Dennis K. Chong and Jennifer K. Smith Chong^©

In Science and Sanity, Korzybski asserts his propositional functions about Cause and Effect. You will find that the values he applies to them are highly negative and condemnatory of the Aristotelian system and Cause and Effect.

Both the aristotelian and non-aristotelian systems affect our lives deeply, because of psycho-logical factors and the immediacy of their application. Each is the expression of the psycho-logical tendencies of its period. Each in its period must produce in the younger generations a psycho-logical background which makes the understanding of its appropriate disciplines ‘natural’ and simple. In an aristotelian human world the euclidean and newtonian systems are ‘natural’, while the youth educated in the non-aristotelian habits will find the non-euclidean and non-newtonian systems simpler, more ‘natural’, and the older systems ‘unthinkable’.

Alfred Korzybski: Science and Sanity The International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company 1980 Sixth Reprint page 8

Here, Korzybski spells out in no uncertain terms that the two systems, the aristotelian and the non-aristotelian systems, i.e. A and Non-A, are different as chalk is from cheese. He ends by saying that those who are educated in the non-aristotelian system will consider the systems that preceded it, i.e. AEN are ‘unthinkable’! And indeed, so they are! It is here that Korzybski is implying that there is an either / or choice. Later on, in this paper, you will read how he comes right out and says it. He does so in the most uncompromising of ways.

The main issue is the building of a Non-A -system, which co-ordinates many disconnected fields of knowledge on the basis of structure, from the special point of view of non-el s.r.

Ibidem page 34

Here, Korzybski reveals what an Non-A -system can do and which the older A-system could not. He also states what he really wants. He wants the Non-A -system because it alone can co-ordinate disconnected fields of knowledge. We would infer here that Korzybski’s position is that we are in a web of life and that all fields are connected somehow. Indeed this is accurate for he states:

In the traditional systems, we did not recognize the complete semantic interdependence of differences and similarities, the empirical world existing differences, the nervous system manufacturing primarily similarities and our ‘knowledge’, if worth anything at all, being the joint product of both.

Ibidem page 264

We cannot think of a more elegant and erudite way of speaking about the nature of the web of life.

The answer seems to be that: (1) the daily language is structurally extremely complex; (2) it is humanly impossible to analyse its structure by using the language of the A structure, so that before anything can be done at all in this field a Non-A -system must be formulated; (3) there is a general innocence on the part of nearly all specialists, a very few mathematicians excepted, of the structural and semantic role of the simplest - although still inadequate - Non-A language called mathematics; (4) all these issues involve most powerful unconscious factors which work automatically against any revision, and (5) the building of a Non-A -system in 1933 is an extremely laborious enterprise, to say the least, and, in all probability, really beyond the power of any single man to complete.

Ibidem page 42 - 43

Korzybski marks out in this quote the insufficiencies and inadequacies of the A language. Here his position₁₉₃₃ is that the development of the Non-A -system would be an incredible challenge and test. What we now know is that at this stage₁₉₉₉, the language of the Non-A -system has already been developed and is in place. However, all but a few cognoscenti know about it and how to use it.

The A-system involved primitive structural metaphysics; a -system to be of any semantic value at all, must start with the structural metaphysics or structural assumptions as given by science 1933.

Ibidem page 44

Can you imagine the fit Aristotle must now be having that his A system is deemed to be based on "primitive structural metaphysics"!

When all is said and done, one cannot but see, at least as far as the white race is concerned, that a change from an A to a Non-A -system must be momentous.

Ibidem page 52

Our view is that it is not only the white race that will have the experience of this momentous change when we all move over from A to Non-A. We have said and it will bear repeating that when this happens it is the ultimate gestalt switch.

The rest of this volume is devoted to showing that the common, A-system and language which we inherited from our primitive ancestors differ entirely in structure from the well-known and established 1933 structure of the world, ourselves and our nervous systems included. Such antiquated map-language, by necessity, must lead us to semantic disasters, as it imposes and reflects its unnatural structure on the structure of our doctrines and institutions

Ibidem page 59

Korzybski is very clear here that the A-system and its structure simple does not fit with the structure of the world as known in 1933. Indeed, we also know that it does not fit the world of 1999. He warns us about its ill-formed consequences. As he says the two differ entirely and the A-system and its language system is antiquated and unnatural!

