There is a basic problem with General Semantics. The theory is fine but slogging through "Science and Sanity" or any of the other Korzybski texts can be daunting. He (Korzybski) writes in a highly condensed style that not only takes some acculturation but focus. Maybe it's the nature of the subject. Trying to explain the nature of meaning and context using the focus of that meaning conceptually is kind of like licking one's own elbow. You can see it, touch it, bump it and do all kinds of things with it but you can't lick it. So using language to describe the nature of language and how that language both influences and reflects societal trends, morals, ethics, laws, assumptions and folklore while also being influenced by all of he above is a difficult undertaking. Kodish, in this sense, is kind of like a Carl Saganesque character who explains GS in a way that looks at GS from a task-orientation. Take "the meaning of life" which Kodish makes into a whole chapter more appropriately titled: "The Meanings of Life." As he points out, he follows the Frnkl inquiry not the Monty Python although both end with the same conclusion.
One of the nice things Kodish does is to step-by-step, walk through the question. He takes "What is the meaning of life" and breaks it down using GS so the question is transformed from a global question into a personal one. This is interesting. "What is the meaning of life" is transformed into "How can (I, you) define the meaning of life." This fits with the whole tendency of the book to rely on individual rather than global systems which is also part and parcel of GS.
A side note here: Ian Graeme Barbour is a scholar who writes about the interface and interactions between science and religion (sound familiar?) He has written several books but by far, the one I consider the most influential is called "Myths, Models and Paradigms" written in 1974. He basically attempts to make a connection with the nature of a scientific discovery and the country, society, religion, (or lack thereof) political system and climate, and ethics of the discoverer or theory proponent. A simple case would be where something like the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg (published in 1927) could only come out of a system where the political thought mirrored the theory. If Heisenberg has been born and lived in China, he could never have come up with a theory that stressed independence of action in the sense of the theory. Barbour uses several "discoveries" to make his point and basically infers that the whole of particle physics could only have derived from democracies founded on individual achievement rather than on other equally powerful political systems.
Kodish does something similar. Using "meaning of life" he outlines it in a way that is completely western in concept and principles. Someone living under a totalitarian system where the underpinnings is adherence to the state would never examine the possibility of "self" meaning any more than a modern Dutch thinker would come up with theories where collective thinking takes place. In those situations, the personal identity of "I" would be subjugated to the collective identity of "us." (Notice that our current president constantly refers to the "collective" in most of his speeches. He refers to collective salvation, economic benefit, law, ownership and property in a collective manner rather than an individual one. So when Kodish defines the meaning of life statement in a personal manner, he is showing one of the strengths of GS for a western mind. Yes, GS is a valuable tool to allow I, Me, You to understand on an individual level but not on a collective level. Yet, GS requires agreement of definition and understanding of specifics so that generalizations can be made. If I can communicate what life means to me, it gives anyone I talk with a better chance of understanding what I mean when I speak.
Global belief systems such as political religious systems hinder communication and understanding because they rely on a fixed set of principles when the reality we are constantly confronted with is one where everything bends or is flexible. Kodish takes this concept of and attaches it with the GS concept of Time-Binding. Time-binding is basically an accumulation of information transmitted over generations or over the span of a generation. Remember that the ability to transmit or receive information does not equate with using that information but Kodish follows the Korzybski model in that sense. It's one of the few areas of disagreement I have with the book.
Time-Binders are those people who through some method become aware of the continuity of the human flow regardless of what they are told or goes on around them. An interesting read that sheds light on this is "Cosmic Consciousness" by Richard Bucke. One would suspect that Korzybski would have little regard for a book with such a title but he would be wrong. CC basically points out people who have had some kind of experience that transcends day-to-day tasks and opens them to perceive a larger, more inclusive view of humanity.
Another thing that Kodish explains well is how belief systems can be deciphered and how belief in belief can be used against he believer. In this sense, there is no collective awakening founded on belief because as soon as the collective awakens to whatever they are told, they are no further along than before. I remember sometime in the past that I was having an argument about whether music was the universal language. Stravinsky wrote that music was inherently meaningless and couldn't transmit anything. We, of course, have music that makes us happy, sad, melancholy but this is because we have come to associate the music with the feeling. There is no way that the feeling would invoke the music without the association first. Feelings of any kind can't automatically invoke any kind of sound association unless that association is already established. Taking a long walk with a group doesn't cause someone to start conceptualizing and understanding "marching" music like that of John Sousa. Somewhere, one must have seen people marching to the music and voila the association is made. Kodish points this out but using other examples and it's one of the better aspects of the book.
So how well does Kodish represent GS? Very well. But he goes further. He shows how one can use information derived from reexamining some basic principles divorced from dogma to understand how real the real can appear without a way to ferret out the wheat from the chaff.
GS has its detractors but it would be hard to find much fault with the inquiries posited by Bruce I. Kodish.
FB
