|Author: Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. (diogenes) Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:32 am|
You all may find multiordinal of possible interest.
|Author: Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. (diogenes) Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 12:31 am|
Thomas Johnson offered the following to illustrate his understanding of multiordinal.
These statements do not exhibit the form that Korzybski specified. The form requires that the prospective multi-ordinal term be applied to a sentence. Here is a structuring of the conversation to put it in the form of a statement applied to a sentence. In the first two sentences the restructuring is direct.
What does, "I am hungry." mean?
What does, "I need to eat." mean?
The proposed multiordinal term can only be 'mean', and here it is applied to the two sentence in the conversation. This rendition fails to satisfy Korzybski's structural description because the second sentence, "I need to eat.", is not about the first sentence, "I am hungry." It is another parallel abstraction by self observation from non-verbal observations. To get the form of a sentence about a sentence it would have to be "I need to eat, because I am hungry." With a lot of contrivance, one can say that the sentence "I need to eat." is about the sentence "I am hungry." The sentence, "I am hungry." is actually a lower level of abstraction, but it is really not the subject of the second sentence.
I am hungry = low level report of self observation that could be better expressed as "I feel hungry."
I need to eat is an inference that presumably is built on feeling hungry, but they could actually be unrelated, such as by taking it out of context and talking about the chemistry involved in our scientific model that purports to explain what is going on "beneath" the feelings. In any event, it is clear that the second sentence is not a sentence that is about the first sentence. For that to be true, one could safely put quotation marks about the sentence within a sentence, and that does not work here. They are different levels of abstraction formulations about the body of person1.
Person2's third sentence does not even use the term that is the candidate for multiordinality.
So, the three sentences are.
1. an observation of condition.
2. an inference about the condition.
3. a factual report about past events.
Statements 1 and 3 are both at the same lower level of abstraction, differing only in tense (present and past). Both describe the activity of person1 (present and past).
Statement 2 is an inference., but it is not about statement 1, it is about the state described by statement 1.
There is NO sign of any multiordinalty in this example at all.
A proposed multiordinal term applied to the statement.
A second statement about the first statement.
The same proposed multiordinal term applied to the second statement.
That structure is missing in Thomas Johnson's example.
Here is my illustration that shows the structure Korzybski described.
Sentence s2 is about sentence s1.
The multiordinal term 'agree' is applied to both sentence s1 and s2. Moreover, s3 is about s2, and m3 is applying 'agree' at a third level of abstraction.
This is precisely Korzybski's structural defining of multiordinal terms illustrating the term agree.
The meaning of the utterance gets more and more complicated as the abstraction level gets higher.
But John and Larry both think something is bad.
Moe and Larry both think something should not be said.
And, Curley and Larry both think something is stupid.
In all three cases, two people have the same attitude about the same thing.
The structural meaning of the term is the same at all three levels of abstraction.
The relationship of one person to some thing or act is the same as that same relationship is of another person to the same thing.
The multiordinal term has the same meaning at all levels of abstraction, but that meaning is structural, like a propositional function.
When the values are provided for a propositional function, a specific meaning is produced, but without the values, we cannot produce a meaning.
In the formulation R(p1,x)=R(p2,x) we have a relationship between a person and something that is the same for two people.
Just for fun, here is a fifth person agreeing with himself: R(p5,x)=R(p5,x).
What might be something for the Institute to consider is calling for and/or funding reasearch to determine corresponding propositional function structures of other proposed multiordinal terms.
This could be the subject of graduate student research thesis and credit towards a degree in general semantics.
|Author: Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. (diogenes) Friday, July 14, 2006 - 08:08 am|
Thomas Johnson wrote:
In this example the word 'hate' is used in the first sentence. It is not applied to an existing sentence. In the third sentence, by person2, the first sentence is indirectly quoted, but the rest of the sentence is not about the first sentence. This structural use is not multiordinal, because the term that is offered as being used multiordinally is not being applied to a sentence, and it is also not being applied to another sentence about the first sentence. Moreover, the word hate depicts an attitude relation between a person and an action or object. It is used in exactly the same way in both sentences, although the object in once instance is an abstraction from the prior event. It has the same precise structural meaning in all shown instances. The example illustrates consciousness of abstracting, but it does NOT illustrate multiordinality in any way. It fails to meet Korzybski's structural description of multiordinal use of terms. See multiordinal.
|Author: Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. (diogenes) Friday, July 14, 2006 - 09:13 am|
These constructions all illustrate self-reflexivity of terms. It illustrates the problem and the necessity of differentiating levels of abstraction. It is an application of Russell's theory of types as the solution to Frege's contradiction by allowing self-reflexivity.
However, this too fails to satify Korzybski's explanation of multiordinal.
Make a statement 1.
Apply a proposed multiordinal term to that statement to form statement 1a. Statement 1a contains a multiordinal term AND statement 1.
Now make a second statement about statement 1.
Statement 2 must be a more complex statement contains a direct or indirect quote of statement 1 such that this new statement is about statement 1.
