[FRIAM] [dis]integrated

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

"General Semantics" reminds me of this guy: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Raniere

or perhaps this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

(Funny story: We met a customer at the pub the other day who calls himself "Captain". When I asked him "What are you the Captain of?", the bartender answered "The Royal Scotman".)

More seriously, though, the essentialist program that seems buried in (or perhaps mistakenly accused of) General Semantics seems problematic. It reminds me a bit of the intuitively attractive, but ultimately false, MBPT:

Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless

which, since we seem to care about AI is unfortunately used: https://v6.typefocus.com/

As always, the misunderstood geniuses (e.g. Robert Rosen) tend toward the rhetoric that any flaws others find with the system is due to their own lack of effort ... or lack of persistence. But, as Jochen points out, it literally does not matter whether a Country song is good or not. What matters is whether a silly dance on TikTok goes viral.

On 10/12/21 8:50 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> The source of all evil is *'is'*.
> 
> This notion is implicit and semi-explicit in most mystical philosophies and is explicitly applied to thinking in the works of Korzibski and the General Semantics literature that was briefly popular and widespread a few decades back.
> 
> davew
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, at 9:29 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
>> Exactly, which is why Hume's Law is a criticism of axiomatic thinking. 
>> We clearly do derive ought from is. Is is the only is that is. Is this 
>> a type of moral realism? Emergentist morality?

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