E-prime
"Is", "is." "is"—the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment. — Robert Anton Wilson, The Historical Illuminatus, as spoken by Sigismundo Celine
Subject: E-Prime (Revised)
Message-ID: <1991Nov24.180742.25907@acsu.buffalo.edu>
From: salsbury@acsu.buffalo.edu (The Caterpillar Cannot Understand The Butterfly)
Date: 24 Nov 91 18:07:42 GMT
The word "is" fosters a linguistic illusion. Or in other words
language hypnotizes us into thinking that A actually is B. Here's
something I wrote (to help me formalize the idea) using RAW's QUANTUM
PSYCHOLOGY...
A zen coin, uh koan...
"A Zen koan of long standing goes as follows: The roshi (Zen
teacher) holds up a staff and says, "If you call this a staff, you
affirm. If you say it is not a staff, you deny. Beyond affirmation and
denial, what is it?"
My answer below...
We say the map is not the territory. We also affirm that one cannot
drink the electronic ink off the screen which forms the symbol "water."
Beyond that we conviently forget how language hypnotizes us.
We think of our home town and remember that our mental image is a
map or model, not the territory. We think that the town is a collection
of people, places and things existing in sensory-sensual space-time.
However this is misleading too. "People, places and things" are words
or symbols that _represent_ what we will find in that sensory-sensual
space-time. What we are looking for is non-verbal "things" and
"events". But isn't "non-verbal things and events" still more
verbalization, still more of the map and not the "stuff" it attempts to
describe? But what about that "stuff??" More mapping? Yes.
Here we are in a strange loop and unable to correctly identify what
it is we are speaking of. The more we struggle to identify the staff
beyond affirmation and denial the more we are forced upon the rocky
shore of verbalization. The Zen koan forces us into this strange loop
of trying to identify what the staff is beyond affirmation and denial
and _beyond_ verbalization.
We can say it is a mass of wood shaped into a staff--that's
affirmtion. Or that reality is an illusion--that is denial. Beyond
affirmation and denial what _is_ it?
Probably all that we can honestly say is that we *perceive*
something that we interpret as a piece of wood shaped into something
that our culture has defined as a staff. We must also admit that every
observation has a powerful invisible partner--the human mind. Every
observation has as its source and arbitrier the human mind. Every
observation experiences the strengths and weakness of the human mind.
We must also admit that language forces us into the aforementioned
strange loop.
So what _is_ the staff beyond affirmation and denial?
Alfred Korzybski, in 1933, wrote SCIENCE AND SANITY, In this he
proposed to abolish the "isness of identity" from the English language.
The "isness of identity" takes the form of A is C. "Joe is a
communist", "Mary is a hat", "the universe is a giant washing machine."
In 1949 D. David Bourland Jr. proposed the abolition of all forms of
the words "is" or "to be". He proposed an English without isness called
E-prime--English Prime.
Dr. Albert Ellis and Dr. E.W. Kellog III are notable researchers who
use E-prime. Interestingly enough most physicists write in E-prime
because of the influence of Operationalism--the philosophy which tells
us to define things in operations performed (which leads us back to the
human neurology as an instrument of observation).
E-prime seems to solve many problems that otherwise appear
intractable. It also serves as an antibiotic against what Korzybski
calls "demonological thinking". Demonological thinking is the mental
imputation of an "essense" to an item which either does not show up in
direct observation and/or it fails to be meaningful, ie. it can't be
tested, used, employed, proved or disproved. Such demonological
thinking is evident when the Supreme Court of the United States
propounds that the word "fuck" _is_ obscene. (Isn't duck then 75%
obscene?) "Demonological" and "theological" thinking both fall into the
category of meaningless because they are quantities and/or qualities
which cannot be tested, and hence have no referent in human life.
Here are some standard and E-prime examples.
[The photon is a wave. (Standard)
The photon behaves as a wave when constrained by certain
instruments. (E-prime)
The photon is a particle. (Standard)
The photon behaves as a particle when constrained by certain
instruments. (E-prime)]
Is our pet photon bi-modal? Is it schizo? If we employ standard
English we could easily come to the conclusion that our pet is schizo.
However, with E-prime the difficulty is cleared up and there is ample
room to work in. (See that is...)
[John is unhappy and grouchy. (Standard)
John appears unhappy and grouchy in the office. (E-prime)
John is bright and cheerful. (Standard)
John appears bright and cheerful at the beach on vacation.
(E-prime)]
Is our friend John bi-modal? Schizo? We could easily come to that
conclusion with Standard.
[That is a fascist idea. (Standard)
That seems like a fascist idea to me. (E-prime)]
Is the idea really fascist or is that a subjective perspective?
[Lady Chatterly's Lover is a pornographic novel. (Standard)
Lady Chatterly's Lover is perceived as pornographic by some people.
