-identification with the words per-say, but with the linguistic thoughts themselves. Which without being able to control that flow of thought, at least sufficiently to turn it off, would be such a mentally taxing effort as to be untenable as a continuous state of mind.
You never cease to amaze me with the profundity of your videos. I truly hope you never stop posting videos, and I would have loved to attend one of your lectures. Thank you professor Anton.
All sane people have reality-harmonious ontologies. All sane people think alike although they have unique tastes for life. Sane people are always engaged in work which benefits others; this is a time-tested fact. Who can argue?
From this we can conclude that there is a universal purpose in life - to serve. Serve what? The Complete Whole. What is the Complete Whole? It is the sum total of everything - the infinite fractal of reality. That infinite fractal is God and he's a person just like you.
@parkerjwill I sense that I might be able to contribute to your statement as it is to me. The essence of everything, is the tendency to keep on experiencing interactions after interactions, and so to not experience interactions that would not lead to more interactions. And that essence exist within everything. The fractal could be understood as the unity of multiple meanings, for example solutions, administrations, and practice; another example: Information, Meaning, Certainty, Object
I'm not sure about what you mean by your last sentence. Care to clarify?
Also, check this śloka out from the Bhagavad-gītā - seemingly there is a correlation:
avibhaktaṁ ca bhūteṣu
vibhaktam iva ca sthitam
bhūta-bhartṛ ca taj jñeyaṁ
grasiṣṇu prabhaviṣṇu ca
Although the Supersoul appears to be divided, He is never divided. He is situated as one. Although He is the maintainer of every living entity, it is to be understood that He devours and develops all. [Bhagavad-gita 13.17]
@parkerjwill professoranton explained Korzybski's comprehention that what we mean when we talked about a word/symbol is not stable. You talked about the infinite fractal of reality, as God. So I want to share to this forum what I got from the interactions, that there may be a way to stabilize the meaning if we could use your view, that is to look at a meaning as a fractal instead of a static object. So for example solutions, administrations, and practice, are one thing in fractal.
@parkerjwill could you translate them? if no it's ok. I'm trying to comprehend your Supersoul concept, can you say that the supersoul is a law? For example, mutualism is a law, mutualism could be found anywhere in the world under different instances, but mutualism is mutualism, and the more people create mutual relationships the bigger and stronger mutualism became despite the some of the relationships occured distant from each other?
@Melki Hmm.. actually, it's already translated. Those are not my ideas or words, it's the translation of Śrīla Prabhupāda. Supersoul can be understood from many, perhaps countless positions and therefore can have many shades of meaning but still, Supersoul is one. You could say that Supersoul is time, knowledge, and the sum total of everything in this material world. Supersoul is a name given to a aspect of God as the Soul of this entire material creation, the universe.
Let's not forget the K.I.S.S. principle. The actual determining factor regarding a person's status as 'sane' or 'insane' is that person's desires. A sane person uses an ontology ('map of reality') complimentary to actual reality. So, if one is without knowledge of reality, who is without access to or knowledge of such knowledge, is left to his own speculation in curing his insanity. Luckily, humans have enough awareness to hear a little voice in their hearts which guides them.
How about chess? There is the movements of chess pieces. And then there is the (informal) value attached to the pieces. And then there is a purly "feel" attached to the pieces.
This may not exactly your point. But there is a difference between mathematics and mathematical ontology. Mathematics has a lot tricks and informality. Mathematical ontology is brute existence. But the ontology falls apart when we start to talk about things such as imaginary number or irrational numbers.
I've experienced pure numbers taking on empirical reality. This occurred in a very heightened state of consciousness (induced by breathing, not chemically or otherwise). Having for the first time today come across the term 'grok', it fits very nicely into my developed understanding of the future of humankind.
hey. good video. I've always been a fan of Korzybski. since I heard of him. from one of your videos. haha. I think it's kind of funny that in math there's this distinction between "real" and "imaginary" numbers, when really, they're *all* imaginary...
0 zero,was a hieroglyph. The 0 was invented in India thousands of years ago and it was a Vedic symbol representing god as "nothing" It appears in Vedic scripture and was adopted into Indian mathematics to represent "nothing" and was the first time the concept of having "nothing" as a number represented in writing ever occurred. It's because of the Indian 0 having been adopted into our modern mathematics that we have the complex maths we do.Ironic that a religious symbol,makes science possible.
I find Science and Sanity very insightful in that way. In some ways it's such simple advice, but so relevant, to be seen to be wrong in language can hurt. But it shouldn't necessarily be so. Semantic reactions: are they really something, a worthy consideration.
