DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Scientifictionist, v. 2, issue 1, November 1946-January 1947

Transcribe
Translate

Scientifictionist, v. 2, issue 1, November 1946-January 1947

Page 12

STANLEY WEINBAUM AND GENERAL SEMANTICS
by Robert L. Stein

"He seemed terrifically amused that the same word meant the same thing twice in succession, or that the same word could apply to two different objects."

The above quotation is the basis for my assertion that Weinbaum either read Korzybski, or came to the same conclusion independently of K., for this quotation is from A MARTIAN ODYSSEY. Weinbaum is talking about Tweel.

How did I arrive at this conclusion? First of all, the statement that one word could mean the same thing twice in succession was amusing to Tweel. An ancient Greek said that one could not step twice into the same river. In other words, everything is constantly changing. Nothing is the same now as it was a moment ago. This is one of the bases of General Semantics. Not taking this fact into consideration can lead to trouble, for there are all sorts of forces acting on matter, constantly changing it.

To proceed to the second point: Tweel seemed to think it odd that a word could apply to two different objects. I believe it is Korzkbski who says, "...we deal only with absolute individuals, each one different from the others."

What does this mean; how is it true? Well, let's take the example of two rocks, as Weinbaum did. No two rocks are exactly alike. No matter how much they resemble each other there are still thousands of minute differences to be discovered. The same applies to people, dogs, cats, automobiles, or anything you wish to use as an example. Tweel's language, then, was semantically adjusted to take these facts into consideration.

"Very well," you say, "I'll grant you all this -- but what has it to do with me?"

Mr. Wendell Johnson, in his new book, People in Quandries, puts it somewhat like this.

People have a tendency to believe that the world is static; that "things" will act the same way today as they did yesterday. If people act as tho this were true, they find themselves frustrated and maladjusted to the world about them. The factory owner who acts with unions, 1947, as tho they were unions, 1907, is liable to find himself in trouble. If you treat your friend of 1942 in the same manner today and you did then, you are apt to lose him. He may have been a conservative isolationist then -- and today he may be a radical interventionist. He is also older now than he was then, which makes a difference, too.

Now the other point -- the fact that we deal only with absolute individuals. Many people have a tendency to ascribe the actions of an individual to the entire class to which he belongs. For instance, if bitten by a dog, he would act as tho all dogs were vicious. Or if injured (morally or physically) by a negro, or Jew, he believes that all "niggers" and "kikes" have the characteristics of his injurer. 

This type of person confuses the individual with the class. Another example. Many say: "Men are good, essentially" -- or "Men are bestial". Having had experience with a very small percentage of the entire human male population of the earth, this person believes that ALL men are like those he has met. He is not realizing that men (and women) are individuals, each one quite different, in numerless ways, from the others. Not to mention the fact that they are all constantly changing.

Keep those two facts in mind, and you will be spared a lot of frustration in this changing world.

The End.

page 12

Saving...

STANLEY WEINBAUM AND GENERAL SEMANTICS by Robert L. Stein "He seemed terrifically amused that the same word meant the same thing twice in succession, or that the same word could apply to two different objects." The above quotation is the basis for my assertion that Weinbaum either read Korzybski, or came to the same conclusion independently of K., for this quotation is from A MARTIAN ODYSSEY. Weinbaum is talking about Tweel. How did I arrive at this conclusion? First of all, the statement that one word could mean the same thing twice in succession was amusing to Tweel. An ancient Greek said that one could not step twice into the same river. In other words, everything is constantly changing. Nothing is the same now as it was a moment ago. This is one of the bases of General Semantics. Not taking this fact into consideration can lead to trouble, for there are all sorts of forces acting on matter, constantly changing it. To proceed to the second point: Tweel seemed to think it odd that a word could apply to two different objects. I believe it is Korzkbski who says, "...we deal only with absolute individuals, each one different from the others." What does this mean; how is it true? Well, let's take the example of two rocks, as Weinbaum did. No two rocks are exactly alike. No matter how much they resemble each other there are still thousands of minute differences to be discovered. The same applies to people, dogs, cats, automobiles, or anything you wish to use as an example. Tweel's language, then, was semantically adjusted to take these facts into consideration. "Very well," you say, "I'll grant you all this -- but what has it to do with me?" Mr. Wendell Johnson, in his new book, People in Quandries, puts it somewhat like this. People have a tendency to believe that the world is static; that "things" will act the same way today as they did yesterday. If people act as tho this were true, they find themselves frustrated and maladjusted to the world about them. The factory owner who acts with unions, 1947, as tho they were unions, 1907, is liable to find himself in trouble. If you treat your friend of 1942 in the same manner today and you did then, you are apt to lose him. He may have been a conservative isolationist then -- and today he may be a radical interventionist. He is also older now than he was then, which makes a difference, too. Now the other point -- the fact that we deal only with absolute individuals. Many people have a tendency to ascribe the actions of an individual to the entire class to which he belongs. For instance, if bitten by a dog, he would act as tho all dogs were vicious. Or if injured (morally or physically) by a negro, or Jew, he believes that all "niggers" and "kikes" have the characteristics of his injurer. This type of person confuses the individual with the class. Another example. Many say: "Men are good, essentially" -- or "Men are bestial". Having had experience with a very small percentage of the entire human male population of the earth, this person believes that ALL men are like those he has met. He is not realizing that men (and women) are individuals, each one quite different, in numerless ways, from the others. Not to mention the fact that they are all constantly changing. Keep those two facts in mind, and you will be spared a lot of frustration in this changing world. The End. page 12