Reality Ain't What It Used To Be

[nabraxas]

by Robert Anton Wilson

http://www.gettingit.com/article/266

Bell's Theorem, a mathematical demonstration by physicist John Stewart Bell published in 1964, has become more popular than Tarot cards with New Agers, who think they understand it but generally don't. Meanwhile it remains controversial with physicists, some of whom think they understand it, while others frankly admit they find it as perplexing as a chimpanzee in a Beethoven string quartet.

I attempt to translate Bell's math into the verbal forms in which we discuss what physics "means," Bell seems to prove that any two "particles" once in contact will continue to act as if connected no matter how far apart they move in "space" or "time" (or in space-time). You can see why New Agers like this: It sounds like it supports the old magick idea that if you get a hold of a hair from your enemy, anything you do to that hair will affect him.

Unfortunately, things aren't that simple.

Most physicists think a long series of experiments, especially those of Dr. Alain Aspect and others in the 1970s -- and again by Aspect in 1982 -- have settled the matter. Particles once in contact certainly seem "connected," or correlated, or at least to be dancing in the same ballet. But not all physicists have agreed. Some, the "AntiBellists," still publish criticisms of alleged defects in the experiments. These arguments are too technical to be summarized here, and only a small minority still cling to them, but this dissent needs to be mentioned since most New Agers don't know about it. You can find more about this here (and for general problems associated with Bell's Theorem click here ).

The most daring criticism of Bell comes from Dr. N. David Berman of Columbia, who believes he has refined the possible interpretations of Bell down to two: 1. non-locality ("total rapport") and 2. solipsism. We will explain non-locality below, but Dr. Berman finds it so absurd that he prefers solipsism. ("Is The Moon There When Nobody Looks?" Physics Today, April 1985. Berman says it isn't.)

Among those who accept Bell's Theorem, Dr. David Bohm of the University of London offers three interpretations of what it means: "It may mean that everything in the universe is in a kind of total rapport, so that whatever happens is related to everything else (non-locality); or it may mean that there is some kind of information that can travel faster than the speed of light; or it may mean that our concepts of space and time have to be modified in some way that we don't understand"(London Times, February 20, 1983).

Bohm's first model, "total rapport," also called non-locality, brings us very close -- very, very close -- to Oriental monism: "All is One," as in Vedanta, Buddhism, and Taoism. It also brings us within hailing distance of Jungian synchronicity, an idea that seems "occult" or worse to most scientists -- even if Wolfgang Pauli, a quantum heavyweight and Nobel laureate, once endorsed it. You can see why New Agers like this; it is argued with unction and plausibility in Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics. It means particles are correlated because everything is correlated.

The strongest form of this non-local model is called super-determinism and means that everything is one thing, or at least one process. From the Big Bang to the last word of this sentence and beyond, nothing can be other than it is, since everything is part of a correlated whole. Nobody has openly endorsed this view but several (Stapp, Herbert et al.) have accused others, especially Capra, of unknowingly endorsing it.

Bohm's second alternative, information faster-than-light, brings us into realms previously explored only in science fiction. Bell's particles may be correlated because they are parts of an FTL (faster than light) cosmic Internet. If I can send an FTL message to my grandpa, it might change my whole universe to the extent that I wouldn't be here at all (e.g., he might be so shocked that he wouldn't survive to reproduce.) This must either be rejected as impossible, or else lead to the "parallel universe" model. I'm here in this universe, but in the universe next door the message removed me, so I never sent it there.

Dr. John Archibald Wheeler and Dr. Jack Sarfatti have offered even more radical offshoots of this notion. Dr. Wheeler has proposed that every atomic or sub-atomic experiment we perform changes every particle in the universe everywhichway in time, all the way back to the Big Bang. The universe is in constant creation, as in Sufism, but atomic physicists are its creators.

Dr. Sarfatti is working on the theory of information-without-transportation and hopes to develop an FTL system which will indeed allow me to send an email (or its equivalent) to Julius Caesar with all the paradoxes that might result, producing multiple parallel universes.

Dr. Bohm's third alternative, modification of our ideas of space and time, could lead us anywhere... including back to the Kantian notion that space and time do not exist, but are only human projections, like persistent optical illusions. (Some think Relativity already demonstrates that.) The particles are correlated because they never moved in space or time, because space and time are just "in our heads."

And there are other alternatives. David Harrison suggests that we may have to abandon Aristotelian logic, i.e., give up classifying things into only the two categories of "true and real" and "untrue and unreal." In between, in Aristotle's excluded middle, we may have the "maybe" proposed by von Neumann in 1933, the probabilistic logics (percentages/gambles) suggested by Korzybski, the four-valued logic of Rapoport (true, false, indeterminate and meaningless) or some system we haven't found yet.

Others would rather give up "objectivity" -- the basic pre-Bell axiom that we can describe an external world apart from our experiments or meddlings. Some say this rejection of objectivity was always meant by the Copenhagen Interpretation (invented by Neils Bohr long before Bell appeared, c. 1926 in fact.) Generally, the Copenhagen view is stated as: We can only describe observer-observed interactions; we can never know anything about any hypothetical "observed" without an observer. Sounds like Zen to some, but others fear this is opening the door to Dr. Berman's solipsism and the moon that is only there when we look at it...

Bell's Theorem "means a whole new ball game," physicist Saul Paul Sirag told the present author once. Unfortunately, as we have seen, nobody feels too sure about the rules of the new game.

