Re: General semantics
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:12:16 -0300
Message-ID: <4bf3f1c7$0$11813$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> I read "multi-dimensional order" as "n-dimensional data structure",
> and it seemed to me that Korzybski aptly described the relational
> model and its possible application to language and mental models of
> empirical data. As I progress through the book, I find that
> perspective reinforced.
>
>
>
> I suspect this thread leans too far into the philosophical for the
> regulars of c.d.t. I derive my desire to understand the relational
> model from its value as a metaphysical model of reality.
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:12:16 -0300
Message-ID: <4bf3f1c7$0$11813$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Nilone wrote:
> On May 18, 11:19 pm, Erwin <e.sm..._at_myonline.be> wrote:
>
>>And I fail to see what "general semantics and it's correspondences to >>the relational model?" has to do with this delusionary nonsense of >>"relations being flat".
>
> I read "multi-dimensional order" as "n-dimensional data structure",
> and it seemed to me that Korzybski aptly described the relational
> model and its possible application to language and mental models of
> empirical data. As I progress through the book, I find that
> perspective reinforced.
>
>
>>But in natural language, it is perfectly normal and perfectly >>acceptable to employ idiomatic expressions and figurative speech. In >>discussions which are supposed to be scientific, that is much less the >>case.
>
> I suspect this thread leans too far into the philosophical for the
> regulars of c.d.t. I derive my desire to understand the relational
> model from its value as a metaphysical model of reality.
Have you read William Kent's /Data and Reality/ ? Received on Wed May 19 2010 - 16:12:16 CEST