@wtmeighan But it still seems like, you can get stuck anywhere. You can be stuck in non-identification too. Which in many ways is even more problematic. Still left with trying to create a healthy relationship towards. Oh well..............
Saying 'this is not a pen' whilst holding up a pen is a bit self-contradictory, because by saying 'this' (which I think is a pronoun here)', you've already said 'here is a bit of reality that the language I'm using objectifies', and in the language you''re using, it's a pen.
@gerontodon Agreed on the "this" issue. Korzybski unfortunately trades upon something akin to a signifier/signified distinction rather than a theory of indexicals as implied in Jakobson and Peirce by their tri-part sign distinction of index, icon, symbol. Thanks.
@gerontodon The only way he could have demonstrated his point outside of vocal language would be too take the pen and throw it at the camera or something, and people are not with themselves enough to understand a video of only isolated sound and image. If he did that he would probably make little sense to his viewers. He would not be able to give his elaborate blurbs. He would be, perhaps, practicing Zen with the camera going lol. Maybe that would be a good video...
I liked also what you said (at least, I think it was you...) in an earlier video, what was it - the map is in the territory or is of some territory? Don't remember for sure. I remember running into "the map is not the territory" in Chase's "The Tyranny of Words" which was where I first learned about semantics. Lately I've been thinking a lot about that every illusion has to be made of some "stuff", eg whether its true that the lone ranger's partner is tonto is contextual, not just true or false.
math will set you free! he he... you can do poetry in math, too (watch?v=Gzz4ZqZ74Bg ;)
perhaps that is why math is considered so hard to learn. monkey brains can't disidentify themselves from the territory of the language, its awareness-like transparency, its spacious materiality... on the other hand for those who grok math more easily it's because they somehow unnaturally possess this skill of imitating reality with concepts... /sigh.
Very interesting, today i observed myself talking and thought how much of a ruse it all was (the words) what would it be like to call each thing by it's right name? Is the conclusion there is no "right" name because the word "right" is arbitrary?
Reminds me of those "intellectuals" who would make these ethereal statements using abstract concepts in and of themselves without tying them to a pragmatic and tangible basis. "True is freedom" or "Love is salvation" seem like profound, meaningful statements because we can take our own perceptions and feelings and attempt to fill the gaps of ambiguity, but the problem arises when the difference in interpretation exposes their lack of functionality. I do so love elaboration.
One way to get at the meaningless of "Truth is freedom" is to try its opposite: "Truth is a prison" or "Truth is slavery." Or do other word replacements, synonyms and antonyms.
Science and Sanity is quite difficult to get hold of,, when I was looking for a copy there were only very heavily marked up second hand copies on Amazon etc., however I found the Institute of General Semantics still had some in stock at a reasonable price.
Really enjoyed your summary, I have just started science and sanity and your commentary was worth watching, you have a good understanding of the principles and I imagine you apply it to good effect.
Foxsbiscuits 1 month ago
Are the prefaces important to read? I am finding them hard to read through.
Zachdudeio2 8 months ago
hahahaaa.... i see what ur game is...advertise that shit
yeahhh...
make that cash money
prof
natmanprime 8 months ago
David Wynn Miller.
texme 8 months ago
I appreciate your recommendations of books. Please do this more often :) Educate us!
erdal0 8 months ago
Ok, i will start right now, i have my dictionary and i will set forth erasing all the definitions. What then shall i do with this book list or random letters placed together in short groups that lack any rhyme nor reason nor pattern other then an alphabet order. How will i use this other then to keep a door closed or papers with other scribbles and no definitions from blowing in the winds. And to think it was once only used to keep the meaning of words from blowing in the winds of time.
masluxx 8 months ago
I think what you are saying is only possible not as a non-identification with the words per-say, but with the linguistic thoughts themselves. Which without being able to control that flow of thought, at least sufficiently to turn it off, would be such a mentally taxing effort as to be untenable as a continuous state of mind.
rainydays137 8 months ago
You never cease to amaze me with the profundity of your videos. I truly hope you never stop posting videos, and I would have loved to attend one of your lectures. Thank you professor Anton.
TheFaceMeIter 9 months ago
All sane people have reality-harmonious ontologies. All sane people think alike although they have unique tastes for life. Sane people are always engaged in work which benefits others; this is a time-tested fact. Who can argue?
