1

While assertions of identity are never objective, and can be misleading, and while modern English has tended to make "is" the core predication in a way which does make us error-prone (something I've become acutely aware of trying to teach it to the Japanese!) . . . while, while, while, all these things.

I disagree *completely* with the approach these linguists are taking, and significantly with the description you are using. You are *definitely right* in one sense, but the linguists are on a different arc than you.

I will have to come back to this, for explanation. To do so will take us by way of Walker Percy's The Message in the Bottle, which I heartily recommend as an imperfect but very helpful guide to this problem.

Cheers,
PGE

2

Joe, you're treading on a path very close to one once followed by Inkling member Owen Barfield. In "Poetic Diction", among other things, Barfield described how as language becomes more abstract -- as it deals with words that describe other words rather than objects and the actions and states of objects -- the language of poetry declines. This is important because Barfield defined poetry (borrowing from Coleridge) as simply 'The best words in the best order'. As poetry declines in a language the ability to define the reality of the senses lessens while the ability to define abstract thoughts about reality increase.
The thesis of Barfield's "Saving the appearances" was that by considering objects as having an existence outside of our perceiving words & thoughts we were engaging in the religious idolatry that is an offense to God
Barfield used the word 'notional' to replace the 'to be' in the language problem you describe.
And yes, I know Barfield was a bit of a kook (He broke with Lewis over his views on reincarnation and seemd to believe in various Lost Continent theories) but his observations on poetry, the evolution of language, and the relation between mind and the universe are well considered and occasionally sublime.

3

Quote: We mistake the “map for the territory”, confusing the world of events and things for the world of words about events and things. Because of this tendency, he proposed that we should abolish the "is of identity" from the English language. (The "is of identity" takes the form X is a Y: "Joe is a conservative”, "Jane is a doctor”, “Steve is nice”, etc.) D. David Bourland Jr., though, didn’t think that went far enough. A student of Korzybski, Bourland extended the idea by proposing the abolition of all forms of the words "is" or "to be". Bourland called his proposal English without "isness" or E-Prime.

Joe, I urge you to stay away from the language ideology debate as you are opening a Pandora's box . Sure forsaking the standard English has some benefits but it will cost structural cohension. Just read the rewrite of Alice in Wonderland to which you linked. Talk about compromised structure!

Does not the greatest passage written in English use the "to be" to question itself to demostrate conflict? What force would Shakespear have without the overbearing nature of the EVIl "to be" or "is"?

Keep in mind that the standard English requires (except for imperatives) for the subject to be directly identified the whereas other languages that E-Prime is modeled like Japanese where the location is relative so sometimes subject is not placed in a single sentence but is more general. It can sometimes make it difficult to follow "isless" constructions for simply the subject "is" nowhere to be found.

4

I agree with this discussion in terms of expanding the importance of personal relationships. Frequently our society attaches labels and then we see the person so labeled as an "it". Joe, who serves your fast food order in the drive through becomes less than a human, less than a neighbor and possible friend, just drive through guy.

I am somewhat suspicious though of any requirement to speak or act a certain way. While we should encourage better personal communications aimed at spreading the gospel and living as we should, I cannot agree to any kind of coercive devise.

5

Objectivism is a contradiction of itself. It is what is left over when you throw out the two irrelevancies created by Aristotles metaphysics, ethics and religion, and are left with the notion of 'science'. The notion that the purest world is the one free of abstactions is of course itself an abstraction.

It seems to me that reality is a two part affair. The illuminated and the illumination. You have darkness without the illumnation, the abstractions are the illuminant. Christ is the true light and it is no mistake that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob introduces himself to Moses as "I AM".

6

This seems similar to methods of defusing conflict that we were taught as part of our premarital counseling and that I have also run across in various work-related seminars on conflict resolution. We were taught never to make statements like "Joe is wrong," or "Nick doesn't listen." Instead we were told to say "I think that Joe's statement is incorrect" or "I have the impression that Nick didn't hear me." Apparently, stating our perceptions instead of making categorical statements about another person makes a big difference in how people psychologically perceive the criticism.

