Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (International Non-Aristotelian Library)

During my junior year in college I found an original copy of "Science and Sanity" at a used-book store near Columbia University while traveling around the U.S.. I had learned that William S. Burroughs was highly influenced by it, and, being very intrigued by Burroughs and his cut-up writing method, I decided to read it while on the numerous trains that shuttled me across the country that summer.

For me the book seemed somewhat of a revelation in that Korzybski argued how language itself seems so important in defining one's perception of "reality" when at the same time it represents only a symbolic map of the actual objective(?) territory. An extreme example of this occurs in the computing field known as "automated reasoning", where the axioms of some mathematical theory can be represented as predicate-logic statements, which in turn are used by a computer to derive new true statement about the theory. In this case the territory is an abstract entity that is housed within the minds of a select group of humans, known as "mathematicians", while the map represents a collection of logical statements about the theory that represent "what is known" about it. To confuse the map with the territory in this case would represent ignoring the biological neural connections and brain patterns within the mathematician's mind that not only supports the theory by giving it meaning and relevance, but also relates it to other mathematical and scientific theories. In other words, the mathematical truths that can be discovered about the theory via automated reasoning on a computer is likely to be a subset of what will be discovered and "proved" by a human mathematician.

One of the more basic uses of this concept includes avoiding the "is" of identity. For example, "Johnny is stupid", "I'm a terrible driver", etc..
No, Johnny represents a unique, unspeakable, functional part of the universe in which we live. There may have been some behaviors that we observed in Johnny that disqualified him from being categorized as having a certain form of intelligence, but we should not identify Johnny with a word, especially such a negative and destructive one.

Then there is the idea that a given territory will likely have several different maps associated with it, and that quite often disputes arise because two parties have acquired very different maps of the same territory.

Fortunately these ideas have entered the mainstream of psychology and there seems to be much more thought being given to language and how it affects human minds; especially those of children who are always there to remind us of just how unique and miraculous the territory known as a human being can seem.

I gave the book only four stars because it does seem dated in terms of the level of science that is written about in the text.
May be it has already been done, but I would like to see someone write a follow-up book to this one that revisits Korzybski's ideas within the context of the 21st Century, and doing it with a more clear and concise approach.

Science and Sanity seems more like a condensation and culmination of a life work than a book. The range of topics and practical details is on par with the greatest achievements of all time such as Einstein's general theory, Euclid's geometry, and Newton's calculus. Science and Sanity presents a completely workable theoretical model personal empowerment and growth through more precise language (general semantics). Clear and intentional use of symbolism is a big theme in the book and I think anyone who is thoughtful and reflective will not only greatly enjoy the read but will benefit tremendously from the brilliance and clarity of the thoughts explored.

Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (International Non-Aristotelian Library)

The structure of the human brain is language. Every power of the brain from consciousness to memory to imagination to thought, and even the will to act, is immersed in language. We are our language. And if we know several languages, they are prioritized 1, 2, 3, etc., in our brain. Korzybski shows how limiting the Platonic and Aristotelian notions of objectifying one's existence really are. Reason is enormously limiting. And if reason becomes the primary way in which a person is taught to perceive the world, his or her imaginative powers, which almost always begin as irrational impulses, are suppressed to the point of disfunction. The world is nearly bereft of the kinds of ideas which can only come through the imaginative powers, and which now seem so very quiet and still.

Science and Sanity introduces a much wider "logic," a much wider approach to seeing and functioning in the world. The classic Greek dualities, good OR bad, right OR wrong, logical OR illogical, no longer work alongside the growing illogical way in which modern complex societies actually operate. So we find ourselves forced into accepting good AND bad, right AND wrong, logical AND illogical, realities as societies get more and more complex.

I recommend this book to those whose mind is still pliable enough to leap over the debris of Western idealism and Manifest Destiny to a more tolerant, albeit more complex, way of life.

An interesting view that is not to be overlooked. As in physics we changed or concepts from Newtonian (space and time) to Einstein or non-Newtonian (space/time). We see this in any fields and some of us embrace the change and see how infinite our views can still work; others of us resist knowing that there is something fundamentally wrong if you can not put your finger on it.

Korzybski opens up our mind and world to the possibilities of Non-Aristotellian systems and general semantics.

"If one wishes to obtain a definite answer to Nature one must attack the question from a more general and less selfish point of view"
M. PLANCK

General Semantics Seminar 1937: Olivet College Lectures

Korzybski aimed his discussion at professionals, so disregarded definitions (multi-ordinal anyway), etc. Despite this many criticisms resulted, some from professionals, notably Martin Gardner (1993): "...poorly organized, verbose, philosophically naive, repetitious, mish-mash of sound ideas borrowed from abler scientists."
Gardner had sought attention for himself via outing cults, which is not so here. Yet his comments typically betray that, he failed to make non-elementalistic connections (point of 'repetition'), resulting from an Aristotelian 'analysis' (compartmental 'thinking') of a superior, emergent, etc., structure (methodology). Made clear via a useful table comparing the Aristotelian with Non-Aristotelian systems provided by Korzybski (1941) in "Introduction To The Second Edition." While the "ideas borrowed from abler scientists" (apart from an ad hominen argument), misses the point of unifying anomalies. Further the implied not original, is not true, since Korzybski makes connections (Neil Postman's (1992) "unsupportable assertions") not made before (not by other supposed geniuses); though many involved conducted experiments by other scientists, while others can become verifiable, for example as did Albert Einstein's (1905, 1916) Special and General Relativity. Did not Isaac Newton (1642-1727) say, he stood on the shoulders of great men. Further Aristotle's (circa 350 B.C.) treatises often involved a commentary of others' works, for example Aristotle develops from his teacher, Plato's (circa 381 B.C.) universals. Thus innovating perhaps not original, but the basis of Korzybski's (1921) own Time-Binding. Whereas the 5th edition, has a note on errata.
Korzybski's comments were constructive, for example men and women regress to infantilism if they copy animals in their nervous reactions (conditioning).
Paradox: though discoveries involve seeing things afresh, we require systems to organize (from Greek organon), guide, etc., our search! So Korzybski left his system open, avoiding hindering human progress, dogmatism, etc., introducing General Semantics (replacing Aristotle's 'logic') as a basis for critical evaluating: feeling-thinking.