Editing General semantics (section)

=== Criticism ===
Korzybski wrote in the preface to the third edition of ''Science and Sanity'' (1947) that general semantics "turned out to be an empirical natural science".<ref>Korzybski, Alfred. ''Science and Sanity'' (5th ed.). p. xxxiv.</ref>  But the type of existence, if any, of [[universals]] and [[abstract objects]] is an issue of serious debate within [[Philosophy#Metaphysics|metaphysical philosophy]]. So [[Max Black|Black]] summed up general semantics as "some hypothetical neurology fortified with dogmatic metaphysics".<ref name="Black1">Black, Max. ''Language and Philosophy: Studies in Method''. p. 246.</ref> And in 1952, two years after Korzybski died, American skeptic [[Martin Gardner]] wrote, "[Korzybski's] work moves into the realm of cultism and pseudo-science."<ref name=Gardner>Gardner, Martin (1957). ''Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science''. New York: Dover Publications. ch. 23, pp. 280–291.</ref>
 
Former [[Institute of General Semantics]] executive director Steve Stockdale has compared GS to [[yoga]]. "First, I'd say that there is little if any benefit to be gained by just ''knowing'' something about general semantics. The benefits come from maintaining an awareness of the principles and attitudes that are derived from GS and applying them as they are needed. You can sort of compare general semantics to yoga in that respect... knowing about yoga is okay, but to benefit from yoga you have to ''do'' yoga."<ref name="Stockdale_Folly">{{cite news|title=FOLLY with Steve Stockdale |url=http://www.follymag.com/follyinterviews.html |publisher=FollyMag |date=June 2007 |access-date=2011-10-03 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120425021231/http://www.follymag.com/follyinterviews.html |archive-date=2012-04-25 }} Stockdale: "First, I'd say that there is little if any benefit to be gained by just 'knowing' something about general semantics. The benefits come from maintaining an awareness of the principles and attitudes that are derived from GS and applying them as they are needed. You can sort of compare general semantics to yoga in that respect... knowing about yoga is okay, but to benefit from yoga you have to 'do' yoga." Reprinted in Stockdale, Steve (2009). ''Here's Something about General Semantics: A Primer for Making Sense of Your World''. Santa Fe, NM: Steve Stockdale. p. 36. {{ISBN|978-0-9824645-0-2}}</ref> Similarly, Kenneth Burke explains Korzybski's kind of semantics contrasting it, in ''A Grammar of Motives'', with a kind of Burkean poetry by saying "''Semantics'' is essentially scientist, an approach to language in terms of knowledge, whereas poetic forms are kinds of action".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.comm.umn.edu/burke/gm.html|title=Scholarly outline of Burke's "A Grammar of Motives" |first=Kenneth |last=Burke |year=1945|publisher=University of California Press|quote=[Burke] would encourage the "delayed response" (p. 238). Korzybski's technique recommends that an individual interpose a "moment of delay" between the "Stimulus and the Response" in order to control meaning (p. 239). According to Burke, Korzybski's doctrine of the delayed action, as based on the 'consciousness of abstracting,' involves the fact that any term for an object puts the object in a class of similar objects" (p. 240). Burke points out that Korzybski's technique falls short with regard to the "analysis of poetic forms": "For 'semantics' is essentially science, an approach to language in terms of knowledge, whereas poetic forms are kinds of action" (p. 240).}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Burke|first=Kenneth|title=A Grammar of Motives|year=1945|publisher=University of California Press|pages=238–242}}</ref>