This claim by Korzybski amused me:
Plants are able to transform sunlight into organic chemical energy while animals possess the ability to move through space and control a physical environment.

Plants, of course, are also able to move through space, and they often control a physical evnironment quite thoroughly.

7

Since this post is about the second greatest commandment, then how does one ask (or answer) the question, "And who *is* my neighbor?"

8

Gop_Jeff -- Since this post is about the second greatest commandment, then how does one ask (or answer) the question, "And who *is* my neighbor?"

You can ask the question by reframing it in another form. "What group of people belong to the set labeled "neighbor"?" (A pretentious sentence, but it gives the gist of my point.)

As for answering the question, we should keep in mind that Jesus didn't simply respond with a "X is your neighbor" but instead replied by giving the parable of the Good Samaritan.

9

Minor point, Nick - While plants do orient themselves towards light (phototropism), they don't change location under their own power (exception being the slime mold).

Abstractions are necessary and useful. While all my guitar students are individuals, I can confidently say that nearly all "beginning" students lack certain knowledge and skills. While the waiter is an individual, at the moment of interaction we are performing certain roles in a script, and the abstraction of customer/server is appropriate and necessary in order to accomplish the task of getting fed.

See Roger Shank's "Tell Me A Story" for much more on the notion of story or narrative as a manifestation of intelligence.

Tom likes BBQ, is a nice guy, and has articulate intellectual views that differ greatly from mine. On the basis of that information (and Joe saying it makes it "trustworthy opinion", not "fact"), I can decide that I'd like to have lunch with Tom, too. I don't need to know Tom's complete biography, CV, and DNA scan to decide whether or not I'd like to chew the fat with him (pun intended). The abstraction of, "intelligent, nice guy who likes BBQ" is enough information to enable meaningful action on my part.

Abstraction enables meaningful action without analysis paralysis.

10

I think this point does have some value. But it *is* also rather dangerous. To give just one example, Paul commends the Bereans for searching the Scriptures to know whether what he taught *was* the truth. And elsewhere in Scripture, people are exhorted to test teaching to see whether it *is* true or false. This requires making an "abstraction", of sorts: Either a teaching *is* true or it *is* false, according to the Bible. This requires making categories, or abstractions, if you want to call them that.. The Bible gives us black and white, not just the shades of grey we're left with if we have no categories. Either a doctrine *is* true or it *is* false (although a false doctrine may ultimately have some true elements, it *is* still false). And either someone *is* a born again (John 3) -- a Christian -- or not. Something *is* sin or it *is* not. There *is* no middle ground. The Bible gives us two categories.

Also, there is another case where the Bible puts us all in a category, and the being verb is essential. People don't just "do" sin, as E-prime would allow us to say. People *are* sinners. It is in our nature to sin. That is the great problem Jesus Christ came, ultimately, to solve. If people *aren't* sinners, but just "do" sin, we cannot fully understand what Christ came to do.

I would also point out that the Bible, as originally written, uses being verbs (is, to be, etc.). If you argue that it *is* bad to use these words, you're also arguing that the authors of Scripture used the _wrong words_, and thus you reject the verbal inspiration of Scripture.

Those promoting this view do seem to make one good point: We ought not reduce individuals simply to a bunch of categories. But the absolute rejection of categories is simply contrary to the teaching of Scripture.

Indeed, I would argue that we cannot truly keep the second greatest commandment, to love our neighbors as ourselves, unless we maintain categories. If a close family member *is* not a Christian, I should pray for him, and share with him, because I love him. The issue of whether he *is* or *isn't* a Christian *is* of fundamental importance, and if I really love him, I will do so. On the other hand, if I can no longer see people in two categories, I no longer see the need to love him by sharing with him.

