| In early June of this year [1994],
I received in the mail the summer issue of ETC: A Review of General
Semantics. Near the back cover, was a notice for the 51st Annual
Seminar-Workshop in General Semantics, which was to be held the last
week of July at Hofstra University in New York. I read the notice and decided,
at that moment, to make things happen in order to attend that seminar.
I had some strong, personal motivations
for attending the summer seminar-workshop (SSW), therefore the single notice
in ETC. was all I needed to make the decision. However, I
would have appreciated any additional information which might have been
available regarding the seminar. What kind of people attended? What kind
of people run it? What would I get that I couldn't get from reading books?
Was it worth eight days of my life? Hence the idea for this article, which
is my attempt to write about what I would have wished to read about, about
this time last year, about the summer seminar-workshop.
To preface, I'd like to state the
semantically-correct disclaimer, which, of course, is that what follows
is a necessarily general and incomplete recounting of my experiences. (Isn't
it great to adhere to an orientation which not only allows, but encourages,
a writer to admit up front that his/her writing is necessarily incomplete?)
My intent is not to describe the information presented at the seminar-workshop,
or explain what I learned about the Structural Differential, or reconstruct
my diary for each of the eight days as in "What I Did At The General
Semantics Seminar-Workshop."
Instead, what follows is my attempt
to convey something about my evaluations of my SSW experiences, and a few
observations. To better enable you to subsequently evaluate these necessarily
incomplete conveyances, perhaps I should first tell you a little about
me and what I was about prior to the seminar-workshop.
MY BACKGROUND
I was introduced to general semantics
during a graduate course in linguistics at Texas Christian University in
Fort Worth in 1979. From a lengthy reading list, I selected S.I. Hayakawa's
Language
In Thought And Action for a book report. I was impressed with the
essence of Hayakawa's contention:
"that widespread intraspecific
co-operation through the use of language is the fundamental mechanism of
human survival, and that, when the use of language results, as it so often
does, in the creation or aggravation of disagreements and conflicts, there
is something wrong with the speaker, the listener, or both." (page
307)
I sensed what a revelation this
seemingly simple message constituted, and I had numerous reactions of understanding,
such as "So that's why that happens." However, I did not grasp the
significant behavioral adjustments which were made possible, or necessary,
as a consequence of applying the principles which Hayakawa presented. (Perhaps
this was due to Hayakawa's lack of emphasis, or omission, on the self-reflexive
aspect of the abstraction process. Read on.) After I submitted the report,
I returned the book and its ideas to the TCU library to be put, literally
and figuratively, back on the shelf.
For the next twelve years,
I lost (or ignored) any awareness I may have had of general semantics.
Into the late '80s, however, I became quite aware that I was no longer
one of Life's happy campers. I was in my mid-30s and kept hearing
this phrase bouncing around my head, "mid-life crisis." The more I heard
it, the more "facts" I found to justify it - I felt stifled in my marriage,
I didn't find work to be at all satisfying or fulfilling, I had few friends
outside of work, and I feared that the future held no promise for anything
better. I began to see a psychotherapist in 1991, then separated from my
wife in early 1992 and filed for divorce.
In December 1992, one of my
few good friends at work persuaded me to attend The Forum, a weekend seminar
run by Landmark Education Corporation, the training organization which
evolved from Werner Erhard's est.
Now, you may have just experienced
a semantic reaction upon reading my mention of "Werner Erhard," "est,"
and "The Forum". If you did, please take a deep breath and count to ten.
I'm not going very far with this, so hang in there and remember, what I'm
writing about is solely concerned with my experience.
And my experience with The
Forum was, in general, positive. The reason I mention The Forum is that,
for me, what constantly showed up during three days of The Forum were ideas
and examples which I recalled from Hayakawa's book. Somehow, what I finally
experienced was the personal power of broadly applying the key formulations
which I had read about in Hayakawa, which I later would learn he had learned
from Korzybski: The word is not the thing. Whatever you say it is, that's
not it. Events don't have inherent meanings. The meaning of words and events
are generated by unique individuals in unique circumstances at specific
times.
