Making a Difference: General Semantics and Sanity

“Everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it.” That was a common phrase in my youth. It's rarely said quite the same way, but lately, it seems that everyone complains about violent overreactions, apathetic complacency, boundless greed, needless war, and many, many, other kinds of human insanity. Yet, no one does anything about it. Well, here's something we can do to make a difference. It's not a magic bullet, and it won't solve every problem in the world, but it can make a difference; a big difference, I think.

I'm talking about General Semantics (GS). Please wait! Before you shut me out and go away, notice that this is not the same thing as “semantics.” Semantics argues over the exact meaning of words. Semantics is about definitions and language. GS is about symbolizing our thoughts and psychology. Semantics is often pedantic. GS matters. The only relationship between them is meaning; both subjects are about meaning.

We often speak emotionally, or habitually, or just plain carelessly. GS posits that while this may be the result of sloppy thinking, it is just as much a cause of sloppy thinking. According to GS, as we learn to speak in terms of approximates and generalizations for the sake of convenience, we actually learn to think that way as well. Essentially, we program ourselves.

Alfred Korzybski, who founded this subject in the early 1930s, proposed that the words we speak, if we speak them often, actually create neural circuits in the brain such that we respond automatically -- habitually. In other words, we often react habitually, without thinking or at least without careful thinking. We repeat what we said and thought yesterday, rather than looking at facts, and seeing situations as they are today.

For example, in haste we say things like. “Joe is sick.” Compare that to saying, “Joe has an illness.” The first statement is permanent and unchangeable. The second statement allows for the possibility that Joe might not always have an illness. GS says this difference really matters -- it's not just “semantics.” Even though we insist we don't really mean that Joe is permanently sick, saying it that way actually affects our thinking -- and our actions. Need I mention that it can affect Joe as well?

From habit, we say, “The sun rose this morning.” If we actually think about it at all, we keep in mind that the Sun didn't rise, the Earth revolved. However, if we just toss out the sentence, “The Sun rose this morning,” without significant attention, then we create or reinforce a neural circuit in our brain-mind that's false. GS suggests that this affects our thinking, too, whether we intend it or not.

We generalize. We stereotype, we group, and we classify. That's useful and convenient in the sense of mapping things, but it's vital to keep in mind that “the map is not the territory.” Specific individuals and events are unique, and don't necessarily conform to a classification. For instance, we might say something like, “Homeless people are irresponsible.” That's just a “map,” and a rather poorly drawn one at that. It may or may not apply to a particular situation. It's just as false as the “map” (thought pattern) of the sun rising every day, but it's much more harmful in that it prevents us from seeing an individual person as who s/he is.

At it's worst, a specific “homeless person,” hearing the generalization, might take it in as a true representation of herself. S/he thinks of herself as being irresponsible, whether true, or not; or perhaps s/he thinks s/he is irresponsible when the truth might be that she did something irresponsible in the past. My experience tells me that we mis-identify -- saying is rather than has or did -- hundreds of times a day, and that, I think, contributes a lot to insanity.

Let me emphasize that our thought patterns go beyond talking. They often lead to actions -- actions that cause hurt and harm -- actions that tend to perpetuate our sloppy thinking. In other words, talking irresponsibly often actually leads to acting irresponsibly. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. We say something is so, and because we say it often enough, it becomes true. The effect is not one-time. Sloppy speaking, especially when it contains emotion, often percolates through society like a disease, and becomes a “meme” with a life of its own, so to speak.

So, it's vitally important, I think, to be aware of our words and their meanings as we speak them. The more we can learn to speak carefully; to say what we mean, and mean what we say, the more we can break the patterns of insanity in ourselves and in our society.

When I first read about these ideas in Korzybski's book, Science and Sanity, I thought they were exaggerated. So, I tried an experiment on myself. I noticed that I said things like, “my friend,” “my wife,” or “my children.” Did I own these people? Of course not! I didn't mean that I “owned” them, and I was sure everyone knew what I really meant. I thought it was just a way of expressing a social relationship. But that made it a good example to test the GS theory.