Unfortunately, this all fits very nicely with our society's common definition of love or tolerance. If I love someone, if I'm tolerant, I'll never tell them they're wrong (our society says), or never tell them they ought to become Christians. But this is quite contradictory to what we see in the Bible. Jesus rebuked his disciples when they were in the wrong _because_ he loved them. If I can't say "You *are* wrong", well, that may be "tolerant" by one definition of the word, but it *isn't* love.

Let me close with this quote Joe gives:

"Therefore, when we say that something is something, we dishonestly, although probably unconsciously, suggest that what we think must really exist."

The Bible tells us of things that *do* really exist, and gives us real categories. In other words, when we recognize categories that the Bible recognizes, we *are* recognizing _real_ categories, and what we think *does* really exist. Again, either someone *is* a Christian, or they *are* not. True, we ourselves cannot be 100% certain about anyone's status. But that's not the point. The author of the quote is saying that the categories themselves _do not exist_ and that is false.

If we accept this, it will bind us to moral relativism. To speak about right and wrong, I have to deal with categories: certain behaviors *are* right, others *are* wrong.

I will be reposting this on my blog as it seems rather important, so you can link there if you want to link to it.

Caveat: I have not extensively read the original sources; I'm just responding to Joe's summary, the quotes given here, and the Wikipedia entry on E-prime. It is possible the original sources do not mean the absolute rejection of all categories, but that seems to be what this post suggests. We cannot believe the Bible and completely reject all categories. Agreed, we must relate to people as individuals, not as objects representing a category. But, according to the Bible, there *are* real categories.

11

I'm an analytic philosopher. I was taught to quibble, so I'll quibble.

Joe, you say: "(The "is of identity" takes the form X is a Y: "Joe is a conservative”, "Jane is a doctor”, “Steve is nice”, etc.)"

"Steve is nice" is not an identity statement. Rather it attributes to Steve a certain property. It's form is not that of "x=y" but rather (to use a notation common in philosophical logic) "Px" where "P" is some property or other and "x" is that entity to which it is attributed.

Paradigm identity statements are these: "Clark Kent is Superman" and "2 plus 2 is 4." Note that in each case we can replace "is" with "is identical to" and the sense of the original is retained. But if in "Steve is nice" we replace "is " with "is identical to" we get nonsense. "Steve is identical to nice" means nothing. (Nor do we get the sense of the original sentence if we read it in this way: "Steve is identical to niceness". Steve has this property. He is not indentical to it.)

As early as Plato and Aristotle, philosophers have noted that "to be", "is" and variants (and their synonyms in other languages)do not have a single sense but rather are used in many ways. Here are the three uses in English:

x is (identical to) y
x is (characterized by the property) y
x is (i.e. x exists or is real)

Now, I know little about the linguistic views you here canvass, but it seems that, from a metaphysical point of view, we have no need to dispense with "is" and the rest. Indeed it seems that we need to keep them. For surely something exists. (I do, and so do you.) Surely there are true identity claims. (I am Franklin Mason.) Surely there are objects to which certain properties can be truly attributed. (Steve really is nice, no doubt.)

About abstraction. I'm a bit skeptical that people really do confuse word and world. My name is a sequence of letters. But does anyone really think that I am a sequence of letters? That would be bizarre. Indeed I would think that anyone who did really believe that would be insane.

Is the real worry here that the world always outstrips the various categories with which we attempt to come to know it?

12

It is possible the original sources do not mean the absolute rejection of all categories, but that seems to be what this post suggests.

I certainly didn’t intend to imply that (and after reading my post again I’m not sure why some people have that impression). The problem isn’t with the “abstracting” or with the categories but with the way we use them. The point of the post is found in the line: “Our dependence of the “to be” form causes us to judge people based on the nouns we can put after ‘is.’” It is not that we always confuse the person for the categories but that when we grown dependent on that verb form we tend to do so.

