Korzybski fits into a larger intellectual pattern since the Enlightenment, where smart people think that human affairs have gotten disordered somehow.The intellectual reformer believes he can diagnose the problem, find a solution by arguing from plausible first principles, and then get humanity back on a normative path. Just think of Robert Owen, Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard, Buckminster Fuller, Timothy Leary, etc.
Basically these intellectuals think teleologically, and they assume that humans should have instruction manuals that intellectuals can deduce and make explicit so that humans can fulfill their proper “purpose,” whatever that means. Considering that all of the attempts at writing these implicit manuals disagree on fundamental matters, perhaps we should just reject the assumption and acknowledge that we evolved as kludges with conflicting and ill-fitting components, which don’t allow for the inferencing of a coherent instruction manual.
You mention the Enlightenment, (although it’s a strange Enlightenment that includes both Marx and Rand), so I guess that you are intending a contrast with neoreaction. But your template fits NRx just as well: things have gotten disordered somehow, the intellectual reformer believes etc. They disagree on why things have gotten disordered and on what the cure is.
For NRxers, it is because we have fallen away from the wisdom of the past when Men knew better. The cure is to re-establish the wisdom of the past, for Man Now to live as Man did Then.
For Korzybski, it is because we have always muddled through things with inadequate forms of thought — to borrow your words, “evolved as kludges with conflicting and ill-fitting components”. But (says K) increasing scientific knowledge, technological power and density of life have made this untenable. If Man Now continues to live as Man did Then, we will destroy ourselves. The cure is to use that knowledge to discover (not deduce) how Man can think better, and so live better, and establish the wisdom of the future.
That doesn’t mean he thinks that Korzybski was wrong on something.
The fact that people have ideas that other people don’t have doesn’t show that they disagree.
Yes but we can infer from Korzybski not being crazy that if you went and explained L. Ron’s theory of societal ills being caused by invisible aliens called thetans, that Korzybski would disagree—are you really trying to argue that that’s not the case?
The core issue in this debate is whether the core of Korzybski’s ideas is true. advancedatheist argument only works if other people disagree with his core ideas. Especially people who come after Korzybski.
The fact that other people disagree with the concept of thetans can tell you that Ron Hubbert isn’t worthy of attention but it doesn’t tell you something about Korzybski.
invisible aliens called thetans, that Korzybski would disagree
From Korzybskian perspective it doesn’t really matter whether they are called “thetans” or “invisible aliens”. Both seem like irrelevant identity statements.
Having them be named thetans doesn’t give the map a wrong feature but an irrelevant feature.
I’m not sure about Ron Hubbert but he might very well have thought: “Identity doesn’t matter so there no real problem with calling it thetans. If I call them thetans I will sound more profound and revolutionary, so I will call them thetans.”
Alternatively you could think of Ron Hubbert as a person who thinks they got a revelation. If that’s the case he doesn’t fit into the line of enlightenment thinkers.
Here’s what the conversation felt liked from my perspective:
Christian: Please show how L. Ron Hubbard and Korzybski have different views about what causes the ills in society
Matt: L. Ron believes that aliens cause the ills, Korzybski does not. I
Christian: Korzybski would say it doesn’t matter if you call them aliens.
That seems like a very odd response to me. Believing there are aliens that live among us is not just a word, it makes material predictions at the fabric of what’s wrong and how to fix it. It’s a foundational difference in what’s at the core of the problem.
Christian: Please show how L. Ron Hubbard and Korzybski have different views about what causes the ills in society
No, I asked for whether there disagreement between the two. Hubbard said basically that he mixed General Semantics with Cybernetics. Then he added a few of his own ideas.
I’m not aware that he argued that either General Semantics or Cybernetics is wrong. Rather that they are incomplete.
Believing there are aliens that live among us is not just a word, it makes material predictions at the fabric of what’s wrong and how to fix it.
Scientology has certain exercises that supposedly fix the issue. Whether or not those exercises are helpful has little to do with the question of whether it’s aliens.