What this gs stuff meant to
me, at that particular time, was that I didn't have to be consumed with
guilt over the fact that I had decided to end my marriage. "Divorce" didn't
have a predetermined meaning - our daughter wasn't forever doomed to be
neglected and miserable; I didn't have to walk forever with my head bowed,
ashamed of taking actions to further my own personal happiness; my wife
didn't have to forever grieve over what I had "done" to her. It was certainly
possible that each of these outcomes could occur, but they were not unavoidable
consequences of the event called "divorce."
I understood that applying
general semantics to better communicate with others could certainly be
important: to be aware of the inferences we make as distinct from facts;
to be aware of what, within ourselves, we're reacting to when we respond
to someone's words or actions; to be inquisitive and open-minded in our
conversations with others. But, to me, this gs stuff could be most critically
beneficial when applied to the conversations and communications which we
have with our own selves.
I became acutely aware of
how much in my life may have been different had I understood the impact
of applying the notions and ideas I had read about in Hayakawa. While I
could not go back and change what had already occurred in my life, I did
make a commitment to myself to do what I could to share this knowledge
with others in the hope that they might avoid experiences (and inappropriate
evaluations) similar to mine.
After The Forum, I got Hayakawa's
book again and re-read it for the first time, still unaware of general
semantics or Korzybski. By last October, I had become a regular at a local
dining and drinking establishment which catered to persons of unattached
marital status. In other words, a singles bar. But, exemplifying that singles
bar(1) is not singles bar(2), two of my good bar buddies happened
to be a married couple named Jerry and Larraine. We had become friends
as a result of playing the nation-wide satellite trivia game available
in the bar.
One night, a particularly
trivial trivia question prompted Jerry to start discussing his college
background and he mentioned general semantics. So began a conversation
which continued over several months. He lent me two of his textbooks, one
of which I read twice, J. Samuel Bois's The Art of Awareness. The other,
Korzybski's Science And Sanity, served as a good, heavy weight
to keep the front door propped open, allowing a nice breeze to flow through
my apartment while I read Bois.
For Christmas last year, Jerry
and Larraine graciously provided me an enrollment in the International
Society for General Semantics. After receiving the list of available GS
literature, I bought and read several books, including Explanations
In Awareness by Bois, People In Quandaries by Wendell
Johnson, Words, Meanings and People by Dr. Sanford I. Berman,
Teaching
General Semantics and Bridging Worlds Through General Semantics
edited by Mary Morain, and some of Selections From Science And Sanity.
I even bought the Structural Differential wall hanging.
So one might say that I was, to
some degree, into general semantics. Therefore, my decision to attend the
51st Annual Seminar-Workshop was not difficult. My motivation included
to compare my levels of knowledge, understanding and application with that
of other new "students", to better grasp how to share my experiences with
others, and to "experience" the general semantics of the "experts."
MY EVALUATIONS
There are two evaluations
of the seminar which I want to discuss. The first (evaluation1,July) is
my mid-seminar evaluation which I wrote and discussed with staff member
Dr. Susan Presby Kodish. The second is the evaluation which I have in my
mind today (evaluation2,October).
On the Tuesday evening of
the seminar, we were provided the opportunity to write down our thoughts
regarding what we had experienced thus far during the seminar sessions
and workshops. What I wrote and discussed with Susan was a scathing, emotional
critique expressing my disappointment in the staff. While the seminar was
working for me personally, I sensed that most of my fellow seminar participants
were struggling, confused, and uncertain as to why they were there and
what they were supposed to be "getting." And I felt the staff members were
contributing to, rather than reducing, the level of confusion.
Now remember that my previous
experience with gs was quite personal in terms of its impact on my life.
