X

Until now, in the drawing of the Structural Differential, only one label: the word: designation, elementary step of description.

  We can add other ones :

- what, starting from the observation, one can infer, deduce.

- judgements, conclusions,

- theories.

  From each level of observation (label), one can formulate a higher level of abstraction, by retaining some of the characteristics of the preceding level.

The choice can depend on:

- rational considerations (scientific field for example)

- acknowledged or secret preferences, prejudices or ready-made ideas,

- previous experiments,

- silent premices ...

  When one passes from a level of abstraction given to a higher order of abstraction, the elements given up on the first level can be so because at the higher level one or more new elements are introduced.

  The choice of the elements thus treated being often a question of preferences, it always invites to criticism.

  Since each level of abstraction is reached only by leaving aside a part of the characteristics of the previous level, our judgements, inferences, evaluations, theories, etc..., can never give an account of all that occurs. A new scientific theory often aims at taking account of characteristics which the previous ones had left aside and the importance of which appeared afterwards.

  Our observations and the judgements that they lead us to carry, the deductions that we draw from them, etc..., never give an account of all the indefinite number of elements which constitute a situation.

  Natural order of abstraction:

* awareness, perceptive recognition of an object, a fact or a phenomenon, themselves abstractions of events,

* verbal designation of this object or fact,

* its description,

* its classification if necessary,

* inferences or deductions,

* judgements,

* theories, assumptions, etc...

  The last label related to the diagram is only the last label that, by convenience, one chooses to put. In reality, there never is a last label, one can always pass to a higher level of abstraction.

  The number of levels actually used depends on the cases: what imports is to know how to use this kind of scale correctly, up or down.

  We often act on the basis of a theory, of a pre-established judgement, which we stick to the experiment without describing this experiment before.

* when we react to the word as to a signal - and not as to a symbol - we dodge the level of description to jump from the start to that of the inference.

* we evaluate abstractions of a higher order as if they were abstractions of a lower order, e.g.: words, memories, etc..., are treated as if they were objects, experiments, feelings...

* we confuse inferences and the terms related to inferences with descriptions and descriptive terms, etc...

* we create semantic blockings thus è loss of contact with what we live :

- what occurs here and now,

- what we test here and now:

instead of reacting to the current situation, we react partially to what evokes in us a past situation or to the way we imagine a future situation.

  Then it frequently happens to reverse or distort the natural order of evaluation: instead of checking our abstractions of a higher level by confronting them to the lower levels, we handle the latter to make them correspond to the first:

  We judge the facts according to our theories and we forget to reconsider the theories in the light of facts è illegitimate extrapolations, over-generalizations: e.g.: " You do such things as... "

One can legitimately use the terms " truth " or " forgery " only at the level of the observation - level on which the statements are verifiable -.

  At all higher levels, we only deal with probabilities and our statements on these levels are always subject to criticism, to a later revision in the light of new data.

XI

 Second empirical premice:

  Example of image of " Laughing Cow " (a French cheese on the box of which is a laughing cow wearing ear-rings made of boxes of a "Laughing Cow" you can see to the infinite) : image of the image:

To be complete, a map should represent a " map of the map " as well as the cartographer, the map and the cartographer being part of the ground at the time when the card is drawn up.

  The language:

- reflects the user

- is self-reflexive : we use the language to speak about the language, we say something to speak about something which has already been said.

 è It is impossible to conceive that we can decide in an absolutely complete way, to have the last word.

  The structure of our language.

The structure of the world. appear as such

The structure of our nervous system.

that any symbolization, at least at the human levels : the word, the writing, the map, drawings, numbers, etc..., reveals itself to be potentially self-reflexive in an indefinite way.

  Bertrand Russel (theory of the mathematical types):

- we can speak about a proposal concerning all the proposals,

- we cannot build proposal concerning all the proposals, as, by doing so, we build up a new proposal.

XII

CONCEPT OF MULTIORDINALITE OF THE TERMS OF THE VOCABULARY:

  Many terms which we employ are multi-ordinal : they do not have a general meaning uniformly valid.