I think a few commenters are reading way too much into this idea. I’m not advocating eliminating the verb form “to be” from our vocabulary. But I do think that we often use it as a linguistic crutch, causing us to become sloppy thinkers. Implying that we might need a moratorium on the word “is” does not mean that it is or always has been used in the wrong way.

I take full responsibility for any misunderstandings that may have arisen do to this post. But I must confess that I do grow frustrated at the knee-jerk nit-picking of details while the primary point is almost completely ignored. Yes, categories are useful. Yes, abstraction is essential to thinking. And yes, the verb “to be” is valuable. But can’t we set aside the obvious for the moment and think about how we think? Is there really no value in questioning whether the way we use language might have an effect on the way we perceive (and hence treat) people?

13

Hey Joe, I don't think it possible to say even a small portion of what we wish to say and not at the same time presuppose some set of categories that will be used to 'carve up' the world. But if this is so, it seems to me quixotic to attemtp to give up the "is" of property attribution.

You say: "You can ask the question [viz. "Who is my neighbor"] by reframing it in another form. "What group of people belong to the set labeled "neighbor"?" Now, the set labeled "neighbor" is that set (call it "N") defined in this way: x is a member of N just in the case that x is my neighbor. Talk of sets and set membership has buried in it the "is" of property attribution.

Once we recongnize that in talk of sets we have presupposed the reality of certain properties, I can think of no reason not to continue to use the "is" of property attribution.

14

Joe said, "We cease to love truly when we begin abstracting."

I think Joe "is" wrong; we cease to love truly when we reduce people to our abstractions. But abstractions do not necessarily amount to the kind of judging against which Jesus warned. Saying "Tom Girsch is a nice guy," is a simple compliment, just as this sentence is a simple observation. Neither violates Jesus' admonition.

Bunny Trail: Wonder if President Clinton had been studying E-Prime when he parsed the word "is" during his testimony.

15

I read about this little linguistic kerfuffle a couple years ago and it seems as bizarre today as it did back then.

To me, this whole "Don't label me, you make me less human" is all very 6th grade. I don't know anyone who seriously "reduces" people to their labels. The worst of it that I see is when people, in a debate, criticize the other guy's argument by saying "Yeah, but you're a liberal", implying that we don't have to listen to the argument. But even there, we haven't "reduced" him to solely being a liberal, we've only ignored his argument because of one of his properties.

Beyond the total lack of need for semantic backflips, it just makes language awkward. "Steve is my friend" versus "Steve belongs to a group of people that I consider friends". Wow, we sure scored a victory for clear think there!

Also, these linguists miss the entire point that I think they are trying to make. They are, in essence, complaining that people are confusing their perception with reality, in the form of making "is/are" statements. But isn't every positive statement about something imposing your perception?

Let's say that I use e-prime so instead of saying "Steve is a liberal jerk" I said "Steve has worthless opinions because of his irrational worldview and his complete lack of human decency". Is Steve any better off? Is he now more human since I haven't applied a label?

I understand where Joe is coming from and it is a good point: people deserve individual respect because we are all unique souls created in the image of God. That's a fine lesson and a great ethic to remember. However, these linguists seem to just be trying too hard.

16

Joe,

I'm probably among those you described as "reading way too much into this idea".

I'm sure you didn't mean that we abolish all such verbs. But I think you're contradicting yourself. In your last comment, you wrote: "Yes, abstraction is essential to thinking."

In the conclusion of your post, you wrote:
"It makes no difference whether we emphasize the similarities or focus on the ways in which we differ; we cease to love truly when we begin abstracting."

I don't see how you can reconcile these two. You're saying that we have to abstract in order to think -- but we cease to love whenever we do abstract. Yet you're exhorting us to quit abstracting and instead, love people. I'm sure you don't mean that we should stop thinking???

17

I don't see how you can reconcile these two. You're saying that we have to abstract in order to think -- but we cease to love whenever we do abstract. Yet you're exhorting us to quit abstracting and instead, love people. I'm sure you don't mean that we should stop thinking???