I had read the academic and theoretical aspects of gs in the books. But
I had also experienced the emotional "Ah ha!" which enabled me, and excited
me, and caused me, to shift my personal orientation in a profound way.
I knew how I was prior to the reorientation, and I knew how I was afterwards,
and I much preferred the latter. What I was looking for in the gs seminar
was to see how this orientation shift was realized by the gs "experts."
What I found instead seemed
to be a good-hearted, well-intentioned staff who possessed a lot of knowledge
about this general semantics stuff. Their initial sessions explained the
terminology, delved into the formulations, presented the historical, scientific
and philosophical basis, and introduced us to sensing (experiencing) on
the silent level. What was utterly lacking, in my opinion, was any conscientious
effort by the staff to encourage or address some simple questions which,
I thought, were on everyone's minds but on no one's lips: So what? Why
is this gs stuff important? What do we do with it? Why is this a difference
that makes a difference?
Okay, so why did this bother
me? Based on my previous experiences, I viewed the application of general
semantics as more than another set of self-help "tools" to fix problems
after they occurred. To me, gs offered the possibility of profoundly reorienting
how one evaluates life, relationships, meanings, etc. Therefore I saw gs
as a type of boat with two purposes: 1) It provided a means to rescue people
who otherwise were "drowning" in the everyday "sea" of turbulent and confused
language and inappropriate evaluations; and 2) It provided a vehicle for
enabling one to travel through waters which would otherwise be unnavigable,
similar in effect to, say an ice breaker.
My frustration with the staff
was that they had structured the initial seminar sessions to do a terrific
job of describing the "boat" of general semantics. They told us all about
the history of the boat, who built the boat, how the boat was built, what
the boat was built of, how long it was, how wide it was, the displacement,
etc. What they didn't talk about was, so what? They didn't explain why
we seminar participants might want to get into the boat, or where the boat
might take us. Furthermore, they hadn't given us even a glimpse as to the
reasons why they had boarded the boat - there was no personal testimony
as to the benefits of being in the boat. As a result, I felt as though
my fellow participants were missing the boat.
After discussing this with
Susan that evening, I felt better, but I still slept fitfully that night.
The next morning, I became aware that my evaluation(26 July) was becoming
a different evaluation(27 July). I began asking new questions of myself,
such as, "If you think you're smart enough to see that something's missing
here, why aren't you smart enough to provide it? Why are you content to
wait for someone else to provide an emotional kick in the ass? If personal
testimony is lacking, what's preventing you from talking about your boat?"
And suddenly, it was crystal
clear to me that: 1) it was only Day 4 of an eight-day seminar; 2) my impatience
and frustration was not "caused" by the staff, but was solely attributable
to me and my reactions to the staff; and 3) in addition to playing the
role of receiving participant, I could also play a role as a contributing
participant.
To me, this experience was
significant in the moment, as well as instructive for the future. It demonstrated
that 'to evaluate' is a process which can be continued indefinitely, in
that we can evaluate our evaluations, and, if necessary, adjust or modify
the original evaluation. Because I didn't force my evaluation(26 July)
to be final or conclusive, I continued to inquire into my evaluating process.
This inquiry resulted in asking new questions, which then served as a catalyst
for creating a different evaluation, and thus a new and different experience.
Three months later, now on
the 23rd of October, I have yet another evaluation. To present this
evaluation, I'll attempt to apply one of the techniques presented by Milton
Dawes during the SSW. The technique is the application of a calculus methodology
to evaluate (or measure) something (an experience) which wouldn't ordinarily
be thought of in mathematical terms.
Figure 1 graphically portrays
my answer to the question, "What did you think about the Summer Seminar-Workshop?"
While it may appear to be straightforward to those of you who work regularly
with x-y graphs, let me clarify the intent.