  The meaning of a multiordinal term is determined by the level of abstraction to which one employs it: this meaning is determined by the context. Example 1: yes, not, truth, forgery, made, reality, cause, effect, to love, to hate, etc...

Example 2 : in the army, the term " unit " refers to formations of different importances: a unit is part of a larger unit which, in its turn, is part of a even larger unit.

 To precise terms to indicate each unit: group, company, battalion, brigade, etc... The smallest unit is contained in the average and the average, at the same time contains smallest and is part of the largest one.

This feature is common to all multiordinal terms: they refer at the same time to the containers and the contents. The problem is to know which ones are which ones.

  Concept of multiordinality è problem of questions which cannot be solved or which do not make sense: general significance of the " good ", " truth ", " beautiful ", etc...: such terms make sense only one once the level of abstraction (context, conditions to fill, etc...) has been specified.

The problem of the questions which do not make sense or to which one cannot give answers, declarations which do not make sense or cannot be checked depends on :

- self-reflexivity

of the terms wich are involved.

- multiordinality

  If we give up any futile effort to give a term a general meaning, we will endeavour to make adequate the context the term of which receives such a particular significance which can become his.

Stating that the meaning of a word changes leads to a freedom of expression and a flexibility of interpretation.

  To be fully conscious of self-reflexivity and of multiordinality helps to acquire a clear thinking, an exactitude in one's remarks, a direction of all the process of evaluation, which helps to avoid considerably the confusions implied in the concern and the fear, the resentment, the anxiety and other handicapping semantic reactions.

The negligence with regard to the multiordinality is observed in the majority of the cases of badly adapted personalities.

  The majority of the terms which we use are at the same time:

  While defining the words which are used to formulate a definition, one comes, at the end of a certain time, to a residue: words which cannot be fully defined, because they cover certain basic postulates, metaphysics or others.

  The question of the semantician: " What do you mean ? " involves a thorough investigation which touches finally the residue of the nondefinite terms revealing our structural " credos " we are not aware of at the beginning.

These credos, often " silent postulates ", must be changed to get to better evaluations.

  THE PATIENT DOES NOT ALWAYS MISS LOGIC, HE BASES HIS REASONING ON FALSE POSTULATES.

XIII

  STUDY OF RELATIONS AND RESEARCH OF STRUCTURES

  This study and this research are at the base of any real acquisition of knowledge.

  Structures, the relations thanks to which they are built, can be of different natures or orders. When we pass from a given order of abstraction to another higher one, we pass in fact from a structure of a given size to a vaster structure which contains it and also contains other ones.

  A justified judgement will be based on several observations.

  A theory or an assumption will result from a series of judgements.

One passes thus from a generalization to a broader generalization and from this one, to a still broader generalization.

  The three following mathematical concepts take into consideration general semantics: their set frames the research of increasingly vast and complex structures:

- the propositional function of Bertrand Russel : function which expresses a relation between unspecified variables, function " on standby ".

- the doctrinal function of Cassius J. Keyser : a series of propositional functions related together, usually called premices, with all the consequences which result from them, usually called theorems.

- the system-function : who includes a set of doctrinal functions related together.  

The scaffolding of abstractions and structures which fits to it is, for man, gifted with unlimited possibilities. It is important not to create blocking in stopping atone of the levels instead of going up or to freely descend the scale of the various levels.

  The correct handling of the levels of abstraction, of relations, of structures, allowed the blooming of the exact sciences. Korzybski: one of the main reasons of our human difficulties resides in the fact that the structure of our current language does not fits to the one of the facts as the structure of mathematical language fits to it è defective handling, in everyday life, of these levels and these structures.

  The fruitfulness of the correct handling, being limited more to the only field of exact sciences, allows to align more easily than we did until now our general evolution on our scientific and technical evolution.

 A. Comparison between observations and developments made by a semantician and a non-semantician :

  1) A semantician :

- observes correctly,

- makes an account of his observation in an impersonal way, without ready made opinion.