I see your point. I should have clarified the object of the sentence by tacking on “about people” after the term “abstracting” (though it would have made for an even worse sentence structure). The statement should have been along the lines of: "It makes no difference whether we emphasize the similarities or focus on the ways in which we differ; we cease to love truly when we begin abstracting about people in a way that reduces them to categories instead of individuals.” (Clarity can be a bit clunky.)

Again, the main point is that we can’t truly love our fellow humans when we think of them as abstract generalizations (my enemy, my neighbor) rather than as individuals (Osama bin Laden, Fred Jones). The point isn’t that “is” phrases are not needed, only that we need to become more conscious about what we are doing when we use such terms. Korzybski was much more concerned about the process of thinking that occurs by the use of language than he was in playing the language games that such "rules" can lead to.

(By the way, this idea isn't all that different than your high school English teacher's admonition to stop using the passive voice when writing.)

18

It makes no difference whether we emphasize the similarities or focus on the ways in which we differ; we cease to love truly when we begin abstracting.

Let's get the picking of the nits out of the way first. Joe, if you add the words "too much" at the end, then your statement becomes just fine:

... we cease to love truly when we begin abstracting too much.

O.K., that was easy.

As for the rest of your post, I think it is terrific.

I like the warm-up, where you relate the binding properties of plants, animals, and humans.

But the meat of your essay is even better. I could hardly agree more with your critique of abstraction, and with your call for greater care in the use of the word "is".

Lazy/sloppy thinking is reflected in lazy/sloppy discourse, which in turn encourages yet more lazy/sloppy thinking. George Orwell liked to highlight this kind of problem with language. He knew that misuse of language is one of great enemies of maintaining a decent and healthy civilization.

When you post pieces like this, Joe, you make me think we could be intellectual soulmates, even though we have such different beliefs about other things. Keep on rolling, sir!

19

Joe,

I understand what you say your main point is. Certainly we can't love people if we think of them just as abstract generalizations, and I won't argue with you on that.

But there are still two things that bug me. First, these people you reference really ARE advocating doing away with being verbs. And this is really a dangerous suggestion, even if (arguably) it might have some benefit in terms of helping us think of people as people, not categories. It's dangerous because (to give just one example I mentioned above) Scripture itself (at least, the New Testament, even in Greek) uses being verbs to make categorical statements about people. If you argue being verbs are bad, you have to also say that Scripture ought not to have used those words.

Also, as you probably agree, the real problem isn't the language. It's the heart. Those semanticists you focus on think they can cure our sin problem (which leads us to dehumanize other people and think of them just in categories) by changing our language. Not so: "Out of the heart" come wicked thoughts, etc., said Jesus. You can get rid of being verbs, but people will still have wrong attitudes towards one another.

20

I know I've been posting a lot, so I'll try to quit, but I have just one more quibble that relates to my last comment. Joe wrote:

"Our dependence of the “to be” form causes us to judge people based on the nouns we can put after “is.”"

We judge people wrongly because we use "being" verbs? Not so. No one forces us to judge people wrongly. "Being" verbs certainly don't do so. When we judge wrongly, it isn't forced upon us by our language. As I wrote in my last comment, the ultimate cause of sin is the heart. It's not the language.

Joe, I know and agree with the overall point you're trying to make. But these comments you made along the way are rather troubling. I'm sure you don't agree that sin is forced upon us by our language -- but I wouldn't know that just by reading your post. I give you the benefit of the doubt since I'm a regular reader, but you may want to clarify for those reading your weblog for the first time.

21

Oh my [Insert Deity In Which I Do Not Believe], did I just see a post on the Evangelical Outpost, that's the Evangelical Outpost, on General Semantics? I think I did. Hold on a second, let me catch my breath.