(E-prime)]
Here is another simple Zen coin, uh koan, I forgot about...
Who is the Master who makes the grass green? This is answered in the
next standard/E-prime example...
[Grass is green. No doubt about it, grass is truly green. (Standard)
Grass registers as green to most human eyes. (E-prime)] The eye has
the ability to make the grass green.
The first example in each of the previous couplings is the
Aristotelian or metaphysical formulation of standard English which
imputes a nature via the "isness of identification" which is (see that
is) enforced by the *hidden*rules* of the English language. I'll bet
you didn't know that you were playing the game of metaphysics when you
learned English. B^)
The weakness of Aristotelian "isness" or "whatness" statements lies
in their ASSUMPTION of an indwelling "thingness"--the assumption that
every "object" contains what the cynical German philosopher Max Stirner
called "spooks". In simpler words, the Aristotelian universe assumes an
assembly of "things" with "essenses" or "spooks" inside them.
Everything really _is_ haunted. On the other hand the modern scientific
or existential universe assumes a network of structural relationships.
To compound the problems of this metaphysical quagmire the Thomist
Aristotelian view (the official Vatican philosophy) has not only
indwelling "essences" and "spooks" but external "accidents" or
"appearances." In this system of metaphysics an astounding, marvelous,
totally wonderful, even mind boggling MIRACLE occurs. A simple piece of
white bread is transformed into the body of a Jew who lived 2000 years
ago. To the observer the bread still has the appearance of the previous
aforementioned bread. It tastes like bread, it looks like bread under a
microscope and hasn't the weight of a human body. It has not changed in
any sensual way. Non-the-less our devout Catholic friends will
pronounce this simple piece of bread really "is" the body of that
aforesaid dead Jew. The "essense" of the bread "is" the dead Jew.
Importantly the only persons capable of this MIRACLE is a priest. That
means the primary prerequisite of persons capable of this MIRACLE is
that they must have a penis. Vulvas won't do.
The above is paraphrased from QUANTUM PSYCHOLOGY, by Robert Anton
Wilson, pages 98-100.
The *how* of this dilemma comes to us as explained by Transactional
psychology...
'Let us remember that Transactional psychology has proven that,
contrary to common sense and centuries of prejudice, our minds do not
passively receive impressions from the "external world." Rather we
actively create our impressions out of an ocean of possible signals,
our human neurology notices the signals that we expect to see, and we
organize these signals into a model, or a reality-tunnel, that
marvelously matches our ideas about what "is really" out there.
Aristotle only noted that "I see" actually means "I have seen."
Modern neuroscience reveals that "I see" (or "I perceive") actually
means "I have made a bet." In the time between the arrival of signals
at our eye or other receptive organ and the emergence of an idea or
image in our human neurology, we have done a great deal of creative
"artistic" work. We generally do that work so fast that we do not
notice ourselves doing it. Thus, we forget the gamble in every
perception and feel startled (or even annoyed) whenever we come up
against evidence that others do not "see" what we "see."
Constant reminding ourselves that we DO NOT SEE with our eyes but
with the synergetic eye-human neurology system working as a whole will
produce constant astonishment as we notice, more and more often, how
much of our perceptions emerge from our preconceptions.' Ibid, pg 112.
Consequently statements such as "God is" or "God is not" _are_
meaningless (or rather *seems* meaningless, right?). We can neither
prove nor disprove them. As such they have no referant in the human
experience and probably (remember the perceptional gamble?) represent a
weakness in the human psyche as reflected in the languages which those
psyches generated.
Well, meaningless _is_ perhaps a little too strong for some
thinkers. The statement may be meaningless but the fact that someone
uttered it makes it meaningful--it demonstrates a frame of mind which
someone found useful, which then imputes some meaning to the
aforementioned seemingly meaningless statement.
To say that God or All That Is _is_ anything or just _is_ apparently
wallows in the illusion of "is". The same can be said for the any other
god. We could say that God (ATI) is perceived by some as the nurturing
forces of nature. Or that the Horned Lord is perceived by some as the
active or generative forces of nature. The inquiring mind then asks
*how* is God perceived. Then, remembering that the human mind (the
total complex of human neurology) _is_ the invisible partner in a
creative-artistic transaction, we ask *why* are the gods perceived?
So just what _is_ God - ATI or the Devil??
"It's an ill mind which blows no wind." St. Flatuance, cc. 1392
--
-Pat
Patrick G. Salsbury State University of NY @ Buffalo, USA
SALSBURY@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Disclaimers are silly. ;^)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Subject: E-prime
Message-ID: <WORDS-L%92012910574183@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From: ECZ5EJH%UCLAMVS.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (Emily Horning)
Date: 29 Jan 92 15:56:00 GMT
Well, here it is. This is a summary of an article in this month's _Atlantic_
magazine by Cullen Murphy, called " 'To Be' in Their Bonnets: A Matter of
Semantics".
