The harlot meets the general.

The harlot meets the general. ONE DAY, a close friend of mine began speaking of generalsemantics gen��er��al semantics?n. (used with a sing. verb)A discipline developed by Alfred Korzybski that proposes to improve human behavioral responses through a more critical use of words and symbols. , a discipline with which I was not acquainted. The argumentsof its proponents sounded very familiar to me, even though I hadn'theard them expressed in quite that way before. "The map is not theterritory." Yes, yes, quite true. "The word is not thething." Yes, true again. "Language depicts the world asstatic, but this depiction is an illusion." Yes, indeed this is thecase. I wondered if any of these people had heard of rhetoric orrhetorical theory. I wondered if any of them had read Aristotle. Apparently, some of them had read Aristotle. In fact, AlfredKorzybski Noun 1. Alfred Korzybski - United States semanticist (born in Poland) (1879-1950)Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski, Korzybski , one of their most prominent theorists, had created anexplicitly non-Aristotelian theory in response to what he identified asthe Aristotelian understanding of language. I was surprised. I wanted toargue. I asked for books. I now offer these observations. The concerns of general semanticists seem to me quite similar tothose of rhetorical theorists. By rhetorical theorists I do not meanthose people who analyze public speeches in order to assesseffectiveness or style. I mean those scholars who contemplate the natureand processes of language and language-users, especially language withsuasory impact. This similarity is not only noticeable in content. Forexample, what Postman POSTMAN, Eng. law. A barrister in the court of exchequer, who has precedence in: motions. said about the scope and status of generalsemantics, also could be easily said about rhetoric: It is simply too broad in its scope to be contained within a single discipline, for it is part philosophy, part epistemology, part psychology, part linguistics, and several other 'parts,' all of which taken together comprise the university curriculum. In a world of specialists, general semantics appears too diffuse, too divergent, too holistic to suit the modern style of academic thought. In a word, to study and teach it is not likely to further one's chances for tenure" (Postman, 2003-2004, p. 361). As the "harlot of the arts" and as a study and practiceassociated with "generalists," rhetoric is no stranger toinstitutional ostracism ostracism(ŏs`trəsĭz'əm), ancient Athenian method of banishing a public figure. It was introduced after the fall of the family of Pisistratus. . In fact, it may have been rhetoric'slowly low��ly?adj. low��li��er, low��li��est1. Having or suited for a low rank or position.2. Humble or meek in manner.3. Plain or prosaic in nature.adv.1. , abject institutional status that allowed rhetoric and generalsemantics to pass each other like intellectual ships in the night. During the heyday hey��day?n.The period of greatest popularity, success, or power; prime.[Perhaps alteration of heyda, exclamation of pleasure, probably alteration of Middle English hey, hey. of general semantics, rhetorical theory "assuch" was not yet well defined. Most rhetorical scholars of the1940s (with a few important exceptions) practiced neo-Aristoteliancriticism (a derivative method based on Aristotle's Rhetoric anddesigned for the analysis of public address). Many of these scholarswere more aligned with teachers of English than they were with otherforms of communication studies. Nevertheless, rhetorical theory as wenow know it and general semantics have much in common, and I claim thisis true even when rhetorical theory traces its roots back to Aristotle.That is, I want to argue that Aristotle himself may be partly alignedwith the non-Aristotelianism developed by general semanticists. General semantics is, in general, not impressed by Aristotle'scontributions to language theory. Korzybski and others are critical bothof Aristotle's understanding of language in combination with othertheories and what it has become over time. But Korzybski's accountof Aristotle's understanding of language suffers from a significantflaw--it is drawn from Aristotle's Organon or��ga��nonor or��ga��numn. pl. or��ga��nons or or��ga��nums or or��ga��na1. An organ.2. A set of principles for use in scientific investigation.organonpl. organa [Gr.] organ. and not fromAristotle's Rhetoric. Aristotle's Rhetoric is a difficult work, drawn from differenthandwritten hand��write?tr.v. hand��wrote , hand��writ��ten , hand��writ��ing, hand��writesTo write by hand.[Back-formation from handwritten.]Adj. 1. copies made in the Middle Ages that do not always agree. Itscompressed style is difficult to translate and the fact that parts of itseem to have been written at different times makes it occasionallyinconsistent and so difficult to organize. During the rise of generalsemantics, the Rhetoric itself had been translated into English in threeversions: W. Rhys Roberts (1924), Lane Cooper (1932), and J. H. Freese(1926), but "all three were made at a time when the subject ofrhetoric was distrusted in academic circles and readers were unfamiliarwith its technical vocabulary" (Kennedy, 1991 p. xi). Translators This is primarily a list of notable Western translators. Please feel free to add translators from other languages, cultures and areas of specialization. Large sublists have been split off to separate