All we can say for sure is that "reality" ain't what it used to be.

[ 01. February 2005, 08:37: Message edited by: nabraxas ]

[nabraxas]

have another look, except in quote he avoids using the "is" ov identity completely.

this is the guy i advised you to read. try writing a similar length description ov your beliefs in E-Prime

TOWARD UNDERSTANDING E -PRIME

Robert Anton Wilson

E-PRIME, abolishing all forms of the verb "to be," has its roots in the field of general semantics, as presented by Alfred Korzybski in his 1933 book, Science and Sanity. Korzybski pointed out the pitfalls associated with, and produced by, two usages of "to be": identity and predication. His student D. David Bourland, Jr., observed that even linguistically sensitive people do not seem able to avoid identity and predication uses of "to be" if they continue to use the verb at all. Bourland pioneered in demonstrating that one can indeed write and speak without using any form of "to be," calling this subset of the English language "E-Prime." Many have urged the use of E-Prime in writing scientific and technical papers. Dr. Kellogg exemplifies a prime exponent of this activity. Dr. Albert Ellis has rewritten five of his books in E-Prime, in collaboration with Dr. Robert H. Moore, to improve their clarity and to reap the epistemological benefits of this language revision. Korzybski felt that all humans should receive training in general semantics from grade school on, as "semantic hygiene" against the most prevalent forms of logical error, emotional distortion, and "demonological thinking." E-Prime provides a straightforward training technique for acquiring such semantic hygiene.

To understand E-Prime, consider the human brain as a computer. (Note that I did not say the brain "is" a computer.) As the Prime Law of Computers tells us, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT (GIGO, for short). The wrong software guarantees wrong answers. Conversely, finding the right software can "miraculously" solve problems that previously appeared intractable.

It seems likely that the principal software used in the human brain consists of words, metaphors, disguised metaphors, and linguistic structures in general. The Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis, in anthropology, holds that a change in language can alter our perception of the cosmos. A revision of language structure, in particular, can alter the brain as dramatically as a psychedelic. In our metaphor, if we change the software, the computer operates in a new way.

Consider the following paired sets of propositions, in which Standard English alternates with English-Prime (E-Prime):

lA. The electron is a wave.

lB. The electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-l.

2A. The electron is a particle.

2B. The electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2.

3A. John is lethargic and unhappy.

3B. John appears lethargic and unhappy in the office.

4A. John is bright and cheerful.

4B. John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.

5A. This is the knife the first man used to stab the second man.

5B. The first man appeared to stab the second man with what looked like a knife to me.

6A. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford.

6B. In memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford.

7A. This is a fascist idea.

7B. This seems like a fascist idea to me.

8A. Beethoven is better than Mozart.

8B. In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance, Beethoven seems better to me than Mozart.

9A. That is a sexist movie.

9B. That seems like a sexist movie to me.

10A. The fetus is a person.

10B. In my system of metaphysics, I classify the fetus as a person.

The "A"-type statements (Standard English) all implicitly or explicitly assume the medieval view called "Aristotelian essentialism" or "naive realism." In other words, they assume a world made up of block-like entities with indwelling "essences" or spooks- "ghosts in the machine." The "B"-type statements (E-Prime) recast these sentences into a form isomorphic to modern science by first abolishing the "is" of Aristotelian essence and then reformulating each observation in terms of signals received and interpreted by a body (or instrument) moving in space-time.

Relativity, quantum mechanics, large sections of general physics, perception psychology, sociology, linguistics, modern math, anthropology, ethology, and several other sciences make perfect sense when put into the software of E-Prime. Each of these sciences generates paradoxes, some bordering on "nonsense" or "gibberish," if you try to translate them back into the software of Standard English.

Concretely, "The electron is a wave" employs the Aristotelian "is" and thereby introduces us to the false-to-experience notion that we can know the indwelling "essence" of the electron. "The electron appears as a wave when measured by instrument-1" reports what actually occurred in space-time, namely that the electron when constrained by a certain instrument behaved in a certain way.

Similarly, "The electron is a particle" contains medieval Aristotelian software, but "The electron appears as a particle when measured by instrument-2" contains modern scientific software. Once again, the software determines whether we impose a medieval or modern grid upon our reality-tunnel.

Note that "the electron is a wave" and "the electron is a particle" contradict each other and begin the insidious process by which we move gradually from paradox to nonsense to total gibberish. On the other hand, the modern scientific statements "the electron appears as a wave when measured one way" and "the electron appears as a particle measured another way" do not contradict, but rather complement each other. (Bohr's Principle of Complementarity, which explained this and revolutionized physics, would have appeared obvious to all, and not just to a person of his genius, if physicists had written in E-Prime all along. . . .)

Looking at our next pair, "John is lethargic and unhappy" vs. "John is bright and cheerful,' we see again how medieval software creates metaphysical puzzles and totally imaginary contradictions. Operationalizing the statements, as physicists since Bohr have learned to operationalize, we find that the E-Prime translations do not contain any contradiction, and even give us a clue as to causes of John's changing moods. (Look back if you forgot the translations.)

"The first man stabbed the second man with a knife" lacks the overt "is" of identity but contains Aristotelian software nonetheless. The E-Prime translation not only operationalizes the data, but may fit the facts better-if the incident occurred in a psychology class, which often conduct this experiment. (The first man "stabs," or makes stabbing gestures at, the second man, with a banana, but many students, conditioned by Aristotelian software, nonetheless "see" a knife. You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.)