OK, I'm composed, now. Joe, honestly, while I tend to disagree with pretty much everything you've ever said, and can be frustrated by some of your discussion of intelligent design and naturalism, because I feel that they are based largely on misunderstandings and ignorance (that is not an insult, by the way, it just means lack of relevant knowledge), I have and continue to respect you, your intelligence, and in particular, your writing abilities. That's why I keep coming back here (I have had a very hard time finding quality sources of conservative evangelical viewpoints). But a post on General Semantics? Even comparing it to Buber (which probably made Buber roll over in his grave)? What the... ?

OK, now I really am composed. This is the quack theory that underlies much of the long-debunked Neuro-linguistic programming and L. Ron Hubbard's scientology. It's a theory that has no empirical basis, and, you will notice, none of the work on general semantics has ever been published in peer reviewed psychology, linguistics, or philosophy journals. In fact, it conflicts with the findings published in those fields and their journals, a fact that general semanticists tend to dismiss as being a product of the researchers not using the principles of general semantics in their research.

OK, that's enough from me. I hope that next time you'll do a little more research before posting on pseudo-science next time.

22

Chris,

You know, ideas are interesting things. Whether I would go out and remove being verbs from my vocabulary or not is irrelevant. There is some truth to the benefit of removing "Chris is a dogmatist" from my mind.

ITS AN IDEA: who cares if it is non-peer reviewed pseudo-science. I do not think Joe is asking if it can be taught in schools. Discuss why the idea is good, why it is bad, why it is stupid - but what did you add to the discussion by saying:

This is the quack theory that underlies much of the long-debunked Neuro-linguistic programming and L. Ron Hubbard's scientology. It's a theory that has no empirical basis, and, you will notice, none of the work on general semantics has ever been published in peer reviewed psychology, linguistics, or philosophy journals. In fact, it conflicts with the findings published in those fields and their journals, a fact that general semanticists tend to dismiss as being a product of the researchers not using the principles of general semantics in their research.

23

JCH, it's quite true that it would be good if we understood that categories are fuzzy, they have a family-resemblance structure rather than a set of necessary and sufficient features, and that people fall into many overlapping and non-overlapping categories, and may even fall into contrasting categories (i.e., I may be a dogmatist and a novelty-seeker). However, we certainly don't need quack science and philosophy to tell us that. Heck, since Joe cites Buber, he might as well have referred to Heidegger, Levinas, Derrida, and Foucault. After all, in much more philosophically-sophisticated ways, they made similar points (and without all the baggage of general semantics). Or he might have just cited empirical research on concepts, personality, etc., or lingusistic research on how we use language. Once again, this would give him the same point (about saying, "Chris is a dogmatist,") without the general semantics pseudo-scientific baggage, and with more empirically sound inferences to go with it.

24

Chris,

However, we certainly don't need quack science and philosophy to tell us that. Heck, since Joe cites Buber, he might as well have referred to Heidegger, Levinas, Derrida, and Foucault. After all, in much more philosophically-sophisticated ways, they made similar points (and without all the baggage of general semantics). Or he might have just cited empirical research on concepts, personality, etc., or lingusistic research on how we use language. Once again, this would give him the same point (about saying, "Chris is a dogmatist,") without the general semantics pseudo-scientific baggage, and with more empirically sound inferences to go with it.

Well, Joe could have done a whole bunch of things that you would have done, but he didn't. And that isn't surprising, since you're not the one who wrote the post, Joe is.

I have no idea what things you mention are pseudo-science and which things are not. But Joe's post is still great, and your response just tells me that Joe managed to push a couple of your buttons. Your response doesn't tell me why Joe might actually be right or wrong in the points that he makes.

25

Chris -- This is the quack theory that underlies much of the long-debunked Neuro-linguistic programming and L. Ron Hubbard's scientology.