• The observed events seem: = + : :;
• a new element occurs / /

At this level of observation, nothing can be said : we use arbitrary symbols and not words.

• The observer gives then a description of these events as,A, B, C, D... X
• Then he infers from these descriptions what he estimates he has to or can infer.
• He gets to a conclusion or forms a judgement A related to these facts.
• If the conclusion is correct, the action which will follow , A', will be adapted to the situation.

2) The non-semantician :

* Is unaware of all the structures, orders of abstraction, conscience of abstracting and semantic reactions; he usually confuses orders of abstraction, identifies them, uses the language of inference for his descriptions, etc...

* He observes the same elements:= + : :, plus the event / /

* He describes these events as A, B, C, D.

* From these descriptions, he builds up a judgement and/or comes to a conclusion B, i.e. he jumps to another order of abstraction.

  * When the new event / / appears, he approaches it with he ready-made opinion, B.

* His description of the facts seems A, B, C, D... B(x) = y. This new judgement, C: semantic error.

  The basic events are the same ones. An unconscious identification of the various levels of abstraction involves a different conclusion from the one of the ideal observer.

By confusing the levels of abstraction:

• one attaches to new situations labels which are not appropriate to them,
• one wrongfully explains them,
• one faces them in an unsuited way.

a) Approaches each experiment with an open and careful mind.

• Differs his reaction and takes time to examine what occurs.
• Knows that each experiment is a new event.
• Knows that, whaterver care he will take to examine it, certain aspects, certain characteristic of this experiment will escape to him.
• Does not forget the role of his personal coefficient.
• Remembers that each experiment involves the totality of his psycho-somatic organization.

b) Verbal communication:

• Can listen: tries to understand the best he can the meaning his interlocutor endeavours to give to his words.
• Avoids reacting to words as to signals, remembers that they are only symbols.
• Before giving an opinion, agreeing or contradicting, he seeks to know more about quality, compared to the ground, of the cause which is presented to him.
• Asks the question :"What do you mean? " each time that it appears necessary to him.

c) Description of the experiment:

• Tries to do it with a honesty comparable with the one of a man of science.
• Does not want to be unaware of any the data which he can see and avoids describing them in deforming or tendentious way.

Knowing:

* that information is never absolutely complete,

* that it is possible to see the things differently, he beguins his reports by " As far as I know ".

he recognizes that the data appear to him under such or such angle.

d) Classification:

- it is necessary:

* to the development of a sight structural of the world,

* to an economical handling of knowledge.

- it allows savings time and effort,

- it facilitates the communication between men of knowledge.

While classifying, the semantician:

- proceeds in order not to retract the differences to the benefit of the common features.

* the term used show common features,

* the use of the index points out the differences,

* the index, the chains of index, make it possible to note the space-time differences.

* the " etc... " is not forgotten.

- Appreciates the data in terms of degrees, of nuances.

- The expression " up to a certain point " is often used.

  - When he classifies, measures, evaluates, he takes in account the fact he often uses conventionally established standard, thus often arbitrarily.

- The formulations based on these standard appear convenient to him; he minds not to identify them:

* to the events he lives,

* to the direct observation of them.

- Studying the elements of lived data and looking for the relations which bind them, a semantician is aware :

• that he is in the presence of dynamic configurations the elements of which change or the place, role, behavior of which can change. These changes have effects on other elements of a given set and involve for them modifications which, in their turn, will have repercussions, etc...
• of the principle of non-additivity :

2 people together, another arrives, the situation is changed.

  E) Judgements:

He is attentive to the influences of:

- memories of events lived previously which sensitized him

- standards of the culture within which he lives; he can choose to respect them or to question them.

- of his knowledge or ignorances,

- limits of his perceptions, observations, informations,

- emotional reactions related nor so much to the event itself as to associations of ideas that it involves by occurring,

- of his emotional, aesthetic preferences, ethical, metaphysics, his personal " philosophy ", his interests...

- of his silent postulates and his motivations.