The reader may employ his or her own ingenuity in analyzing how "is-ness" creates false-to-facts reality-tunnels in the remaining examples, and how E-Prime brings us back to the scientific, the operational, the existential, the phenomenological--to what humans and their instruments actually do in space-time as they create observations, perceptions, thoughts, deductions, and General Theories.

I have found repeatedly that when baffled by a problem in science, in "philosophy," or in daily life, I gain immediate insight by writing down what I know about the enigma in strict E-Prime. Often, solutions appear immediately-just as happens when you throw out the "wrong" software and put the "right" software into your PC. In other cases, I at least get an insight into why the problem remains intractable and where and how future science might go about finding an answer. (This has contributed greatly to my ever-escalating agnosticism about the political, ideological, and religious issues that still generate the most passion on this primitive planet.)

When a proposition resists all efforts to recast it in a form consistent with what we now call E-Prime, many consider it "meaningless." Korzybski, Wittgenstein, the Logical Positivists, and (in his own way) Niels Bohr promoted this view. I happen to agree with that verdict (which condemns 99 percent of theology and 99.999999 percent of metaphysics to the category of Noise rather than Meaning)--but we must save that subject for another article. For now, it suffices to note that those who fervently believe such Aristotelian propositions as "A piece of bread, blessed by a priest, is a person (who died two thousand years ago)," "The flag is a living being," or "The fetus is a human being" do not, in general, appear to make sense by normal twentieth-century scientific standards.

[Jesus On Peyote]

Riiiiiiiiight

[Thelema]

Go Nab! I honestly believe that inessentialism is philosophy's greatest gift to the 20th century.

It's really a pity that most people cant enter into such a dialogue and engage meaningfully with it.

We've become all to "dephilosophied" IMHO.

[nabraxas]

errr...cheers Thelema?

you've mentioned before your exasperation w/the "dephilosophication" ov society.

we were taught basic philosophy (plato, socrates etc.) as part ov "general studdies" at high schol.

i don't think that happens too much these days.

anyway if you liked that piece, here's a review ov a book i'm hoping to get soon

the book at amazon

"If you see in any given situation only what everybody else can see, you can be said to be so much a representative of your culture that you are a victim of it."

S. I. Hayakawa

"(originally posted on 8/17/03, link fixed on 11/17/03) I found this book in a roundabout way. In Conscientious Objections, Neal Postman reviewed the book Science and Sanity, by Alfred Korzybski, calling it one of the most important books of the last century. Korzybski developed the field of general semantics, a system of thinking about language and thought. I was going to get it, but was a bit intimidated by the reviews at Amazon, many of which recommended Hayakawa's book as an easier to read introduction to the field. So I got this book instead.

It's amazing. It codifies a lot of my personal philosophy and attitudes in a more coherent manner. In particular, it focuses on several cognitive mistakes that drive me crazy, including the confusion of the map with the territory (or the generalization with the specific, or the word with the object), the perils of the two-valued orientation (which dominates news and other venues because of the ratings appeal of arguments - see Breaking the News, by James Fallows for a more thorough investigation), and the inability of some people to move up and down the abstraction ladder.

There were so many great ideas in this book that I wish everybody would read and live by the precepts in this book. I'm definitely interested in reading more on the subject of general semantics, and one of these days I may get around to tackling Science and Sanity. We'll see.

Specific things that I took note of in the book include:

* Hayakawa expresses the opinion that human culture is all about getting something for nothing. We are able to build upon the accomplishments of our ancestors through writing, through education and literacy. And language makes it all possible. Therefore, the study of language is vital to understanding the human race.

* He also claims that because language and culture is what gives the human race our competitive advantage - we can learn during our lifetime, as opposed to an evolutionary timescale. In fact, he says "Cultural and intellectual cooperation is, or should be, the great principle of human life...It will be the basic assumption of this book that widespread intrasppecific cooperation through the use of language is the fundamental mechanism of human survival. A parallel assumption will be that when the use of language results, as it so often does, in the creation or aggravation of disagreements and conflicts, there is something linguistically wrong with the speaker, the listener, or both." This is particularly interesting to me in light of another book I'm reading on the history of anarchism, a political philosophy which takes as its fundamental assumption that cooperation is the natural state of the human race.

* Hayakawa talks about the use of symbols, and their power for constructing abstract pyramids of thought. However, he reminds us that at some point, language has to talk about something in the real world. We can talk about a generic cow all we want, but at some point, we need to point at Bessie as an example. In fact, if we can't do that, then we are literally talking non-sense because it is unable to be verified by the senses. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him on this point, but it's an interesting take. It makes more sense when applied to arguments - if the argument is about something which can not be measured, they are non-sense arguments, for they can never be resolved. They are based solely on our internal language structures, assumptions and classifications, none of which are "true" since they can't be verified.

* Interestingly, Hayakawa hypothesizes that this is why science has made such enormous amounts of progress - because scientists are not concerned with systems that are unverifiable. Systems are useful if they reflect results that can consistently be obtained through experiments. Systems that are un-useful are quickly disposed of. If social systems were judged by usefulness in obtaining results rather than by impossible-to-define scales such as good or evil, Hayakawa thinks that society would move forward more quickly.