From this we can conclude that there is a universal purpose in life - to serve. Serve what? The Complete Whole. What is the Complete Whole? It is the sum total of everything - the infinite fractal of reality. That infinite fractal is God and he's a person just like you.
parkerjwill 10 months ago
@parkerjwill I sense that I might be able to contribute to your statement as it is to me. The essence of everything, is the tendency to keep on experiencing interactions after interactions, and so to not experience interactions that would not lead to more interactions. And that essence exist within everything. The fractal could be understood as the unity of multiple meanings, for example solutions, administrations, and practice; another example: Information, Meaning, Certainty, Object
Melki 9 months ago
@Melki
I'm not sure about what you mean by your last sentence. Care to clarify?
Also, check this śloka out from the Bhagavad-gītā - seemingly there is a correlation:
avibhaktaṁ ca bhūteṣu
vibhaktam iva ca sthitam
bhūta-bhartṛ ca taj jñeyaṁ
grasiṣṇu prabhaviṣṇu ca
Although the Supersoul appears to be divided, He is never divided. He is situated as one. Although He is the maintainer of every living entity, it is to be understood that He devours and develops all. [Bhagavad-gita 13.17]
parkerjwill 9 months ago
@parkerjwill professoranton explained Korzybski's comprehention that what we mean when we talked about a word/symbol is not stable. You talked about the infinite fractal of reality, as God. So I want to share to this forum what I got from the interactions, that there may be a way to stabilize the meaning if we could use your view, that is to look at a meaning as a fractal instead of a static object. So for example solutions, administrations, and practice, are one thing in fractal.
Melki 9 months ago
@parkerjwill could you translate them? if no it's ok. I'm trying to comprehend your Supersoul concept, can you say that the supersoul is a law? For example, mutualism is a law, mutualism could be found anywhere in the world under different instances, but mutualism is mutualism, and the more people create mutual relationships the bigger and stronger mutualism became despite the some of the relationships occured distant from each other?
Melki 9 months ago
@Melki Hmm.. actually, it's already translated. Those are not my ideas or words, it's the translation of Śrīla Prabhupāda. Supersoul can be understood from many, perhaps countless positions and therefore can have many shades of meaning but still, Supersoul is one. You could say that Supersoul is time, knowledge, and the sum total of everything in this material world. Supersoul is a name given to a aspect of God as the Soul of this entire material creation, the universe.
parkerjwill 9 months ago
@parkerjwill thanks for your replies
Melki 9 months ago
@Melki Is the word/symbol "God" distasteful to you? If so, I understand why, it was for me too.
parkerjwill 9 months ago
Let's not forget the K.I.S.S. principle. The actual determining factor regarding a person's status as 'sane' or 'insane' is that person's desires. A sane person uses an ontology ('map of reality') complimentary to actual reality. So, if one is without knowledge of reality, who is without access to or knowledge of such knowledge, is left to his own speculation in curing his insanity. Luckily, humans have enough awareness to hear a little voice in their hearts which guides them.
parkerjwill 10 months ago
M.C. Escher :rolleyes:
Nullsleep 1 year ago
Could "Truth is freedom" be represented as "A = B" in a mathematical sense?
niriop 1 year ago
How about chess? There is the movements of chess pieces. And then there is the (informal) value attached to the pieces. And then there is a purly "feel" attached to the pieces.
Israe5l 1 year ago
Pi in the sky optimism
SynerJetics 1 year ago
OK. I think your point (or Krzybski's) is psychological. Not philosophical.
Israe5l 1 year ago
This may not exactly your point. But there is a difference between mathematics and mathematical ontology. Mathematics has a lot tricks and informality. Mathematical ontology is brute existence. But the ontology falls apart when we start to talk about things such as imaginary number or irrational numbers.
Israe5l 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Free market" is impossible because
1. how do you keep the people on top from controlling everyone?
2. how do you make sure everyone at the bottom is fed, clothed, etc?
ANSWER
1. FREELY Share ALL resources and knowledge worldwide, NO more money/property
2. Use LATEST technology to create an ABUNDANCE of all our needs, NO more scarcity, waste or theft
3. Automate/localize ALL production and distribution, NO more wage/debt slavery
v=YxPPnCW6sMo
v=yPmHaTirnCc
dontblockmedk 1 year ago
I've experienced pure numbers taking on empirical reality. This occurred in a very heightened state of consciousness (induced by breathing, not chemically or otherwise). Having for the first time today come across the term 'grok', it fits very nicely into my developed understanding of the future of humankind.
clubtour 1 year ago
hey. good video. I've always been a fan of Korzybski. since I heard of him. from one of your videos. haha. I think it's kind of funny that in math there's this distinction between "real" and "imaginary" numbers, when really, they're *all* imaginary...
