SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search




xxxiv             PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
niques for educational guidance and self-guidance, became imperative. Such a theory, the first to my knowledge, required a modern scientific approach, and this was found in physico-mathematical methods (space-time) and the foundations of mathematics. It originated in 1921 in Manhood of Humanity, was formulated in a methodological outline in my papers in 1924, 1925, and 1926, and in 1933 it culminated in the present volume.
My work was developed entirely independently of 'semantics', 'signifies', 'semiotic', 'semasiology', etc., although I know today and respect the works of the corresponding investigators in those fields, who explicitly state they do not deal with a general theory of values. Those works do not touch my field, and as my work progressed it has become obvious that a theory of 'meaning' is impossible (page xv ff.), and 'signifies', etc., are unworkable. Had I not become acquainted with those accomplishments shortly before publication of this book, I would have labelled my work by another name, but the system would have remained fundamentally unaltered. The original manuscript did not contain the word 'semantics' or 'semantic', but when I had to select some terms, from a time-binding point of view and in consideration of the efforts of others, I introduced the term 'General Semantics' for the modus operandi of this first non-aristotelian system. This seemed appropriate for historical continuity. A theory of evaluation appeared to follow naturally in an evolutionary sense from 1) 'meaning' to 2) 'significance' to 3) evaluation. General Semantics turned out to be an empirical natural science of non-elementalistic evaluation, which takes into account the living individual, not divorcing him from his reactions altogether, nor from his neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic environments, but allocating him in a plenum of some values, no matter what.
The present theory of values involves a clear-cut, workable discipline, limited to its premises, a fact which is often disregarded by some readers and writers. They seem also often unaware of the core of the inherent difficulties in these age-old problems, and the solutions available through changing not the language, but the structure of language, achieved by the habitual use of the extensional devices in our evaluational reactions.
For instance, in Ten Eventful Years, an Encyclopaedia Britannica publication, appears an article on 'Semantics, General Semantics', which considerably increases the current confusions concerning these subjects. It is not even mentioned that 'semantics' is a branch of philology, nor is there any clarifying discrimination made between the noun 'semantics* and the adjective 'semantic'. Moreover it has many misstatements and even falsifications of my work and the work of others, and some statements make no sense. Fortunately there is another popular publication,