* Hayakawa explores several uses of language, including reporting facts, reporting emotions, and others. But the use I found interesting because I hadn't thought about it was social cohesion - "The prevention of silence is itself an important function of speech." This is his explanation of small talk. It's communication with no semantic content for the sole purpose of enabling strangers to become more comfortable with each other, to find subjects they agree upon, which is why "we are careful to select subjects about which agreement is immediately possible" (such as the weather or sports). "With each new agreement, no matter how commonplace or obvious, the fear and suspicion of the stranger wears away, and the possibilty of friendship enlarges." His final example is telling: "Let us suppose that we are on the roadside struggling with a flat tire. A friendly youth comes up and asks, "Got a flat tire?" If we insist upon interpreting his words literally, we will regard this as an extremely silly question and our answer may be, "Can't you see I have, you dumb ox?" If we pay no attention to what the words say, however, and understand his meaning, we will return his gesture of friendly interest by showing equal friendliness, and in a short while he may be helping us to change the tire. In a similar way, many situations in life as well as in literature demand that we pay no attention to what the words say, since the meaning may often be a great deal more intelligent and intelligible then the surface sense of the words themselves."

* Hayakawa devotes a chapter to classification, which was interesting to me, as I'd previously read the book Sorting Things Out, by Bowker and Star, which goes more deeply into several of the issues that Hayakawa addresses. Most importantly, classifications are not a feature of nature - they can only be evaluated in terms of their usefulness for a specific purpose. Confusing the features of the specific object we are looking at with the features of the general class to which we are assigning them leads to some of the more egregious examples of non-sanity such as racism.

* As far as the perils of the two-valued orientation, it's very easy to get trapped into a situation where everything is treated as black or white, good or evil, etc. Hayakawa uses a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes: "You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipestem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way - and the fools know it." This is why it is often frustrating to argue with people who hold a bi-valued philosophy ("Republicans good, Democrats bad" "Abortion is murder" "Communists are evil"), because to such people there are no shades of gray. And you want to argue against their philosophy but get sucked into defending their opposite (democracy, pro-choice or whatever), just to prove the point. I'm still not sure how to deal with the situation - it really does depend on them being willing to listen and to accept input, and many of them aren't programmed to. In some ways, this relates to Postman's fear of our returning to a pre-literate culture, unable to distinguish between the image and the reality.

* In the final chapter of the fifth edition, Rats and Men, Hayakawa describes an experiment by a Professor Maier of the University of Michigan, wherein neurosis is induced in rats. Rats are trained to jump towards one of two doors, where the left opens to show food behind it, and the right stays closed and bumps them into a net. Once they learn consistently to jump to the left door, the scientist started switching the doors randomly. Eventually, the rat "gives up and and refuses to jump at all. At this stage, Dr. Maier says "Many rats prefer to starve rather than make a choice."" Next, the rats are forced to make a choice, being driven to jump by an electric shock or equivalent. The rats "settle down to a specific reaction...which they continue to execute regardless of consequences." For instance, the rats will continue to jump left, even when the right door is left open with food clearly visible. They have lost the ability to learn, overloaded by an inability to cope.

Hayakawa believes that many of our institutions, both social and political, have induced this type of behavior in us. The arms race is an obvious example - in previous centuries, more weapons meant more protection and higher security. With nuclear arms, though, this equation quickly becomes meaningless because of the introduction of infinities. Yet, our governments still held onto the previous arms race metaphor. Our advantage over mice is that we can eventually cope. Hayakawa reminds us of this ability, and asks us to use it to reform our institutions' collective insane behavior.

http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/

[ 09. February 2005, 05:43: Message edited by: nabraxas ]

[alucinare]

Yes those articles were enjoyable or perhaps, during the reading of those articles i felt enjoyment and interest.

 

quote:

---

8A. Beethoven is better than Mozart.

 

8B. In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance, Beethoven seems better to me than Mozart.

---

This i found to be espcially funny.

[Thelema]

Is there something that appears to us?

[Cyjack]

This be an interesting find indeed! Most of the old and well known philosophers and reverse engineers were fading into the background. I ponder similar things daily - thanks.

 

nabraxas:

"The prevention of silence is itself an important function of speech." This is his explanation of small talk. It's communication with no semantic content for the sole purpose of enabling strangers to become more comfortable with each other, to find subjects they agree upon, which is why "we are careful to select subjects about which agreement is immediately possible" (such as the weather or sports). "With each new agreement, no matter how commonplace or obvious, the fear and suspicion of the stranger wears away, and the possibilty of friendship enlarges."

There may be something missing here though - the source and destination of these meanderings. It appears to be a type of 'reality check' of mutual benefit, does it not? All parties involved test the ground of verbal mental cognition in the hopes of grasping a fraction of the others' state of mind. Perhaps this then gives a clearer view of each to each other, at least to ones own satisfaction.

 

nabraxas:

"As far as the perils of the two-valued orientation, it's very easy to get trapped into a situation where everything is treated as black or white, good or evil, etc."  This is why it is often frustrating to argue with people who hold a bi-valued philosophy ("Republicans good, Democrats bad" "Abortion is murder" "Communists are evil"), because to such people there are no shades of gray. And you want to argue against their philosophy but get sucked into defending their opposite (democracy, pro-choice or whatever), just to prove the point. I'm still not sure how to deal with the situation - it really does depend on them being willing to listen and to accept input, and many of them aren't programmed to.  

I know what you mean. For me it becomes difficult when you want to express a point that you believe to be so real that it beckons defending. I sometimes get this when I speak with my very Christian sister living in the USA. I hope the wisdom will come with time, but untill then I find it easy enough to guide the subject matter away from God and his threats.