In a recent issue of _Et Cetera_ magazine (vol. 48, No.2), the quarterly pub-
lication of the International Society of General Semantics, former ISGS pres-
ident Emory Menefee calls into question the aims of fellow society members who
are trying to promote E-Prime, "a form of English that has for years ranked
extremely high among the interests of the general-semantics community". Users
of E-prime propose eliminating all forms of the verb "to be" - be, been, is,
am, are, was, were, 'm, 's, 're, etc. from spoken and written English. Menefee,
however, calls this proposal "quixotic", and Paul Dennithorne Johnston assured
Cullen Murphy that the ISGS "never did, and does not now, regard E-Prime as
tantamount to some sort of party line".
(short history of general semantics)
Promoters of E-Prime complain that the verb "is" implies "the tight coupling
of equivalent things, whereas in fact it joins nouns that have different levels
of abstraction ("Mary is a woman")" or "joins a noun to an adjective that
neither completely nor permanently qualifies it ("Mary is cold")". Use of the
verb "to be" makes possible the use of the passive voice, conditioning humans
"to accept detours around crucial issues of causality ("Mistakes were made")".
"To be" also makes possible the raising of the unanswerable ("What is truth?")
as well as the construction of phrases "that casually sweep reasoning under
the rug" such as "As is well known...". We use it for stereotypes and "over-
broad existential generalizations". General semanticists say the verb "to be"
"imputes an Aristotelian neatness, rigidity, and permanence to the world
around us and to the relationships among all things in it - conditions that
rarely have any basis in dynamic reality," says Murphy.
Former ISGS president Menefee favors something he calls E-Choice. Most of us,
he says, find the use of the verb "to be" unobjectionable. We use it as an
auxiliary verb, to convey the fact of existence, or to create metaphors. Mene-
fee thinks most of the problems caused "by the misuse of "to be" can occur in
E-Prime as well, especially if the speaker hasn't internalized all the under-
lying logic involved".
Will E-Prime ever be more than "a pedagogic tool to force extreme attention on
the verb "to be"? Probably not. Cullen Murphy says he has reason to believe it
will last "about a week". Murphy wrote the entire article in E-Prime, by the
way. So, comments???
Sorry this is so long. I look forward to your reactions. Try to write your res-
ponse in E-Prime!
Emily Horning <ECZ5EJH@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: FICTION: Writing in E-Prime
Message-ID: <1u9cg9$mne@nwfocus.wa.com>
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Date: 29 May 1993 21:17:13 -0700
I've just conducted my first E-prime experiment; a short story of
4000 words. In many ways, I didn't have much fun.
For those people unfamiliar with E-prime, a quick explanation.
E-prime consists of English without the verb 'to be.' No 'is,' no
'was,' no 'were.' All that I know about it came from an NPR interview
with its cheif proponent, whose name I can't remember now.
I have no clue if E-prime completely lacks the past the past
imperfect ('was going') or present ongoing ('is running'), but for the
sake of this story I even avoided those forms of language. My opinion?
It wasn't easy. (E-prime: I hated it. It taxed my brain.)
E-prime forbids proclamation ("America is the greatest nation on
Earth!") because it demands an explanation of where the idea originates
or who expounds it. Politicians use 'to be' all the time to defame
their opponents or exclaim their virtues, because they don't have to
explain their ideas, just inject them regularly into their audience in
the hopes of winning a vote.
But I've decided not to abandon 'to be.' By saying "He was strong,"
I let the reader decide for him- or herself _how_ strong the described
character is. On the other hand, I've become much more sensitive to my
use of 'to be,' and when my use is unfair to the reader, denying her an
explanation, exposition, or even a comprehensive description.
(Notice, for instance, that I use 'is' to describe an act, 'is
unfair,' thus giving you a concept, _followed_ by an explanation. If I
said "...when my use denies the reader an explantion, exposition, or
comprehensive description," would the sentence have been as powerful?
(E-prime: "...would the sentence seem as powerful?"))
I just wondered if anyone here wrote in E-prime regularly, and if
so, what kinds of experiences did you have doing so?
Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
"Mr. Sternberg, you should never again attempt to write anything in
the English language. It is clearly not your native tongue."
- Thomas W. Button, Jr., third form (ninth grade) English teacher.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elf Sternberg (elf@halcyon.com) wrote:
: I've just conducted my first E-prime experiment; a short story of
: 4000 words. In many ways, I didn't have much fun.
:
: For those people unfamiliar with E-prime, a quick explanation.
: E-prime consists of English without the verb 'to be.' No 'is,' no
: 'was,' no 'were.' All that I know about it came from an NPR interview
: with its cheif proponent, whose name I can't remember now.
