negative premises
No content on this page itself — see linked references below.
2 linked references
deserve is broken
- 1. "deserve" seems weird and broken, but in a korzybskian sense, even if deserve is borked, it may be worth actively going and clearing up old things you currently confusedly think you deserve not to have
- so it might not make sense to say "I deserve nice things" because that's maybe entitled or something? but the contrapositive is actually a separate statement that is not wrong: "I don't deserve to be without nice things".
- likewise, "you don't deserve to be lonely your whole life", "nobody deserves to grow up in a shitty household", etc
Science and Sanity
- I really like his bit on negative premises: (from pages 60-61)
- Let us repeat once more the two crucial negative premises as established firmly by all human experience:
- (1) Words are not the things we are speaking about; and
- (2) There is no such thing as an object in absolute isolation
- These two most important negative statements cannot be denied. If any one chooses to deny them, the burden of the proof falls on him. He has to establish what he affirms, which is obviously impossible. We see that it is safe to start with such solid negative premises, translate them into positive language, and build a null-A system. [non-aristotelian]
- If words are not things, or maps are not the actual territory, then, obviously, the only possible link between the objective world and the linguistic world is found in structure, and structure alone. The only usefulness of a map or a language depends on the similarity of structure between the empirical world and the map-languages.
- [lots more here]