AdderallApocalypse 1 year ago
@AdderallApocalypse nope, they are all real. you just have to look at them with proper geometry in mind ;-p
jogayot 1 year ago
0 zero,was a hieroglyph. The 0 was invented in India thousands of years ago and it was a Vedic symbol representing god as "nothing" It appears in Vedic scripture and was adopted into Indian mathematics to represent "nothing" and was the first time the concept of having "nothing" as a number represented in writing ever occurred. It's because of the Indian 0 having been adopted into our modern mathematics that we have the complex maths we do.Ironic that a religious symbol,makes science possible.
Elenkhos 1 year ago
This is one of the principle areas of my grad research. I LOVE thinking about this stuff!
2bsirius 1 year ago
@2bsirius
OMG I'm illiterate! "Principal area..." DUH!
2bsirius 1 year ago
I find Science and Sanity very insightful in that way. In some ways it's such simple advice, but so relevant, to be seen to be wrong in language can hurt. But it shouldn't necessarily be so. Semantic reactions: are they really something, a worthy consideration.
wtmeighan 1 year ago
@wtmeighan But it still seems like, you can get stuck anywhere. You can be stuck in non-identification too. Which in many ways is even more problematic. Still left with trying to create a healthy relationship towards. Oh well..............
wtmeighan 1 year ago
Saying 'this is not a pen' whilst holding up a pen is a bit self-contradictory, because by saying 'this' (which I think is a pronoun here)', you've already said 'here is a bit of reality that the language I'm using objectifies', and in the language you''re using, it's a pen.
gerontodon 1 year ago
@gerontodon Agreed on the "this" issue. Korzybski unfortunately trades upon something akin to a signifier/signified distinction rather than a theory of indexicals as implied in Jakobson and Peirce by their tri-part sign distinction of index, icon, symbol. Thanks.
Professoranton 1 year ago
@gerontodon The only way he could have demonstrated his point outside of vocal language would be too take the pen and throw it at the camera or something, and people are not with themselves enough to understand a video of only isolated sound and image. If he did that he would probably make little sense to his viewers. He would not be able to give his elaborate blurbs. He would be, perhaps, practicing Zen with the camera going lol. Maybe that would be a good video...
yoseph89 8 months ago
I liked also what you said (at least, I think it was you...) in an earlier video, what was it - the map is in the territory or is of some territory? Don't remember for sure. I remember running into "the map is not the territory" in Chase's "The Tyranny of Words" which was where I first learned about semantics. Lately I've been thinking a lot about that every illusion has to be made of some "stuff", eg whether its true that the lone ranger's partner is tonto is contextual, not just true or false.
Haengma 1 year ago
math will set you free! he he... you can do poetry in math, too (watch?v=Gzz4ZqZ74Bg ;)
perhaps that is why math is considered so hard to learn. monkey brains can't disidentify themselves from the territory of the language, its awareness-like transparency, its spacious materiality... on the other hand for those who grok math more easily it's because they somehow unnaturally possess this skill of imitating reality with concepts... /sigh.
jogayot 1 year ago
Very interesting video. I'm always astonished and delighted about all the things people already thought about and in what ways.
I find this non-identification topic very interesting as it always comes up.
Fensterplaetzchen 1 year ago
Very interesting, today i observed myself talking and thought how much of a ruse it all was (the words) what would it be like to call each thing by it's right name? Is the conclusion there is no "right" name because the word "right" is arbitrary?
AmorBravo 1 year ago
Prof! Loved it!
jericomovie 1 year ago
Reminds me of those "intellectuals" who would make these ethereal statements using abstract concepts in and of themselves without tying them to a pragmatic and tangible basis. "True is freedom" or "Love is salvation" seem like profound, meaningful statements because we can take our own perceptions and feelings and attempt to fill the gaps of ambiguity, but the problem arises when the difference in interpretation exposes their lack of functionality. I do so love elaboration.
StabbyRaccoon 1 year ago 2
One way to get at the meaningless of "Truth is freedom" is to try its opposite: "Truth is a prison" or "Truth is slavery." Or do other word replacements, synonyms and antonyms.
zarkoff45 1 year ago
@zarkoff45 and to get at its meaningfulness try "Truth is freedom and prison"-p
jogayot 1 year ago
Science and Sanity is quite difficult to get hold of,, when I was looking for a copy there were only very heavily marked up second hand copies on Amazon etc., however I found the Institute of General Semantics still had some in stock at a reasonable price.
AnomalousDataPoint 1 year ago
@AnomalousDataPoint The best place to buy copies is from the IGS directly. Science and Sanity has a Fifth Edition.
Professoranton 1 year ago
Very interesting. It makes me want to go find Wittgenstein's Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics and dive in.
briano8713 1 year ago