As for English Prime - I try to use it, but still miss my abilty to sound as sure on paper, as I feel in my mind. Absolutes have a strange power about them - especially when they are weilded in a discussion.

BTW = I have a couple of Robert Anton Wilson mp3s for those who are interested - HERE

Cheers -

[nabraxas]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

Addendum

by Jim Walker

Originated 09 Sep. 2001

I have received several emails criticizing Wilson's article where they point out that the use of E-prime seems to make statements unusually longer than necessary. Indeed, all of Wilson's E-prime examples above contain longer sentences than their commonly expressed standard English variants. Please realize that in some cases, especially when explaining difficult scientific concepts, you actually need more words to express a concept accurately and clearly. But in many other cases, E-prime can clarify a concept more concisely with fewer words. It depends on the situation. Make everything as simple as possible but no simpler.

In Wilson's examples, he might have chosen to convert, "The electron is a wave," to "An electron appears wave-like." The statement, "The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford," can convert to, "I recall a blue Ford involved in the hit-and-run accident," and so forth.

One critic of E-prime wrote: "A jury will be much more impressed with the statement: 'This is the gun that fired the bullet that killed Mr. Jones'" than its E-based: 'This weapon which has the characteristics of a gun has produced the same markings that seem to mar this bullet that allegedly made Mr. Jones appear dead."

Of course anyone can force E-prime into a longer form if one wishes, but I could shorten his first version to a more direct: "This gun fired the bullet that killed Mr. Jones."

There do, however, appear some forms of expressions that tend to have shorter sentence structures than E-prime constructions. Those expressions usually involve some form of lie, deception or an attempt to convert or convince someone, especially in religions, political ideologies, or advertisements (see below).

Another concern I hear from people involves a false belief that those who advocate the use of E-prime wish to change the English language through some form of coercion, or lawful action. Folks, E-prime serves as a linguistic tool, not as an instrument of power. I know of no advocate of E-prime, including its inventors, who desire to change the history of literature or to force people to use E-prime. Almost all of the works of literature, poetry, and religious scripture contain abundant uses of non-E-prime and I've yet to meet an E-prime advocate who wishes to change that.

Interestingly some advocates of E-prime claim that if you examine the history of literature, the works which contain the largest number of "to be" words usually involve the most vague or misleading concepts. The works that contain the least number of "to be" words usually come across much clearer. For an example, the preamble of the U.S. Constitution stands as a fine example of natural E-prime.

Nor have I heard its advocates demand E-prime for all expressions. In some cases E-prime would hinder the aim of its authors. For example, in the use of colloquial language, satire, jokes, lies, religious scripture, advertisements, or propaganda, E-prime could actually block the author's intent.

For example, the Army's motto, "Be all you can be," works as a powerful propaganda ploy to get naive boys to join the service. The motto appears so grandiose, yet what does it mean? The imagination can fill that empty "be" word with visions of heroic battle and grandeur. Converting the motto to E-prime would weaken it to some form such as, "Do all that you can do." Of course "do" here represents what the Army wants you to do such as clean toilets, run until exhausted, or risk death in a war that you haven't a clue about. The Army has recently changed its motto to an even scarier lie: "Be an Army of One." No doubt the Army here attempts to appeal to the individualist but the entire concept of soldiering involves submission to authority, and to follow orders without question. Yet can you imagine what might happen if a soldier actually believed himself as an army? I don't know about you but I'd stay a long distance from him.

The little word "is" gets used more than any other word in the English language. This gives politicians, advertisers and scam artists the ability to fool and lie to the public. Since "is" and "be" contain only two letters (or only one letter in contractions), the advertisers can make their lies short and concise. Falsehoods don't need lengthy explanations, and they tend to survive best when shortened to their easiest remembered forms.

Below describes some examples of famous advertisement slogans:

"Coke is it." (Coca-Cola)

"A diamond is foreever." (De Beers Consolidated)

"Guinness is good for you." (Guinness)

"Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is." (Alka Seltzer)

"Don't be vague. Ask for Haig." (Haig Scotch)

"It is. Are you?" (The Independent)

"You don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's." (Levy's Rye Bread)

"The future's bright. The future's Orange." (Orange)

"Where's the beef?" (Wendy's)

And here gives some other examples that work better without E-prime (but what in the world do they mean?):

"I yam what I am and that's all what I yam." (Popeye the sailor man)

"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM...." (God in Exodus 3:14)

"Those to whom We have given the Book read it as it ought to be read." (English translation of the Koran, 2.121)

"How are you?" (common greeting)

"You are my sunshine, my only sunshine." (folk song by Jimmie Davis)

"Will you be my Valentine?" (Valentine saying)

"Is that all there is?" (Song sung by Peggy Lee)

Of course anyone can express vagueness and falsehoods just as easily with E-prime, but it wouldn't have the impact without "to be" forms. So if you want to lie, deceive, or convert someone, stay away from E-prime.

thelema, here's some links for you

TO BE OR NOT TO BE: E-Prime as a tool for Critical Thinkers, by D. David Bourland, Jr.:

http://www.generalsemantics.org/Articles/TOBECRIT.HTM

WORKING WITH E-PRIME, by E. W. Kellogg III and D. David Bourland, Jr.,:

http://www.generalsemantics.org/Education/WEPrime.htm

Speaking in E-prime, by E. W. Kellogg III :

http://home.onestop.net/nomad/eprime_speak.html

E-Prime and Linguistic Revision, by C. A. Hilgartner:

http://www.hilgart.org/papers_html/091S196.B07.html

Quantum Psychology: E and E-Prime, by Robert Anton Wilson (an earlier version of the the above article):

http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.html

E-prime: The Spirit and the Letter, by Ralph E. Kenyon Jr.

