Alfred Korzybski Series #7
In 1992 I began writing about my discoveries in Korzybski’s original neuro-linguistics. And one of the first things that I began writing about was the linguistic patterns that I found in Science and Sanity that were not included in the first NLP Meta-Model. I wondered why. Bandler and Grinder started with Korzybski’s premise, “The map is not the territory,” and yet they did not follow-up with the ill-formed linguistic structures that Korzybski identified and how to question/ challenge them. Strange. I can only guess that they had their hands-full with the linguistic distinctions from Transformational Grammar and that was sufficient for how to begin the journey.
In 1997 Richard Bandler asked me to co-author a new book on the Meta-Model, one that would celebrate 25 years of the Meta-Model — Magic Revisited was the suggested title. This book would update the original Meta-Model with the discoveries made in those 25 years. Actually, this is what Richard and John predicted would happen to the Meta-Model. In speaking about those in Generative Semantics they wrote that these “will be particularly useful in expanding the Meta-Model further.” (p. 109, also p. 38, The Structure of Magic, Volume I).
In 1992 I had suggested in numerous articles in NLP journals both in the US and in Europe seven new patterns from Korzybski to the Meta-Model and in the 1997 book that we were to co-author (now titled Communication Magic, Crown House Publications), I added nine, two additional ones from Cognitive psychology. All of these patterns continues the original design of enabling a person to re-connect his or her language to their original experience so that you can develop a richer and more effective map for navigating life. (Oh yes, why didn’t we have both names on the book? After Richard signed the contract, he got mad at me for yet something or another—I never found out what —and so refused! Ah, such is life with geniuses!).
Now precisely because Korzybski founded General Semantics in linguistics and focused on how language works, on how the human nervous system operates (he used the term, "abstracts") and on how language operates as a psycho-physiological function in our lives, Science and Sanity contains a great many linguistic patterns. These are patterns that makes for both unsanity and unsanity. And not surprisingly, many correspond precisely to the Meta-Model distinctions. Yet also many are not covered by the Meta-Model. So here are the new Meta-Model distinctions that I found in Korzybski in 1992 and that eventually became part of the book, Communication Magic.
Like the linguistic distinctions in the Meta-Model, these indicate deleted, generalized and distort information that create all kinds of limitations in mental mapping processes. The result is that they leave our internal world impoverished. Detecting the limiting distinction enables you to ask questions about it— to meta-model the speaker. When you do, you ask for more precision about the experience the person referred to originally and from which they made their map. Here are a few of the distinctions, in Communication Magic (2001) I have detailed nine additional Meta-Model distinctions that covers three chapters (chapters 11, 12, and 13).
UNDEFINED TERMS
Undefined terms are either those presuppositional terms that hie our metaphysics and theories or over/under defined terms. Over-defined terms are defined by intension or verbal definition and are under-defined by specific facts and details. This makes them over-generalized, vague, and often empty verbalisms. To meta-model these—ask for details and specifics. What it will look, sound, and feel like? Ask, "What does this assume?"
DELUSIONAL VERBAL SPLITS
A word that has been verbally split is one split off from its full phrase and that’s what makes it delusional— it presents a false view of the world. The split is only verbal and not actual: mind-body cannot be separated except on a sheet of paper or computer screen. Where you have "body" there is "mind!” The split is false-to-fact and a mis-representation. Time-space is a single unit.
"Einstein realized that the empirical structure of 'space' and 'time' with which the physicist and the average man deals is such that it cannot be empirically divided, and that we actually deal with a blend which we have split only elementalistically and verbally into these fictitious entities" (Science and Sanity, p. 106)
Make such verbal splits, you train yourself in delusional semantic reactions. To meta-nodel these, hyphenate and reconnect holistic processes. "A little dash here and there may be of serious semantic importance when we deal with symbolism" (p. 289).
EITHER-OR PHRASES
Either-or terms assumes things are divisible into two classes and orients to a two choice world: heredity/environment, nature/nurture; genetic/learning. To meta-model ask if there are any other choices. "Are there anything in-between?”
IDENTIFICATION
To identify one thing with another assumes an absolute sameness, an identity. Eliminate this "all" the word “absolute” loses its meaning and we have “sameness in some respects,” but we have no identity, only similarity. Yet in our world, there is no sameness. Everything is different. Identification fails to make distinctions and is built on subject-predicate language, and the is of identity.
To meta-model use any extensionalizing method to make distinctions. Exchange the "is" of identity for specific verbs. Sub-script words with time-dates or space-locations to recognize the absolute individuality of every event at every time.
PSEUDO-WORDS
Some words are not symbols, do not stand for something other than itself. Instead, it is a semantic noise or mark-sign (1933, p. 79) and so a pseudo-word. "One of the obvious origins of human disagreement lies in the use of noises for words" (82). Korzybski says it's a form of fraud since it is literally, "the use of false representations." And Science and Sanity is full of example: “heat,” "space," "infinity" etc. To meta-model, reference and date-time index what you are referring to. If I were to see-hear-feel this, what would I see or hear or feel?
AMBIGUOUS WORDS
Words that are ambiguous are full of fluff and ambiguous as to what they refer to. They represent infinite-valued variables and so are neither true nor false, but ambiguous. To meta-model use co-ordinates to assign single values to the variable. Time and space co-ordinates will contextualize the specific referent. Ambiguous words are often nominalizations (hidden verbs in a noun form), so de-nominalize them. To meta-model develop a behavioristic and functional set of action words and turn ambiguous words into specific referents. Functional words enable us to translate dynamic processes into static and static processes into dynamic.
STATIC OR SIGNAL WORDS
Words become static and work like animal signals when we make absolutistic one-valued statements (1933, p. 140). These one-valued, static words and statements then give rise to absolute and dogmatic statements that confuse our statements with "eternal verity." This creates a "legislative semantic mood"! To meta-model extensionalize and enumerate the details of a collection. Ask, "What do you mean by...?"
As meaning-makers, we construct most of our meanings with language and as we all know, language can so easily mis-direct us. As a model, the Meta-Model provides a way for you to become mindful of your linguistics, what you are doing with them, and what they are doing within your neurology. If you are interested in Communication Magic (previously, The Secrets of Magic, 1997), see www.neurosemantics.com — Products, Catalogue.
Reminder: Neuro-Semantic Conference
July 1-3, 2011
Western Colorado
Michael Hall, Ph.D.