  In the formulation of his judgements, the level at which he speaks allows only probabilities.

He avoids to decide on the basis:

* of opposed categories,

* of a small number of values.

  F) Theories:

He builds them starting from the judgements, inferences, deductions.

Once the theory is built,

* he criticizes it,

* confronts it with the facts,

* searches for characteristics left aside,

* puts it to the trial of the experiment.

  In brief, the semantician observes:

• a non-elementalist attitude,
• a extensionnel orientation,
• conscience of abstracting.

  a) Do not lead his existence according to the facts; he is led by his mythology:

  - ideal image of himself,

- " " of his surrounding,

- " " of his role or his action,

- ideas and concepts being the product of incorrect processes of abstraction due to himself or to the society which he lives in.

  b) When he is unaware of a fact, he tries to direct the interpretation of it to avoid or reduce the conflict which can emerge between his conscience and this fact, if he considers it unfavourable with his psychological security, his vanity, his interests, his preconceived ideas, his emotional preferences, etc...

If he considers it unfavourable with these elements, interpretation will be tendentious in opposite direction.

c) He is influenced by factors which, in our culture, allow and encourage the intellectual idleness:

- ready-made ideas,

- assertions instead of demonstrations,

- call for suggestion of the individuals rather than for their reason,

- call for various " authorities ".

d) Little examination and personal thinking :

- he prefers pre-established diagrams,

- he bases his behaviour and opinions on what is said, not on what occurs.

E) In a discussion, he listens little:

- he prepares his answer and seeks means to contradict,

- he changes the meanings of the words, mistakes on their direction, attributes to other people speaches and intentions which are not theirs,

- he reacts to the words as to signals, lets himself be led by them,

makes decisions immediately,

- he has an opinion on everything, judge the whole according to the part, selects and overgeneralizes arbitrarily,

  - his prejudices, emotional preferences, his motivations distorts the levels where he speaks (judgements, deductions, options, etc...) and make him mix them.

- he often has a ready made opinion once for all, does not take account of the changes, the evolutions.

- he admits little criticism,

- he likes to cut short, reasons by oppositions,

- he sees, in an opinion different from his, a false opinion.

F) He does not build a theory according to the facts but according to prejudices or emotional preferences.

________

  Principles of general semantics :

- relation between the observer and observed object

- non-identification,

- concept of a space-time universe subjected to ceaseless changes and which can only be apprehended:

* by seeking its structures,

* while placing oneself from the point of view of probability and uncertainty,

- distinction between the verbal levels and the non-verbal levels,

- silences at the objective levels and delayed reaction,

- conscience of abstracting,

- non-elementalism,

- extensionnel orientation,

- self-reflexivity,

- multi-ordinality of the terms of vocabulary.

  General semantics sees man as a whole. It allows " to put order inwardly to decrease inner confusion.

The brain was formed during a long evolution. From this evolutionary point of view, all the parts of the brain do not have the same age: the areas of thalamus are older than those of the cortex.

- through the thalamus we experienced directly what we live, peceive emotions and certain reactions arise in us.

  - the cortex is, inter alia, the location of language, the tool of the thinking, etc...

When we react to symbols as to signals, we do not give time to the nerve impulses to go to the cortex, we do not let it interfere in the choice of the answer: it " is shorted-circuit ". Through the delayed reaction, we give time to the cortex to intefere, we increase the role of the cortex on our behaviors.

Distinction of the levels of abstraction helps us to deal with certain emotions: we can be in a situation which, indeed, threatens us and scares us. This fear rising from an experiment lived at the moment is a primary fear : it excites glands which will produce chemical substances enabling us to react by one of the two conduits of survival: fight or escape.

We can feel a secondary fear which is a " fear of the fear " (fear of suffering, discomfort, etc...). If we manage to overcome the secondary fear, we change the situation in bringing the danger, discomfort, etc..., back to its real dimensions.

The distinction between primary and secondaries feelings and emotions helps us to order and structure our psychological attitudes.

______________

Back to the menu