http://www.xenodochy.org/gs/e-prime.html

Books:

To Be or Not: An E-Prime Anthology, D. David Bourland, Jr. & Paul Dennithorne Johnston,

More E-Prime: To Be or Not II, by Paul Dennithorne Johnston (Editor), D. David Bourland Jr. (Editor)

E-Prime III!: A Third Anthology, by D. David Bourland (Editor), Paul Dennithorne Johnston (Editor)

Quantum Psychology , (Chapter 13) by Robert Anton Wilson

[nabraxas]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski.htm

The Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis

Confusing the strong and weak views

Comment by Jim Walker

The Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis (many times referred to as simply Sapir-Whorf, without Korzybski) claims that the structure of a language defines the way a person behaves and thinks, must surely have it wrong according to many cognitive scientists, including Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker, and others. Although the basic hypothesis of linguistic determinism surely has flaws, one should not overly criticize the first people who began thinking about this interesting subject. After all the subject refers to a hypothesis, not a theory, and certainly not fact (yet).

Linguists today generally support either a 'strong' or a 'weak' interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski hypothesis, and the leaning seems to fall against the strong interpretation. Needless to say, the subject gets hotly debated and I think many of the arguers confuse the ideas between the strong and weak interpretation. I don't claim to know the answer and I'll let the scientists do their thing. Stephen Pinker seems to have a solid argument against the strong interpretation ( Pinker's book @ amazon ). However, the weak interpretation does have, and I think you will agree, an obvious affect on the way we express, or fail to express thoughts.

Regardless of how intractable our language instinct holds us to the way we think, the words and ideas of our language can't help but influence how we perform in the world. Yes, thoughts don't depend on words, but words depend on thoughts (how else do new words get into the lexicon?) If you don't have the words or symbols to describe your thoughts (regardless of how instinctive), you will simply have no way to convey them to your fellow humans. To give an obvious example, if you've never had exposure to the words and symbols of mathematics, then you can never calculate or make workable predictions about the orbits of planets, the dynamics of inertial objects, or the statistical properties of sub-atomic particles. There simply exists no way to understand the multitude of scientific problems unless you have a basic understanding of the language of mathematics. This in no way implies that a person, regardless of what language he or she speaks, cannot learn the language of mathematics.

The same goes in the opposite direction. If your parents (or teachers) taught you wrongful ideas about the world, you may end up believing in falsehoods that could affect the way you make decisions about other people. Think of all the unfounded prejudices, intolerances, and venom against fellow human beings, that came out of a direct result of believed falsehoods.

To take an extreme example, imagine a person who believes that you should reject reason and live by faith (as Martin Luther did). Such a person could not perform well as a scientist, much less explain the intricacies of nature. Such intransigent software would guarantee the production of falsehoods.

In the case of Robert Wilson's article on E-prime, perhaps he could have avoided the confusion by not mentioning the Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis at all (of course Wilson wrote this long before Pinker et al, so lets not blame him for lack of prophetic powers). After all, the weak interpretation doesn't require it, and I think the reader will surely understand that if you don't have the words to describe your ideas, then you simply can't convey your ideas to others (at least not through language). Moreover, if you use words that convey false ideas, then you can't help but create errors in communication. Wilson's analogy of GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT refers to the software (the words and beliefs), and not the firmware (the language instinct). In the case of E-prime, the user attempts to get rid of unnecessary and misleading words. This has nothing at all to do with changing the basic underlying structure of language. If you use the wrong words to convey your ideas, you will almost certainly guarantee wrong answers, which could lead others into believing falsehoods.

[Thelema]

AM I RIGHT IN THINKING THAT E-PRIME CONVERTS STAEMENTS LIKE:

Fa (there is an a that is F)

into

Fab (a appears F to

as such, recommending that all predicates are n+1 valued, and removing ontological import from predicates, drawing them back into sense-objects instead?

Ill have to read some books if im wrong...i dont think Im fully getting it

[nabraxas]

thelema--

Fa (there is an a that is F)

into

Fab (a appears F to

--i don't understand either ov these statements. you seem to be using some kind ov notation/algebra.

but the statement

"all predicates are n+1 valued, and removing ontological import from predicates, drawing them back into sense-objects instead?" sounds about right.

i think bertrand russell comes to the same conclusion in "an enquiery into truth & meaning"

[Thelema]

Ive been thinking about eprime for a couple of days, and it strikes me that there is one fatal flaw in the language:

EPRIME CANNOT BE USED TO DESCRIBE THE WAY EPRIME WORKS

this means that the language is semantically closed, whereas normal english is semantically open. Anyone interested should read Tarski's Theory of Semantics.

This indicates to me that eprime is pretty much a defunct form of expression, incapable of expressing itself.

[ 14. February 2005, 22:41: Message edited by: Thelema ]

[nabraxas]

EPRIME CANNOT BE USED TO DESCRIBE THE WAY EPRIME WORKS----i don't know how you came to that conclusion,

but even if e-prime appears to you to be a defunct language, that shouldn't defract from the fact that it can be a most useful tool for clarifying meaning & eliminating verbal non-sense.

have a look at these sites

http://learn-gs.org/library/ruth-eprime.htm

http://learn-gs.org/library/elaine-eprime.htm

http://www.xenodochy.org/gs/e-prime.html

http://www.ctlow.ca/E-Prime/E-Prime.html

http://www.ctlow.ca/E-Prime/zimmerman.html

all those links should work

[woof woof woof]

so start pushing for language reform?

