Many of my interests are related to General Semantics, so I’d like to understand it better.
I think it’s likely that it wasn’t bad, it just wasn’t done particularly well. It may have been ahead of its time.
It seems like a pity that it almost completely ended. I guess they basically didn’t seem to find a mix of funding and great talent to continue the discipline.
I wouldn’t want it to be seen as a lesson that those ideas are a dead-end, which clearly does not seem true to me.
I got the impression that the field was pretty messy and early, a bit like Econ in the very early stages.
Many of my interests are related to General Semantics, so I’d like to understand it better.
I think it’s likely that it wasn’t bad, it just wasn’t done particularly well. It may have been ahead of its time.
It seems like a pity that it almost completely ended. I guess they basically didn’t seem to find a mix of funding and great talent to continue the discipline.
I wouldn’t want it to be seen as a lesson that those ideas are a dead-end, which clearly does not seem true to me.
I got the impression that the field was pretty messy and early, a bit like Econ in the very early stages.
Are you looking for any particular pointers?