Bourland's "E-Prime" linguistic theory is debunked by Martin Gardner
in the latest issue of "The Skeptical Inquirer."
Rather, some people say that Bourland's "E-Prime" linguistic theory is
debunked by Martin Gardner in the latest issue of "The Skeptical
Inquirer."
Rather, some people say that Martin Gardner claims to have debunked
Bouland's "E-Prime" linguistic theory in the latest issue of "The
Skeptical Inquirer."
Rather, some people say that a person generally called Martin Gardner
claims to have debunked what some people have called Bourland's
"E-Prime" linguistic theory in what many people say is latest issue of
what many people call "The Skeptical Inquirer."
Rather,...........
-Tim May, Novice General Semanticist
--
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: FICTION: Writing in E-Prime
From: karen@hal.COM (Karen Muldrow)
Date: 1 Jun 1993 14:07:55 GMT
|> Elf Sternberg (elf@halcyon.com) wrote:
|> : I've just conducted my first E-prime experiment; a short story of
|> : 4000 words. In many ways, I didn't have much fun.
Tim May tried to write the following sentence in E-Prime:
|> Bourland's "E-Prime" linguistic theory is debunked by Martin Gardner
|> in the latest issue of "The Skeptical Inquirer."
(Deleted several attempts)
|> Rather, some people say that a person generally called Martin Gardner
|> claims to have debunked what some people have called Bourland's
|> "E-Prime" linguistic theory in what many people say is latest issue of
|> what many people call "The Skeptical Inquirer."
How about:
Martin Gardner debunks Bourland's "E-Prime" linguistic theory in the
latest issue of "The Skeptical Inquirer."
Writing in E-Prime means you don't have to live with passive voice.
Karen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: E-Prime
From: billh@comtch.iea.com (Bill Haygood)
Date: 9 Feb 1994 23:32:25 GMT
Doug Andersen (douga@eskimo.com) wrote:
: I'm interested in getting some information on E-Prime. Could someone
: recommend books, publications or perhaps even mailing lists?
: Alternatively, would someone like to give a short explanation of
: E-Prime. Do a lot of readers here write in E-prime. Pros and cons?
: Thanks in advance.
:
Doug, you came amazingly close to writing in E-Prime! Changing the first
few words "I'm interested in getting" to "I would like to get" would
have achieved it. I tip my hat to you.
Among E-Prime's claimed advantages:
1) It rids us of the "identity" problem ("I'm stupid" or "She is
ugly"). E-Prime advocates say that forms of "to be" in English
compare to "=" in math.
2) It forces one to take responsibility for one's own statements--
e.g. E-Prime disallows statements such as "It was decided..."
and requires instead "My parents decided...."
3) It requires some forethought before we utter the communication.
I think it has helped me to think more clearly. I must admit,
however, that I have not yet learned to think in, and speak,
completely in E-Prime. But, I have used E-Prime exclusively
in everything I have written over the past two years.
Does E-Prime solve all the problems ? No. And some things still seem
very ackward in E-Prime (if someone asks my name, I still reply "My name
_is_ Bill"). [Dr. Ed Kellogg, who has spoken E-Prime for the last 16
years says that he just replies, "Ed."]
Ed Kellogg tells an amusing story of how he now handles potential
arguments. When he mentions a new idea, someone may say "That is a
stupid idea!" An average response would consist of a defense of the
idea, but Ed recommends "What do you not like about it ?" (IMHO, a
much more reasoned approach for defusing an argument).
Some non-E-Prime statements on TV make me cringe now that I know of
E-Prime. For example, recently I heard a reporter on CNN state
"The weather was blamed for the deaths." *Who* blamed weather for
the deaths ? Does 'weather', in and of itself, normally cause deaths ?
A more likely scenario: the people who died likely did not take the
proper precautions to prevent their deaths.
I have posted the only E-Prime statements that I have seen on a.u.e
although I may have missed other's E-Prime postings.
An interesting book on the subject:
"To Be or Not: An E-Prime Anthology"
1991, Edited by D. David Bourland, Jr.
and Paul Dennithorne Johnston
Published by the International Society for General Semantics,
San Francisco.
Some people oppose the very idea of E-Prime. A former co-worker
told me recently that "E-Prime IS a stupid idea."
I find that E-Prime helps my thinking processes, although I realize
that it may not help every English speaker. I posted on E-Prime a
few weeks ago hoping that someone had discovered a "relatively
painless" method of learning to think in, and speak, E-Prime. I
retain that hope.
I do not consider myself an expert on E-Prime. I would welcome a
discussion on a.u.e. I feel that others could likely bring much
light to the idea (pro and con).
: --
: Doug Andersen
--
Bill Haygood "I wrote this in E-Prime."
-----
What about eliminating metaphors?
What about "the corporation feels strongly about this issue" when you really mean, "CEO John feels strongly"?
Mark