Or just a matter of reading between the lines?

the less illusions you have the more behind the scenes you may appear TO BE.

Effective dialoge takes time to cultivate.

[ 15. February 2005, 12:32: Message edited by: brian ]

[Cyjack]

Perhaps an alternative is to learn Esperanto. It sounds to me like a language reform for the better..

[Thelema]

Have a think about it Nabraxas-

in all of the links and information you have made about eprime, all of them depend on showing how to effect a translation from normal english to eprime in order to rend statements clearer and less metaphysically laden. the point I am making is, that this description of the way eprime works actually depends on us being able to understand the normal english sentence that is to be translated into eprime.

therefore in order to show us how eprime works, you must include in your description, statements that are NOT eprime statements.

If you did not include these non-eprime statements, then eprime wouldnt be a translation of anything, would it?

Do you get what im saying? Im sure if you value the use of eprime and havent thought about this, then this will come as a shock to you. Let the impact of what im saying stew with you for a while, and im sure you will find it will crumble the foundations for the basic metaphysical orientation of eprime.

[nabraxas]

no, not really.

i thought that was what you were going to say, but the examples are just that- "examples".

E-prime IS NOT just ( some say you can have a negative "is" -in some circumstaces & you're still using E-Prime---opinion?) a tool for translating, but primerily for using everyday, "examples" by translation just make it easier to understand, but they are not the actual explanation ov e-prime. (sorta like the menu not being the meal)

you could cut every single example & it's explanation from the texts, & you'd still have a working description ov the principles.

the first post reads easily & lacks confusion, it doesn't stray from facts or lack detail. written completely in e-prime it shows E-Primes ability to talk meaningfully about complex subjects w/out straying into dogma or theology.

interestingly French already goes quite along way to wards lessening the mythic use ov "to be".

most french verbs are conjugated w/either "to be" or "to have", & many ov the verbs which in english are "to be"; in french it would be "i have hunger" or "i have tierdness".

this implies the verbs have a time scale because it could be "had" or "will have".

"i am hungry" or "i am tierd" imply that the verb is one ov your character traits, like "i am Nabraxas"

[ 16. February 2005, 11:24: Message edited by: nabraxas ]

[woof woof woof]

Cyjack:

Perhaps an alternative is to learn  Esperanto.  It sounds to me like a language reform for the better..      

Funny you mention Esperanto. Before esperanto was considered the world language, the language experts were looking at another already existing language "Papiamentu" as the world language.

Papiamentu is the local language on the islands Aruba, Curacao & Bonaire. It is a misture of Portugese, spanish, dutch, west central african and english. The language came to be as a result of the slave traders needing to be able to communicate with their slaves.

[woof woof woof]

The common view on the origin of Papiamentu is that it is an Afro-Portuguese creole (the Proto-Afro-Portuguese creole theory). However, due to the considerable Spanish influence on Papiamentu, a group of authors considers Papiamentu a Spanish-based creole (the Spanish hypothesis).

The Proto-Afro-Portuguese creole theory is the most widely accepted hypothesis about the genesis of Papiamentu. After the Dutch conquest of Curaçao in 1634, Curaçao served as a slave depot that provided Spanish colonies with slaves. The importation of slaves started after the conquest of the Portuguese strongholds in Angola in 1641 by the Dutch, bringing slaves from mainly Guinea and Angola to Curaçao. The basic claim of this theory is that slaves learned the Afro-Portuguese during the long periods of time that they were kept in Afro-Portuguese speaking slave depots before they were shipped overseas. Initially, this theory assumed that all Atlantic Creole languages, including Papiamentu, derive from one language, namely the Afro-Portuguese pidgin-creole that originated as a result of the first encounter between Portuguese settlers and native inhabitants on the west coast of Africa. Currently, several variations of the Afro-Portuguese creole theory exist. One of the main discussions is about whether or not the initial Afro-Portuguese had already developed into a creole, or if it was still a pidgin when it was transmitted to the Caribbean. In Curaçao, Papiamentu underwent Dutch influence, mainly contributing to the vocabulary. Through Dutch, also English and French elements entered Papiamentu. Later on, the influence of the Spanish speaking environment caused a hispanization of Papiamentu.

The Spanish hypothesis comes in two parts. The first Spanish hypothesis suggests that Papiamentu is basically a branch of Spanish that was generated through corruptions. The connection to Africa is not made, however, a Dutch influence is acknowledged in the form of new words introduced to the vocabulary. This is the first known description of Papiamentu and was presented in the 19th century in Italy. The second Spanish hypothesis suggests an African connection, but its defenders argue that Papiamentu does not originate from a kind of Portuguese brought through slaves from West Africa. In their opinion, Papiamentu is a direct descendant of the Spanish that was used in the area during the Spanish rule, and the small Portuguese, English, and Dutch influence came later.

[nabraxas]

v.interesting Brian.

could you explain how pidgen develops into creole?

could one understand the other?

