= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on Open Thread, September 23-29, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (261)
Anyone here familiar enough with General Semantics and willing to write an article about it? Preferably not just a few slogans, but also some examples of how to use it in real life.
I have heard it mentioned a few times, and it sounds to me a bit LessWrongish, but I admit I am too lazy now to read a whole book about it (and I heard that Korzybski is difficult to read, which also does not encourage me).
I just started rereading Science and Sanity and maybe the project will develop into a lesswrong post.
When it comes to Korzybski being difficult to read I think it's because the idea he advocates are complex.
As he writes himself:
It's a bit like learning a foreign language in a foreign language. In some sense that seems necessary. A lot of dumb down elements of General Semantics made it into popular culture but the core seems to be intrinsicly hard.
Non-violent communication is the intellectual heir of E-prime which was the heir of semantic concerns in General Semantics. Recent books on the subject are well reviewed. It is a useful tool in communicating across large value rifts.
I don't think it makes sense to speak of a single framework as the heir of General Semantics. General Semantics influenced quite a lot.
General Semantics itself is quite complex. Nonviolent communication is pretty useless when you want to speak about scientific knowledge. General Semantics notions of thinking about relations and structure are on the other hand are quite useful.
Does Rosenberg cite Bourland (or Korzybski) anywhere? I thought these were independent inventions that happened upon some tangential ideas about non-judgmental thinking.
I had thought that there was a link in someone Rosenberg worked with developing it but now I can't find anything. The elimination of the "to-be" verb forms does not seem explicit in NVC methodology. I think you are correct and they are independent.