1) The graph is notional, in that the values
and axis labels are representative of a notion. They are not absolute,
or in any sense do they represent "real" values. The notion which is graphically
presented is this: In the pursuit of making appropriate evaluations, one
can sometimes achieve more accuracy or appropriateness if one first breaks
down the overall evaluation into smaller units which can perhaps be more
readily measured, then integrates the smaller units to arrive at the evaluation
of the whole.
2) The x axis of the graph (the horizontal
scale) represents those aspects of the SSW which I might individually evaluate,
such as the staff, the course content, the presentation of material, the
discussions, the other participants, the weather, the dorm, the cafeteria,
the firmness of the dorm mattress, the availability of hot water in the
community shower, etc.
3) The y axis of the graph (the vertical
scale) represents the scale of possible ratings, in this case ranging along
a spectrum with "Terrific" and "Terrible" near the two ends. (I could have
just as easily made the scale from 1 to 10, had I chosen.)
4) Note that I haven't attempted to actually
define each of the individual aspects which could be evaluated, nor are
the relative values I've assigned meant to reflect a considered, deliberate,
qualitative judgment. Again, the graph is intended to be notional, an approximate
picture of my abstracted overall evaluation, as of 23 October.
"So what?" you may be tempted
to mutter. "What does it mean? How do I interpret it?"
First, note that for every
tick mark on the x axis (representing the aspects of the SSW which I might
individually evaluate), there is a corresponding value on the jagged line
which denotes the rating (from Terrific to Terrible).
Next, notice that there is
variability as to the ratings. Some tend downward towards the "Terrible"
end of the scale, other gravitate upwards towards "Terrific." The resulting
curve (or jagged line) represents a first approximation of my overall experience
at the SSW. By measuring the value of each individual aspect which is scored,
a composite overall value can be determined.
Now look at the dotted line
depicting the "Arithmetic Average." This dotted line serves as a reference,
indicating the straightforward, arithmetic average value derived by summing
all the judged values and dividing by the number of individual aspects
which were rated.
Finally, notice where I chose
to place the line representing my overall evaluation. Even though I applied
the calculus to make a more appropriate evaluation, my final abstracted
evaluation is not simply the actual sum of the individual evaluations.
As the graph shows, in my overall evaluation of the SSW, the whole is different
(in this case, greater) than the sum of the parts.
Why is this so? Why isn't
the total experience equal to the sum of the individual aspects? Simply
because there are varying degrees of importance of the individual aspects
- some are more important than others. In this particular case, the aspects
which I judged most negatively (the dorm, the mattress, the cab ride) didn't
carry as much weight in the overall assessment. In other words, these low
scores are examples of differences which don't make a difference, or at
least less of a difference.
Lest there be any doubt or
confusion, I'll summarize my evaluation of 23 October in this way
- the 1994 summer seminar-workshop was, for me, generally terrific.
A FEW OBSERVATIONS
1) During one of the SSW sessions, Bob
Pula offered this response to the question of how applying general
semantics has made a difference in his life: "I generate much less nonsense
than before." Day by day, I'm realizing more and more how significant
an accomplishment this is. His statement serves as a reminder to me of
self-reflexiveness in the abstraction process. I am constantly questioning
myself about my reactions to things which happen, or to things people say.
Instead of asking myself questions such as, "Why did she say that?" I ask
"What is it that I'm responding to? What expectation did I have which was
not fulfilled?" I'm aware that, in Structural Differential terms, part
of "what is going on" within the parabola is my observance of myself, and
my reactions to my observance of myself, etc.
2) Bruce Kodish led the sessions dealing
with experiencing on the silent level. One exercise was seemingly quite
simple. We were told to pick out a stone, bring it to class, then for a
few minutes simply "experience" the stone on the silent level. In other
words, to use our senses without verbalizing our reactions to our senses. My inability to accomplish this
simple task was enlightening. It emphasized to me how language can get
in the way of our moment-to-moment experiences with "what's going on."