[2b]

Pidgeon that is spoken in the Islands North of Aus had it's roots as a trade language , a sorta one size fits all aproach to comunication. I would doubt that there would be many similarites between Creole and Pidgeon if any ,but then

"Mi no savy Tok Pisin"

But i do love the way SP lager is "Nambawan" alot of pidgeon seems to have come from the slaves taken to Queensland to work the cane fields , when they returned to their homes they bought the language with them , but with no way of knowing correct spelling wrote it down as it was heard so "number one" becomes "nambawan" and so on...

[nabraxas]

yeah zenube, i know about english pidgen as spoken in PNG, but i'm referring to the article

 

quote:

---

One of the main discussions is about whether or not the initial Afro-Portuguese had already developed into a creole, or if it was still a pidgin

---

[Thelema]

oh i get what youre saying nabraxas, interesting discussion. I agree w/you about the use of a negative "is" still being eprime. I might say as well that I DO appreciate the utility of eprime, i DO think it is worthy of attention. My scrutiny is out of an obsessional metaphysical criticism.

i guess what im driving at is that i believe it is possible to compose a godel-sentence for eprime.

like

"this statement only appears to be an eprime statement"

if the above IS an eprime statement, then it is false that it only appears to be an eprime statement. if the above is not an eprime statement, then it is true that it is an eprime statement.

i hope that's right. what does it show? it shows that eprime is semantically closed and cannot generate all possible semantic nuances, and hence is INCOMPLETE.

[ 16. February 2005, 19:49: Message edited by: Thelema ]

[nabraxas]

thelema--i don't mean to appear short, or defensive, & appologise if i've come over that way.

i'm not as analytical as yourself, & maybe even simple minded; but i'll play along w/you

"this statement only appears to be an eprime statement"---true.

 

quote:

---

if the above is not an eprime statement, then it is true that it is an eprime statement.

---

--how do you work that out?

sorry i'm confused by that.

"E-Prime does not automatically eliminate judgmental statements. Consider the following E-Prime phrase: "When you criticize a genius like Korzybski, you reveal your profound ignorance." This statement still implies: "You ARE criticizing Korzybski"; "Korzybski IS a genius"; "You ARE profoundly ignorant". English provides many options to express identity and judgment besides the verb "to be". When we use these in order to prime "to be" from our speech and writing, we obtain an esthetic effect, not a change in meaning. In other words (that IS), the effect IS esthetic rather than semantic.

The verb "to be" has numerous uses I find hard to renounce, uses that have nothing to do with judgment. I will not replace the idiom "I WAS born in 1958" with "my mother gave birth to me in 1958" or "I slipped out of my mother's belly in 1958". English happens to require "to be" to describe the action of birth, a convention French does not happen to share in its verb naître ("je naquis en 1958"). Besides such indispensable idioms, I do not wish to surrender the time nuances progressive tenses let me ascribe to actions ("I was reading"). Nor do I object to stating that the Parthenon IS in Athens or that Joseph IS Sandra's son.

If only to exercise my intellect, I enjoy sometimes writing and speaking in E-Prime -- or the "E mostly Prime" of convenience. (I have heard of E-Choice, E-Prime mod and V-Prime, though I have not seen these softer variations precisely described). E-Prime forces me to think before I touch the keyboard or open my mouth.

I do not advise embracing E-Prime (or anything else) as a recipe to cure all intellectual ills. In fact, neither do the champions of E-Prime, David Bourland and Ed Kellogg, whose articles suggest non-dogmatic men intent on promoting critical thinking. Of course, other and perhaps better methods also promote critical thinking. But I take the following stance: Anything that can shake an educated fool out of his intellectual torpor deserves promoting. I read somewhere that Martin Gardner had "debunked" E-Prime in the Skeptical Inquirer or the Skeptic, magazines that make great presents for high school kids. If Martin still lived, I would want to tell him: "Martin, mate, if it does more good than harm, don't shoot it down".

I believe that most people (professional writers included) can improve their prose by trying to write a few emails in E-Prime now and again. It forces us to replace: "Aversion to the expression of dissension IS the reason for the continuation of objectionable social conditions" with something like: "Misery continues because we cower from dissenting", or "To improve society, we must take a stand".

The exercise takes us one big step away from the turgid speech Orwell denounced in his famous essay on the politics of the English language. Without the verb "to be", precise subjects and verbs (pillars of a crisp style) naturally tend to fall into place, while core elements of the Turgid Sentence ("expression" and other vague nouns) often vanish.

But not always: the writer must take further steps. Without care, we can write turgid E-Prime: "The delusion of supremacy of reporting objectivity results in the belief in the claim of the New York Times to the exhaustiveness of coverage adequacy". Nominalizations (vague nouns derived from verbs and adjectives, such as "nominalization") creep in: "delusion", "supremacy", "reporting", "objectivity", "belief", "claim", "exhaustiveness", "coverage", "adequacy". We must revise them back to precise verbs and adjectives, then trim the fat: "Because we believe we have the most objective media, we trust the New York Times when it claims to report 'all the news that's fit to print' ". We can even revise the revision to point out how the verb "to be" allows writers to bury responsibility under vague turns of phrase: "We want to believe we have the best media, but we should not forget that the New York Times' 'all the news that IS FIT to print' really means 'all the news we feel like printing' ".

By forcing us to think before we speak or write, E-Prime contributes to making us better thinkers and more sensitive speakers. By drawing attention to our overuse of the verb "to be", E-Prime provides a valuable writing tool. Certainly, we need many other techniques to attain a graceful style, objective thought and tactful talk; but the exercise of writing in E-Prime can reveal harmful thought, speech and writing patterns we would not otherwise notice."

http://www.threen.com/main.htm