I think you fail at steelmanning Ron Hubbard and simply go for cheap shots. That’s okay when you simply want to find reasons to not go to scientology but it’s not helpful for understanding the underlying ideas.
In Scientology universe, it is always the irrational part of the mind that causes troubles. However, Scientology is not materialist, so “mind” doesn’t necessarily imply a material brain. It could be a mind of an invisible alien spirit attached to your body.
In Scientology universe (but this is what you only learn at the highest levels, when Hubbard already ran out of anything remotely sane to teach), there are many alien spirits attached to our bodies… because they are brainwashed by giant space brainwashing facilities on the Earth orbit, installed billions of years ago by an evil space emperor Xenu… and the alien spirits irrationally believe that they are identical to us. Then, using the super secret and super expensive Scientology techniques, you can connect telepathically to them, provide them psychotherapy, teach them some basic rationality, and they will understand their errors and leave your body.
So, yeah, on some level it is batshit insane… however, if you could accept the premises of the Scientology universe, where immaterial spirits exist with immaterial minds, and can behave irrationally… then the Scientology exercises kinda would be the rational thing to do.
So, yeah, on some level it is batshit insane… however, if you could accept the premises of the Scientology universe, where immaterial spirits exist with immaterial minds, and can behave irrationally… then the Scientology exercises kinda would be the rational thing to do.
Yes, if you ignore the irrationality, the rest will look rational.
My feeling is that these people are right about some things where the society is wrong, but also wrong plus horribly overconfident about other things.
Maybe it is a curse of being significantly more intelligent than most people around you. Nine times of ten, people around do something obviously stupid. Once, it is you who is stupid about things that most people get approximately right, but you cannot distinguish it from the former case—also you are already stuck in the belief that the other people are always wrong (especially if they don’t have enough verbal skills or academic credentials).
Also, underestimating domain-specific knowledge, and thinking that general intelligence can solve everything even without the relevant data. Not necessarily arguing literally from the “first principles”, but rather having very little and very unrepresentative data (an equivalent of seeing a few youtube videos on the topic today), and believing that this is enough as long as you use a lot of brainpower to extrapolate from these data.
Korzybski fits into a larger intellectual pattern since the Enlightenment, where smart people think that human affairs have gotten disordered somehow.The intellectual reformer believes he can diagnose the problem, find a solution by arguing from plausible first principles, and then get humanity back on a normative path. Just think of Robert Owen, Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard, Buckminster Fuller, Timothy Leary, etc.
Basically these intellectuals think teleologically, and they assume that humans should have instruction manuals that intellectuals can deduce and make explicit so that humans can fulfill their proper “purpose,” whatever that means. Considering that all of the attempts at writing these implicit manuals disagree on fundamental matters, perhaps we should just reject the assumption and acknowledge that we evolved as kludges with conflicting and ill-fitting components, which don’t allow for the inferencing of a coherent instruction manual.
You mention the Enlightenment, (although it’s a strange Enlightenment that includes both Marx and Rand), so I guess that you are intending a contrast with neoreaction. But your template fits NRx just as well: things have gotten disordered somehow, the intellectual reformer believes etc. They disagree on why things have gotten disordered and on what the cure is.
For NRxers, it is because we have fallen away from the wisdom of the past when Men knew better. The cure is to re-establish the wisdom of the past, for Man Now to live as Man did Then.
For Korzybski, it is because we have always muddled through things with inadequate forms of thought — to borrow your words, “evolved as kludges with conflicting and ill-fitting components”. But (says K) increasing scientific knowledge, technological power and density of life have made this untenable. If Man Now continues to live as Man did Then, we will destroy ourselves. The cure is to use that knowledge to discover (not deduce) how Man can think better, and so live better, and establish the wisdom of the future.
Where do you think L. Ron Hubbard, Buckminster Fuller and Timothy Leary have made points that they disagree with Korzybski on fundamental matters?
I mean, L. Ron thinks that aliens cause our troubles...
That doesn’t mean he thinks that Korzybski was wrong on something. The fact that people have ideas that other people don’t have doesn’t show that they disagree.