articles. often paraphrased or avoided technical terms to make the text easier toread, which undermined its significance as theory. It is possible thatKorzybski and his peers in mathematics and engineering never encounteredthe Rhetoric. If they had, they might have told a somewhat differentstory about Aristotle's understanding of language. Korzybski critiques Aristotelian "laws of thought" as ifthey had been presented as laws of language. But in the Organon,Aristotle presents "laws of thought" as laws of logic. It isin the Rhetoric that Aristotle articulates his understanding of speechand language. Specifically, the Rhetoric is where Aristotle definesrhetoric as "the art/faculty/ability, in each particular case, tosee the available means of persuasion A means of persuasion, in some theories of politics and economics, can substitute for a factor of production by providing some influence or information. This may be of direct value to the actor accepting the influence, i.e. " (p. 36). This definitionrecognizes rhetoric as both a method and a practical art, a counterpartor antistrophos to dialectic dialectic(dīəlĕk`tĭk)[Gr.,= art of conversation], in philosophy, term originally applied to the method of philosophizing by means of question and answer employed by certain ancient philosophers, notably Socrates. (a method of philosophical disputation thatalso has no subject matter proper), and as concerned with issues ofphilosophy, government, history, ethics, literature, psychology, andstyle. More than simply intentionally persuasive speech,Aristotle's definition of rhetoric brings to the foreground foreground - (Unix) On a time-sharing system, a task executing in foreground is one able to accept input from and return output to the user in contrast to one running in the background. theability of "seeing" available means of persuasion (notnecessarily of using them), and his definition of persuasion PERSUASION. The act of influencing by expostulation or request. While the persuasion is confined within those limits which leave the mind free, it may be used to induce another to make his will, or even to make it in his own favor; but if such persuasion should so far operate on the mind , especiallyas it functions in ceremonial speech, is broadly defined. The verbemployed, theoresai translates as "to be an observer of and tograsp the meaning of" and is related to the English noun noun[Lat.,=name], in English, part of speech of vast semantic range. It can be used to name a person, place, thing, idea, or time. It generally functions as subject, object, or indirect object of the verb in the sentence, and may be distinguished by a number of "theory" (p. 37). While laws of logic are part of thisdiscussion, they are not the whole story. In fact, laws of logic aremuch more like the mathematics to which Korzybski turned (as analternative and Platonic corrective to what he took as Aristotle'sunderstanding of language in the Organon) than they are like theunderstanding of language and human truth that Aristotle illustrates inhis Rhetoric. One major doctrine of Aristotle's Rhetoric that might haveinterested Korzybski is the enthymeme en��thy��meme?n. LogicA syllogism in which one of the premises or the conclusion is not stated explicitly.[Latin enth . In Science and Sanity Reasonable understanding; sound mind; possessing mental faculties that are capable of distinguishing right from wrong so as to bear legal responsibility for one's actions. SANITY, med. jur. The state of a person who has a sound understanding; the reverse of insanity. , Korzybskisays this of Aristotle's understanding of language, In the A-system the 'universal' proposition (which is usually a propositional function) always implies existence. In A 'logics', when it is said that 'all As are Bs,' it is assumed that there are As. It is obvious that always assuming existence leaves no place for non-existence; and this is why the old statements were supposed to be true or false. In practical life, collections of noises (spell-marks) which look like words, but which are not, are often not suspected of being meaningless, and action based on them may consequently entail unexplicable disaster. In our lives, most of our miseries do not originate in the field where the terms 'true' and 'false' apply, but in the field where they do not apply; namely, in the immense region of propositional functions and meaninglessness, where agreement must fail" (Korzybski, 1994, p.141-142). This characterization of the A-system identifies weaknesses oflogic, but misses what Aristotle says in the Rhetoric about theenthymeme. The enthymeme, also known as the rhetorical syllogism syllogism,a mode of argument that forms the core of the body of Western logical thought. Aristotle defined syllogistic logic, and his formulations were thought to be the final word in logic; they underwent only minor revisions in the subsequent 2,200 years. , issimilar to a logical syllogism but is based on probabilities and oftenleaves one or more of its premises or part of its logical chain ofreasoning unstated or assumed. As Aristotle puts it, Since few of the premises from which rhetorical syllogisms are formed are necessarily true (most of the matters with which judgment and examination are concerned can be other than they are; for people deliberate and examine what they are doing, and [human] actions are all of this kind, and none of them [are], so to speak, necessary) and since things that happen for the most part and are possible can only