So, I decided to stop saying the word “my” in relation to people to see whether it made any difference. When I caught myself saying, “my friend, Joe,” I made myself say, “Joe.” Instead of saying “my children,” I'd say “John and Jane” (not real names, by the way). I tried this for several weeks. I noticed how hard it was to be aware. I'm sure I slipped a lot, especially in the beginning. Still, to my own surprise, at the end of about three weeks, I noticed that I actually did think of them differently. I found myself acting more respectfully toward them; I paid more attention to things they said and did. I “permitted” them more rights to have their own ideas and opinions. Note that I “permitted” them! Yikes! I really had been acting as if I “owned” them! It was extremely eye-opening.

Ever since then, I've tried to speak precisely. When giving an opinion, I try to say, “It seems to me,” or “I think,” or something to indicate that your view may differ from mine. When I don't know, I try to say so. I try to keep in mind that everything changes. Everything is different from everything else. Everything! Classes and generalizations are just maps, and when I use them, I try to make them as accurate as possible.

Time passes. The “me” of this exact instant is different from the “me” that was a minute ago; not to mention the me I was 20 years ago. This spring is different from last spring: the Earth, the Sun, the entire Solar System has moved a long way in space since last year. Every single particle in the universe is moving relative to every single other particle. Anything I say that seems true to me today, might seem different tomorrow. I do sometimes slip up and say things like, “So-and-so is a jerk,” but I try to follow it up with something to say that the condition might change, or could change, in the future.

There's a down side to this, though. As a society, especially as a television-viewing society, an internet-surfing society. an instant-gratification society, we seem to mete out attention in sound-bite increments. We are literally inundated with information -- much of it filled with memes and sloppy speech. It's too much to process with care. We also seem to enjoy emotional stimulation. It “grabs” our attention. One result of this inundation without adequate attention is that we get lots of “programmed” neural circuits just through mundane daily activities.

In conversation, I've found that if I pause to gather my thoughts and formulate my words -- often while fighting off internal emotional pressures -- my audience loses interest before I finish speaking. Sometimes that happens while I'm still formulating my words; even before I begin speaking. My hesitation is sometimes interpreted as an unwillingness to speak, or as a criticism of what's been said, and I am sometimes perceived as being aloof or indifferent. It gets frustrating at times.

I'd like to lobby for a social change. I think a big part of improving sanity is going to require slowing down, and waiting for replies in conversation. We need to care, not only about what we say, but about what others say. As we take time for ourselves to think before responding, and to overcome habitual and emotional responses, we need to allow others to do the same.

That doesn't have to ruin the “fun” at social gatherings. It can be a different kind of fun. What's the point, after all, of idle prattling, either in person or on the internet? Really seeing each other, and really caring about what the other person thinks and says, can bring real communication as opposed to social banter. Think about it for a minute: it would make the world a truly different place -- and a better one, in my opinion!

One final thought for this post: we can never achieve perfect precision with our words. If we try to do that, we'll never speak at all. We need to remind ourselves that words are only symbols. Words only represent things; they aren't the actual things. They can never fully describe reality. I think we need to care about what we say. We need to speak as accurately as possible, but avoid getting overly pedantic in the process.

Emotion is valuable, too; extremely valuable! It just needs to be recognized for what it is. Emotion is not fact, and doesn't contribute much that's useful to decision-making. Still, emotions are vitally important. Speaking them and speaking about them is factual in the sense that it's absolutely the truth about how someone is feeling at one specific instant in time, and in relation to one specific set of circumstances. Celebrate it that way. Feel it together. Share it! Emotions are communications worthy of our attention, too.

GS has additional techniques that can help us toward integrity, and sanity. You can find out more by looking up General Semantics on the web. You can read Science and Sanity and Manhood into Humanity by Alfred Korzybski. Those books are highly technical, and make for rather difficult reading, though. As a really good introduction, I strongly recommend a 2-volume science fiction series called The World of Null-A and The Players of Null-A by A. E. Van Vogt. They are fun to read, and they also explain a lot about GS.

GS is something to think about. It gives us tools and something to do with them. It's a lot better than just complaining. I think it matters, and I hope you find it helpful, too..