While I don’t want to turn into a defender of general semantics, the connection with scientology is rather tenuous. GS was a favorite theory of post-WWII Sci-Fi writers of which Hubbard was one. As S. I. Hayakawa, a former U.S. Senator and protégé of Korzybski, wrote:

"The lure of the pseudoscientific vocabulary and promises of dianetics cannot but condemn thousands who are beginning to emerge from scientific illiteracy to a continuation of their susceptibility to word-magic and semantic hash." ("Dianetics: From Science-fiction to Fiction-science," pp.280-293, Etc: A Review of General Semantics vol 8:4 (1951))

It's a theory that has no empirical basis, and, you will notice, none of the work on general semantics has ever been published in peer reviewed psychology, linguistics, or philosophy journals.

The fact that it has not empirical basis simply puts it on par with most psychology, linguistics, and philosophy. Seriously, Freudian psychoanalysis had no empirical basis and yet turned up in many “peer reviewed” journals. The same could be said for logical positivism and numerous other theories that have been thrown on the dustbin of history. (And don’t even get me started on Marxism, which still haunts the pages of peer-reviewed journals.)

In fact, it conflicts with the findings published in those fields and their journals, a fact that general semanticists tend to dismiss as being a product of the researchers not using the principles of general semantics in their research.

Hmm, sounds like the general semanticists share something in common with the neo-Darwinists. ; )

OK, that's enough from me. I hope that next time you'll do a little more research before posting on pseudo-science next time.

Is GS pseudo-science? I have no idea. In fact, I’m a bit suspicious of any use of the prejudicial term pseudo-science. To paraphrase Richard Rorty, “science” is whatever other scientists will let you get away with saying about a subject.

Heck, since Joe cites Buber, he might as well have referred to Heidegger, Levinas, Derrida, and Foucault.

I take it you were being ironic by including Derrida and Foucault. Surely you if you are going to have a “quack science and philosophy" category you wouldn't exclude them.

Personally, I don’t start by asking whether a theory has been vetted by the proper authorities before I consider what I should think. Whether it has been published in a “peer-reviewed” journal matters not a whit when trying to determine whether an idea is interesting and is worthy of further scrutiny. I think a lot of theories and beliefs that are antithetical to my own (i.e., Buddhism, naturalism) are worthy of attention and have something to teach me.

26

Franklin,

The Korzybski crowd doesn't deny the property attributive function of 'is'. They're saying that when we attribute a property to a subject, we're attributing a form of moving to that subject. If "Steve is nice" is true, then Steve will be nice. Since according to this camp all properties, including niceness, extend temporally (loosely, they're dispositions, not states), the formula for Tarski's T-sentences changes.

When we use 'is' to attribute a property, our statement assigns a set of possible movements to the predicated subject. Since the world is more dynamic than our thoughts (a subject's trajectory, and its logical semantics, can change, forwards and backwards, at each fluxion of motion), and our thoughts determine how we interact with others (& if we have power, the possibilities we make available to the other), we need to find a way to attribute properties contingently and dynamically (maybe adverbally?) in order to speak accurately and to avoid reducing our neighbors to objects, not persons.

You might want to check out the chapters on non-Aristotelian logic and non-Euclidean geometry in Bachalard's Philosophy of No. He was building on Korzybski.

Please keep pursuing these thoughts, Joe. You may yet redeem yourself of your absurd biblical literalism (which is only Christianity's variety of logical positivism), with regard to your dogmatic condemnations of queer marriages, for instance. The true God (who is not the God of literalist Christians) loves us as persons, not objects.

Amy

27

Joe:
GS was a favorite theory of post-WWII Sci-Fi writers of which Hubbard was one.

IIRC, Robert Heinlein also played around with general semantics in some of his early novels -- I think perhaps "Revolt in 2100" and Beyond This Horizon, but don't quote me on that.

28

I know you guys are haveing a serious conversation, but you might be interested in the Klinkgon language. It has no verb "to be". Thus when Skakespere is quoted in "the original Klingon" the words "to be or not to be" are transliterated "too beh [uninteligible Klingon] too beh".