be reasoned on the basis of other such things, and necessary actions [only] from necessities (and this is clear to us also from the Analytics), it is evident that [the premises] from which enthymemes are spoken are sometimes necessarily true but mostly true [only] for the most part (Kennedy, 1991, p. 42-43). Instead of claiming that language use occurs or should occur in therealm of logical certainty, Aristotle describes how speakers andaudiences use probabilities to make most of their arguments. He alsoexplains why speakers need to shorten chains of reasoning for popularaudiences and why, in human affairs, we cannot avoid sometimes having todraw inferences from likely truths and potentially fallible fal��li��ble?adj.1. Capable of making an error: Humans are only fallible.2. Tending or likely to be erroneous: fallible hypotheses. signs. Inmaking these arguments, the Aristotle of the Rhetoric resembles thescientists who Korzybski praises for recognizing the fantasy ofpermanence Permanencelaw of the Medes and PersiansDarius’s execution ordinance; an immutable law. [O.T.: Daniel 6:8–9]leopard’s spotsthere always, as evilness with evil men. [O.T.: Jeremiah 13:23; Br. Lit. offered to us in and through language by which we are soeasily seduced. The Aristotle of the Rhetoric is also thoroughly practical. This iswhy the A[ristotelian] system logic is still in some way necessary, notas Korzybski interprets it, but in a simpler sense. The Aristoteliansystem logic includes the following three laws The Three Laws may refer to: Three Laws of Robotics, written by Isaac Asimov Three Laws of Robotic Sexuality, parodies Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics : the Law of Identity:whatever is, is, the Law of Contradiction: nothing can both be and notbe, and the Law of the Excluded Middle: everything must either be or notbe (Korzybski, 1994, p. 404). Abiding a��bid��ing?adj.Lasting for a long time; enduring: an abiding love of music.a��biding��ly adv. by this logic is necessary, atleast to some extent, before communication is even possible. It is partof the tacit agreement we take for granted whenever we write, intendingto be read, and whenever we speak, intending to be heard and perhapseven understood. Even Korzybski relies on this logic when he trusts thatwhat he writes is something at least remotely like what we will read. Other topics discussed in Aristotle's Rhetoric includeartistic and inartistic proofs; common topics; types of speech; specialtopics related to types of speech; the psychology of emotion inaudiences; the significance of displaying good character in one'sspeech; the use of metaphor, narrative, and maxims; and other matters. Icould go on and on about the virtues of the Rhetoric offering furtherarguments in defense of Aristotle and showing how his understanding oflanguage is more nuanced and sophisticated than what general semanticshas taken it to be, but I won't. To be honest, I was never much forhis scientism sci��en��tism?n.1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists.2. The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry. (which Korzybski calls vicious -1994, p. 638). LikeKorzybski, I prefer Plato, but not because of his relationship withmathematics. I prefer Plato because of the Phaedrus with its morehopeful and conscience-building rhetorical message. In this laterdialogue of Plato's, Socrates is enticed beyond the city walls by afriend, to engage in both dialectic and rhetoric and contemplate theirvirtues. In doing so, they not only make arguments, they discover sharedvalues and affinities. Such has been the case for me in this experience.In my friend I recognized an affinity toward general semantics. Perhapsnow you will notice at least a slight affinity toward rhetoric. Works Cited Aristotle, (1991) On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse,Kennedy, George A., Trans. (New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : Oxford University Press, 1991). Korzybski, Alfred. Science and Sanity: An Introduction toNon-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. (Lakeville, Connecticut:International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company, Institute ofGeneral Semantics The Institute of General Semantics is a not-for-profit corporation established in 1938 by Alfred Korzybski, located in Fort Worth, Texas. Its membership roles include members from 30 different countries. . 1994 [1933]). Postman, Neil. "Alfred Korzybski," Etc: A Review ofGeneral semantics, 60 (4), 2003-2004. pp. 354-361. * Valerie V. Peterson is an associate professor at Grand ValleyState University, Allendale MI, and has published scholarly articles onthe rhetorical criticism Rhetorical criticism is an approach to criticism which is at least as old as Aristotle. Rhetorical criticism studies the use of words and phrases (in the case of visual rhetoric, also visuals) to explicate how arguments have been built to drive home a certain point the author or of visuals, the use of subject position inargumentation, metaphors and communication theory, the rhetoric of sexmanuals, ancient Greek Noun 1. Ancient Greek - the Greek language prior to the Roman EmpireGreek, Hellenic, Hellenic language - the Hellenic branch of the Indo-European family of languages sophistic so��phis��tic? or so��phis��ti��caladj.1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of sophists.2. Apparently sound but really fallacious; specious: sophistic refutations. modes of thinking, popular culture, andpedagogy.