It also demonstrated the extent to which I generate meanings for things.
While I was unsuccessful in shutting off my verbalizing, I was quite proficient
in coming up with all kinds of thoughts-and-feelings-and-meanings about
an ordinary, arbitrary rock. If I can "make up" so much meaning for a random
inanimate object, perhaps it would be appropriate for me to be hesitant
and inquiring in my future evaluations of relationships with more animate
beings.
3) Stuart Mayper led several sessions in
which he, I believe, presented the scientific and philosophical basis from
which Korzybski developed the system of general semantics. I say "I believe"
because, truthfully, I missed a lot of what Stuart said. However, I did
happen to gain two important insights during his session on views of the
universe.
In comparing the Ptolemaic
or Aristotelian view of the universe (earth at the center, sun and planets
in circular orbits) with the current theory (sun at the center, planets
in elliptical orbits), the point was made that the orientation (or beliefs,
assumptions, theories, etc) which you choose to accept as a basis will
determine the questions you ask when faced with new or uncertain circumstances.
In the days when man believed the planets were in circular orbits around
the earth, and he observed planetary behavior which seemed to be anomalous,
his analysis and inquiry was predicated on and constrained by his initial
premise or belief. To be consistent with his premise, there were some questions
which just could not be asked. Likewise, we today simply don't bother to
ask certain questions because of what we accept as truth, due to our basic
premises which determine our orientation.
The discussion of planetary
orbits also caused me to think about general semantics as an alternative
orientation to what could be considered, for lack of a formal label, to
be the "Common Sense, Conventional Wisdom Orientation", or CSCWO. I would
make this analogy: As the current view of the universe is to the Ptolemaic
or Aristotelian, a GS orientation is to the CSCWO. Some people profess
that GS offers a tool box of tips and techniques to "fix" problems arising
from CSCWO. To me, however, the ultimate value or possibility which GS
offers is a complete shift of orientation such that the "problems" which
arose from CSCWO simply don't rise into one's awareness. Put another way,
to me, there is limited utility for a person to cling to his/her CSCWO
while attempting to use bits and pieces of GS on a case-by-case "as needed"
basis. To fully embrace the general semantics system, and derive its possibilities,
you need to "change your orbit."
4) I observed an exchange which struck
me as a terrific lesson that two people do not have the same reaction to
the same event. On the last night of the seminar, one of the participants
confided to me that she had been through a trying, emotional small group
discussion that afternoon. She had been dealing with several personal issues
during the week, and that afternoon they all seem to reach an emotional
climax. The harder she tried to control and suppress the emotions, the
less successful she became. As a result, she spent most of the session
in troubled, anxious tears.
The following morning, during a
small group wrap-up breakfast, one of the men, who had witnessed Robbyn's
experience, commented on it. He stated that watching her cry was a moving
and meaningful experience for him, and he thought it was wonderful that
she felt so safe and protected in that environment that she could be so
free and open in expressing her emotions. The behavior which he inferred
to be an open emotional release was, in fact, according to Robbyn, a failed
attempt to control and suppress those emotions. Even though he personally
witnessed the event, his conclusion regarding what he "saw" and inferred
was false to facts.
5) After fifteen years, it was very invigorating
and stimulating for me to be back on campus, in a summer camp type of atmosphere,
among a group of people with at least one common and focused interest.
Living in a cramped dorm room, sleeping very little but not feeling tired,
reading community bathroom graffiti, even eating institutional scrambled
eggs - these and similar experiences all combined to put a bounce in steps
which seemed to have paced twenty fewer years.
SUMMARY
Did I learn more about general semantics
from the Summer Seminar-Workshop? Did I experience new experiences? Did
I become more aware of what being aware means? Did I meet wonderful people
who have studied and applied gs in their own personal lives for, in some
cases, over fifty years? Did I meet fellow participants who will likely
be "friends for life." Was it worth eight days of my life?
Yes.
|