Apply the same proposed multiordinal term to statement 2 to form statement 2a. Statement 2a contains a multiordinal term AND statement 2.
The self-reflexive examples supplied by Nora do not meet Korzybski's criteria.
Self-reflexivity is not a simple matter. Neither is multiordinal. Many words that may be used self-reflexively may be use in a non-multiordinal way, as is the case in Nora's examples.
Nora says: "(I feel fear (statement (1)). I feel fear, that I will show that I feel fear...Statement (2) about statement (1)."
Contrary to her labeling, statement (2) does not have statement (1) as its referent. It has the referent of statement (1), and these are two totally different levels of abstraction.
Statement (1) is a (limited) map of the person feeling state.
Statement (2) is another (limited) map of a different feeling state of the person.
The "territory" can be mapped as follows:
The person has a feeling state of fear in war.
The person is aware of that feeling state. (Consciousness of abstracting).
The person has a second order feeling state of fear with a different object - showing his first order fear to other soldiers.
Feeling1: fear of unknown possibilities.
Feeling2: fear of showing fear.
In both cases, the structure of fear depicts an attitude relation between the person and some event (different events). Those events happen to be related by both levels of abstraction and consciousness of abstraction, with the second order fear being about his own actions resulting from his consciousness of abstracting regarding the first order fear.
Now, the map, in our language uses the word fear to say that he fears showing fear.
This illustrates self-reflexivity of terms, consciousness of abstracting, and levels of abstraction, but it does not illustrate multiordinality.
Multiordinaly has been confused with self-reflexivity for decades. Even at the institute sessions I attended, "never say never" was being used as the paradigm case explanation of multiordinality. But multiordinaly is more complex, and it may or may not involve self-reflexivity.
Look at the quote from Korzybski that Nora supplies:
(1) By multiordinality is meant the possibility of applying a given term to different levels or orders of abstractions.
(2) Somebody makes [a statement, and then somebody makes] a statement about that statement,
Start with (2) and get two statements, the second about the first.
Then apply the given term of (1) to both sentences from (2).
It does not mean that the given term is USED IN both sentences of (2), nor that it is used twice in one sentence.
For the usage of a term to be multiordinal it must be applied to a prior sentence not contanining the term, and it must be applied to a higher level abstraction about the first sentence, also not containing the supposed multiordinal term.)
S1 = sentence 1.
S2(S1) = Sentence 2.
Now apply multiordinal term M to both sentences.
If this can be done successfully, then M is being used multiordinally.
IF M(S1) AND M(S2(S1)) THEN M is a multiordinal use.
(Message edited by nora on July 14, 2006)
|Author: Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. (diogenes) Friday, July 14, 2006 - 09:32 am|
Milton wrote with respect to thinking about thinking:
From my "general semantics" perspective, I find that many novice general semanticists are continually projecting that others are exhibiting an "Aristotelian orientation". (Don't ask me if I have counted them, it's my subjective experince abstraction.) I do not think that to be a mature general semantics perspective. I object to Milton's formulation. Let's NOT suggest to beginners and novices that this is "the state of affairs" as they are likely to take it as "gospel". It can color their seeing and encourage them to see thinking about thinking in a parochial and pejorative way.
As non-Aristotelian thinking is an extension of Aristotelian logic, it includes Aristotelian logic as a proper subset. The problem is not that there is something "wrong" with so-called "Aristotelian logic"; the problem is that it gets misapplied in circumstances where it cannot resolve the issue.
Far too much "anti-Aristotelian" rhetoric has been circulated by supposed general semanticists in the name of "non-Aristotelian". Let's be more carefull with such proclamations.
An extensional orientation would dictate that someone research a sufficient sampling of literature and, using prepared criteria, count the instances of case where the distinction matches. (Subjective perceptions aside.)
(Message edited by nora on July 14, 2006)
|Author: Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. (diogenes) Friday, July 14, 2006 - 09:42 am|
|Author: Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. (diogenes) Friday, July 14, 2006 - 10:08 am|
|Author: Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. (diogenes) Friday, July 14, 2006 - 10:18 am|
I have argued in the past that the terms that Korzybski identifies specifically as multiordinal can only be considered multiordinal in their use. Korzybski presents a structural usage definition for multiordinal. Many, if not most, of the terms he lists can be used in simple ways that fail his defining structure. I will stick to "multiordinal use" rather than "identifying" such terms as "multiordinal" simpliciter. If you want to show how such a term causes confusion, I think you need to show it in a multiordinal usage context, not in a simple univocal use context.
|Author: Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. (diogenes) Friday, July 14, 2006 - 08:17 pm|
How is "firstgradelist" being applied to a statement about a statement? It is merely a higher order abstraction that names the class. This is not multiordinality, because none of the "sentences" (names of individuals together with their position) talks about another such "sentence".
|Author: Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. (diogenes) Friday, July 14, 2006 - 08:22 pm|
|Author: Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. (diogenes) Friday, July 14, 2006 - 08:50 pm|
Ben asks, How is a multiordinal term different from a variable, as in a math equation?