Transcribe
Translate
Plenum, issue 2, July 1946
Page 3
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
PLENUM Page three A So much has been said about semantics in stefan circles and there has been so little genuine and general understanding of the issues involved, that it's about time the situation was clarified. I'm sticking out my neck by setting myself up as the person to do that little thing, but if nobody else does it, I might as well. I don't claim to be an expert in semantics. I don't even claim to be the person in the FAPA best fitted for the job. But I think I can find sufficient reasonably accurate things to say about semantics to fill a page or two in each Plenum, and so I hope to make this a regular department. Aid and criticisms from others will of course be welcome. First some historical background, in both fandom and out. Robert Heinlein was the first sf writer to use the concepts and terminology of general semantics specifically. "Coventry" (July 1940 Ast) was as far as I can recall, the first extensive mention of semantics as such in science fiction. Then in "Sixth Column" (Jan 1941 Ast) Heinlein speaks of assymetric relationships, and in "Methuselah's Children" (July 1941 Ast) he mentions time-binding. And, of course, there was his famous speech at the Denvention, where he gave the lowdown on how fans should read Korzybski's "Science and Sanity" if they wanted to be good semanticians. I wonder how many fans actually read that book. The strange thing about it is that not until van Vogt came along did anybody say a word about nonaristotelianism, which is the very root of the entire situation. And then in "World of A" van Vogt went the whole hog -- he depicted a civilization in which nonaristotelianism had been completely adopted. But he didn't explain much about what A was. And that's probably why so many people were puzzled by that story. You get a great deal more out of that story if you read "Science and Sanity" first. In fact, by the time I have progressed very far in these articles you should understand and appreciate more about van Vogt's story than you do now. Back at the time of the Denvention certain fans talked a lot about semantics, and did some very fociferous feuding in which every sentence of the opposition was hacked to pieces in what they considered the best semantic manner. I don't know how much semantics those fans actually knew. Probably they had read Stuart Chase's "The Tyranny of Words." Perhaps they had read Hayakawa's "Language in Action," altho I don't recall that they utilized the concepts of that book. I doubt very much that any of them had read all of Ogden and Richards' "The Meaning of Meaning," for that is one tough book to plow through. I know, brother. And I am fairly certain that up to very recently no fan has read "Science and Sanity," for it would have been quite apparent
Saving...
prev
next
PLENUM Page three A So much has been said about semantics in stefan circles and there has been so little genuine and general understanding of the issues involved, that it's about time the situation was clarified. I'm sticking out my neck by setting myself up as the person to do that little thing, but if nobody else does it, I might as well. I don't claim to be an expert in semantics. I don't even claim to be the person in the FAPA best fitted for the job. But I think I can find sufficient reasonably accurate things to say about semantics to fill a page or two in each Plenum, and so I hope to make this a regular department. Aid and criticisms from others will of course be welcome. First some historical background, in both fandom and out. Robert Heinlein was the first sf writer to use the concepts and terminology of general semantics specifically. "Coventry" (July 1940 Ast) was as far as I can recall, the first extensive mention of semantics as such in science fiction. Then in "Sixth Column" (Jan 1941 Ast) Heinlein speaks of assymetric relationships, and in "Methuselah's Children" (July 1941 Ast) he mentions time-binding. And, of course, there was his famous speech at the Denvention, where he gave the lowdown on how fans should read Korzybski's "Science and Sanity" if they wanted to be good semanticians. I wonder how many fans actually read that book. The strange thing about it is that not until van Vogt came along did anybody say a word about nonaristotelianism, which is the very root of the entire situation. And then in "World of A" van Vogt went the whole hog -- he depicted a civilization in which nonaristotelianism had been completely adopted. But he didn't explain much about what A was. And that's probably why so many people were puzzled by that story. You get a great deal more out of that story if you read "Science and Sanity" first. In fact, by the time I have progressed very far in these articles you should understand and appreciate more about van Vogt's story than you do now. Back at the time of the Denvention certain fans talked a lot about semantics, and did some very fociferous feuding in which every sentence of the opposition was hacked to pieces in what they considered the best semantic manner. I don't know how much semantics those fans actually knew. Probably they had read Stuart Chase's "The Tyranny of Words." Perhaps they had read Hayakawa's "Language in Action," altho I don't recall that they utilized the concepts of that book. I doubt very much that any of them had read all of Ogden and Richards' "The Meaning of Meaning," for that is one tough book to plow through. I know, brother. And I am fairly certain that up to very recently no fan has read "Science and Sanity," for it would have been quite apparent
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