The use of the term ‘structure’ does not represent special difficulties when once we understand its origins and its meanings. The main difficulty is found in the old A habits of speech, which do not allow the use of structure, as, indeed, this notion has no place in a complete A subject-predicativism

Ibidem page 60

Here Korzybski marks out a critical problem with the A-system and its language structures.

If we want to be rational and to understand anything at all, we must look for structure, relations, and ultimately, multi-dimensional order, all of which was impossible in a broader sense in the A-system, as will be explained later on.

Ibidem page 61

By now any reader will be aware that it is to his interest to discount the Aristotelian system of Causality in his mind and in his being; and if he had any charity in him he would help his fellow human kind to do the same.

All our advances are going very slowly, very painfully and haltingly, because the new work in science, the Einstein and the new quantum theories included, is all of a non-el structure, while our daily language are el and absolutistic and twist pathologically our habits of ‘thought’ and s.r.

Ibidem page 91

Here Korzybski cites certain ill-formed and most unwelcome offshoots of "our daily language" which is el, i.e. Aristotelian.

I reject the following structurally and semantically important aspects of the A-system, which I shall call postulates, and which underlie the A-system-function:

Ibidem page 92 - 93

The aristotelian system is two-valued. Firstly, there are the two values of Cause and Effect. Then, there are the two values of RIGHT and that of WRONG. Alfred Korzybski, in no uncertain terms, rejects both. We stand with him absolutely on this.

Either we shall have a science of man, and, therefore, have to part company with the structural implications of our old language and corresponding s.r. - and this means we shall have to build up a new terminology, which is Non-A in structure, and use different methods; - or we shall remain in A semantic clutches, use A language and methods, involving older s.r., and have no science of man.

Ibidem page 94

We had forgotten that Alfred Korzybski had come to this ferocious position. So here it is! It is to be either / or. The two systems are not reconcilable. They cannot co-exist. One is to choose one or the other.

The assertion that AEN is only a particular of Non-AEN is clearly a consideration within a very restricted domain. We exist in curved space/time. As such there cannot be such an entity as a straight line. However, one could argue that the length of a line is straight but only when that length is very restricted, i.e. when its length is infinitesimally short. You can likewise argue the point of a Cause and Effect relationship if the time interval between the two is very restricted. This is when the time interval between the two is infinitesimally brief. However, under such conditions there is no possibility for another variable to act as the cause.

It was found that the el ‘absolute’ division of the ‘observer’ and the ‘observed’ was false to facts, because every observation in this field disturbs the observed. The elimination of this elementalism in the quantum field led to the most revolutionary restricted ‘uncertainty principle’ of Heisenberg, which, without abolishing determinism, requires the transforming of the two-valued A ‘logic’ into infinity-valued semantics of probability.

Ibidem page 107

This quote marks out the anomaly of the two-valued A ‘logic’.

The old language is structurally, and, therefore, by implication, semantically unsatisfactory;

Ibidem p108

Alfred Korzybski could not be more succinct in his disapproval of the A-system language.

Cod liver oil or sunshine usually effects a cure. We should notice the little word ‘or’, for quite different ‘causes’ produce similar ‘effects’ - an example illustrating that in life ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ do not correspond in a one-to-one relation, but in a many-to-one relation.

Ibidem page 126

Here Alfred Korzybski takes the opportunity to question and undermine the validity of Cause and Effect - again.

The main difficulty, in the search for structure, was the absence of a clear formulation of the issues involved and the need for a Non-A -system, so as to be able to compare two systems, the comparison of which helps further structural discovery. It is not claimed that either the A or Non-A system-functions have been formulated here, but it seems that, in the presence or absence of identification, we find a fundamental postulate which, once formulated, suggests a comparison with experience. As we discover that ‘identity’ is invariably false to facts, this A postulate must be rejected from any future Non-A -system.

Ibidem page 146

Here Korzybski is as severe as he possibly can be about the anomaly of identity that is characteristic of the A system.

One of the fundamental structural defects and insufficiencies of the traditional A-system was that it had no place for ‘relations’, since it assumed that everything could be expressed in a subject-predicate form. As we shall see, this is not true.

Ibidem page 188

Here Korzybski identifies another critical problem with the language of the A-system. As the work Science and Sanity shows there is no end of anomalous problems with the language of the A-system. We were to expand on this matter in our work Don’t Ask WHY?!

These semantic disturbances can be eliminated only by consideration of multi-dimensional order, which are impossible without asymmetrical relations, and so could not have been accomplished in an A-system.