Yes but we can infer from Korzybski not being crazy that if you went and explained L. Ron’s theory of societal ills being caused by invisible aliens called thetans, that Korzybski would disagree—are you really trying to argue that that’s not the case?
The core issue in this debate is whether the core of Korzybski’s ideas is true. advancedatheist argument only works if other people disagree with his core ideas. Especially people who come after Korzybski.
The fact that other people disagree with the concept of thetans can tell you that Ron Hubbert isn’t worthy of attention but it doesn’t tell you something about Korzybski.
From Korzybskian perspective it doesn’t really matter whether they are called “thetans” or “invisible aliens”. Both seem like irrelevant identity statements. Having them be named thetans doesn’t give the map a wrong feature but an irrelevant feature.
I’m not sure about Ron Hubbert but he might very well have thought: “Identity doesn’t matter so there no real problem with calling it thetans. If I call them thetans I will sound more profound and revolutionary, so I will call them thetans.”
Alternatively you could think of Ron Hubbert as a person who thinks they got a revelation. If that’s the case he doesn’t fit into the line of enlightenment thinkers.
Here’s what the conversation felt liked from my perspective:
Christian: Please show how L. Ron Hubbard and Korzybski have different views about what causes the ills in society
Matt: L. Ron believes that aliens cause the ills, Korzybski does not. I
Christian: Korzybski would say it doesn’t matter if you call them aliens.
That seems like a very odd response to me. Believing there are aliens that live among us is not just a word, it makes material predictions at the fabric of what’s wrong and how to fix it. It’s a foundational difference in what’s at the core of the problem.
No, I asked for whether there disagreement between the two. Hubbard said basically that he mixed General Semantics with Cybernetics. Then he added a few of his own ideas. I’m not aware that he argued that either General Semantics or Cybernetics is wrong. Rather that they are incomplete.
Scientology has certain exercises that supposedly fix the issue. Whether or not those exercises are helpful has little to do with the question of whether it’s aliens.
Lukeprog reported that he got a lot of value from those exercises: http://lesswrong.com/lw/58m/build_small_skills_in_the_right_order/
I think you fail at steelmanning Ron Hubbard and simply go for cheap shots. That’s okay when you simply want to find reasons to not go to scientology but it’s not helpful for understanding the underlying ideas.
In Scientology universe, it is always the irrational part of the mind that causes troubles. However, Scientology is not materialist, so “mind” doesn’t necessarily imply a material brain. It could be a mind of an invisible alien spirit attached to your body.
In Scientology universe (but this is what you only learn at the highest levels, when Hubbard already ran out of anything remotely sane to teach), there are many alien spirits attached to our bodies… because they are brainwashed by giant space brainwashing facilities on the Earth orbit, installed billions of years ago by an evil space emperor Xenu… and the alien spirits irrationally believe that they are identical to us. Then, using the super secret and super expensive Scientology techniques, you can connect telepathically to them, provide them psychotherapy, teach them some basic rationality, and they will understand their errors and leave your body.
So, yeah, on some level it is batshit insane… however, if you could accept the premises of the Scientology universe, where immaterial spirits exist with immaterial minds, and can behave irrationally… then the Scientology exercises kinda would be the rational thing to do.
Yes, if you ignore the irrationality, the rest will look rational.
My feeling is that these people are right about some things where the society is wrong, but also wrong plus horribly overconfident about other things.
Maybe it is a curse of being significantly more intelligent than most people around you. Nine times of ten, people around do something obviously stupid. Once, it is you who is stupid about things that most people get approximately right, but you cannot distinguish it from the former case—also you are already stuck in the belief that the other people are always wrong (especially if they don’t have enough verbal skills or academic credentials).
Also, underestimating domain-specific knowledge, and thinking that general intelligence can solve everything even without the relevant data. Not necessarily arguing literally from the “first principles”, but rather having very little and very unrepresentative data (an equivalent of seeing a few youtube videos on the topic today), and believing that this is enough as long as you use a lot of brainpower to extrapolate from these data.