29

1) Yes the way we use language DOES "have an effect on the way we perceive (and hence treat) people," which is why the nit-picking is important. Maybe a sign that you should think that your expressions entailed more than your intentions. If you are married, then may do what I do and realign my experessions to better match my intentions. This is afterall part of your point.

2) Certainly you are not advocating removing "to be" for that would rule out "I am." Christians don't rule out "I am." (Ex 3:14) But the trajectory of this post says much more than you claim it does and I am back to #1.

30

Joe,
"Again, the main point is that we can’t truly love our fellow humans when we think of them as abstract generalizations (my enemy, my neighbor) rather than as individuals (Osama bin Laden, Fred Jones). The point isn’t that “is” phrases are not needed, only that we need to become more conscious about what we are doing when we use such terms"

And I would say that being more conscious of our terms isn't going to help us love individuals better. Having someone read the gospel narratives (or even the Children's Book of Virtues)is far more likely to inspire them to love their neighbor than having them think about abstract generalizations. I appreciate your posts debating with the naturalists and helping us to think about the issues of morality in our culture, but an apologist is supposed to defend the truth - let's not get that mixed up the the preacher who is supposed to help people live more truely. Mixing philosophy and exhortaion is kind of like giving people a lecture on the physics and chemistry of how their engine of works when what they really need is a jump start.

31

OK, Joe. My objection to the above runs along the lines of Franklin Mason's, that you're collapsing a whole bunch of things English does with its "to be" verbs together; and also with those who objected to the overgeneralized ending. Abstraction, *even about people*, is a necessary evil.

I do think it's an evil, not moral but incidental, though I think the hortatory tone of your argument may muddle this for some readers. It always entails some amount of loss when mortal humans abstract from reality, and our very mortality, sinfulness, and fallibility makes our abstractions unreliable (though some are *more* reliable than others). Still, it's not *intrinsically* unloving.

And yet, it is unavoidable that we do so. I cannot assert *anything* about someone without implicitly making some statements about that person's being--I must at least assert the name of the person, and then make some number of finite predicates about that person.

Whether I say, "Tom is a Republican who voted for Perot" or "Tom has voted for every GOP candidate since Gerald Ford, except when he voted for Perot," makes pretty much no difference. In the first case, an essentialist fallacy could be committed if a reader were to believe that "Republican" is suffficient information to predict in all respects how Tom will think and act. Certainly, some folks over at Democratic Underground seem to think in those terms.

In the second case, though, the more concrete description still selects from among the many things I could predicate of Tom this one, giving it unusual significance. It's subject to the same flawed thinking.

*HOWEVER* I still think you're basically right. I also really enjoyed thinking this one through, and continue chewing (I *highly* recommend you tackle the Percy book). The English language has steadily homed in on expressions with "is" for several centuries, now, and there's a lot of potential confusion and narrowing of thought to be weighed when we make grammatical recommendations.

Consider the difference between "this book interests me" and "this book is interesting." The former indicates a relation and agency (albeit agency we could challenge) while the latter indicates a quality. Now, we can relativize that quality again: "this book is interesting to me." The quality is still being attributed to the book as if "interesting-ness" were a thing that can inhere in books. Furthermore, we have moved from an unambiguously tensed verb to a superficially ambiguous verb (technically, it's possible to sort this out, but only in advanced grammar classes); we have lost the sense that we speak of a particular time *at which* the book acts upon us in a certain way.

I suggest that there is an interesting problem in language: the lack of differentiation between human agency and causal relations (or relations analogous to causal ones, like a book's arousing my interest). This is exacerbated by the modern English reliance on "is" structures, IMHO.

So, I end up partly agreeing with your critique, but not with some of the reasoning. I teach my writing students to avoid passive, expletive constructions, and attributions with "is" wherever they can think of more concrete and specific language; and I think, in the end, that's what we're all driving at.

After all, Joe Carter is a good guy. Or rather, Joe Carter often posts thoughtful, provocative articles which I variously like, dislike, or like but disagree with.

Cheers,
PGE