Ibidem page 192

Here Korzybski indexes the hopelessness of the A-system.

The chasm between human affairs and science became wider and wider. The reason for it was that, in life, even at present, we preserve A standards of evaluation, and science mainly depends on subtler Non-A means involving asymmetrical relations which alone can give us structure.

Ibidem page 197

Here Korzybski’s condemnation of the A-system is brutal, citing it as the condition for an ever widening ‘chasm’ between human affairs and science.

Here I shall mention, once more, that only with Non-A standards of evaluation does a scientific treatment of man and his affairs become possible.

Ibidem page 198

Clearly by implication such a scientific treatment of man and his affairs is impossible by the A-system.

We are mostly semantic victims of the primitive doctrines which underlie the A structure of our language, and so we populate the world around us with semantic phantoms which add to our fears and worries, or which lead to abnormal cheerfulness, well known among some ‘mentally’ ill.

Ibidem page 198 - 199

Korzybski’s critique of the underlying pre-suppositions of the A language is ferocious. He calls them ‘primitive’.

The ‘is’ of identity underlies, also, the two-valued, too primitive, too restricted, and structurally fallacious A ‘logic’.

Ibidem page 202

Here, Korzybski continues his denunciation of the A system, but even more severely.

Similarly with ‘man’, either we decide to introduce into human affairs scientific evaluation, and so part company with the A and pre-aristotelian system of evaluation, or preserve A structure, and have no science of man, science of sanity, but continue in the prevailing chaos.

Ibidem page 203

Korzybski is a very precise and consistent man. Here again, he puts to us that we are in an either / or predicament. He has proposed the Non-A -system. We either accept it because if we do not then our lot is one of ‘continuing chaos’. His warning could not be clearer.

We see that the old two-valued verbal structure of ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ is not similar to the structure of the world, but a rash limiting generalization from probability.

Ibidem page 218

We do not know what stronger statement can be found to confirm Korzybski’s statement here that ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ is to be discounted in our way of thinking.

There are good structural reasons why the world should, or should not, be accounted for in terms of differential equations, or in terms and language of ‘causality’,.

Ibidem page 224

Here Korzybski, offers to us his either / or choice again. It is very clear that there is to be no compromise on this matter.

As I demonstrate - and close observation will verify this very generally - the existing theories of ‘mental’ life, closely related with our linguistic habits, are A, grossly inadequate, and lead to a wholesale production of morons, imbeciles, ‘emotionally’ disturbed, and, in general, un-sane individuals.

Ibidem page 316

Korzybski does not mince his conclusions about the A.

In the human field we find a quite similar situation, unanalysable by older methods, because all order involves asymmetrical relations, which, as we have already shown, cannot be dealt with by the A means.

Ibidem page 317

Here Korzybski again marks how hopeless the A is.

The issue is clear and definite: either we persist in our old A habits of speech, in which case asymmetrical relations and order evade our grasp, and proper evaluation and sanity are physiologically impossible, or we build a Non-A -system free, or at least more free, from these evaluational limitations, which allows us to deal with order, and sanity becomes physiologically possible.

Ibidem page 317

Again, in a very ferocious manner Korzybski marks out the choice before us. There is no compromise between A and Non-A. It is either / or. There is no way that the two systems can co-exist.

The text of Science and Sanity goes to page 761. We had arrived at page 224. Then before we could complete this paper we encountered the last three propositional functions by AK. We felt it appropriate to include them in this paper.

We share with the reader that there is no difficulty for us to continue, on and on, to cite other denouncements and condemnations of the Aristotelian system of Cause and Effect by AK. However, we think that what is cited here is more than enough to prove that Alfred Korzybski was truly determined that in what he wanted is the end of Cause and Effect, the end of the A-system.

What he wanted is his Non-Aristotelian System, his Non-A or our No-Y-ian Frame.

In this we are in full concordance because the consequences of the A-system is the insanity of dis-empowerment, pain, misery, suffering and tears of the Blame Frame.

We propose to deal with this in Part III.

References:

Alfred Korzybski: Science and Sanity International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Co. 1980 Sixth Reprint

Dennis K. Chong and Jennifer K. Smith Chong: Don’t Ask WHY?! C-Jade Publications Inc. 1997 Second Reprint

Dennis K. Chong and Jennifer K. Smith Chong: Power and Elegance in Communication C-Jade Publications Inc. 1993

©1999 Dennis K. Chong & Jennifer K. Smith Chong. All rights reserved.