I like the content, though am not sure that “A list of causes” is the ideal organization. I think with General Semantics there needed to be an ecosystem where the benefits were greater than the costs for a range of stakeholders, and in this case they plainly weren’t. Your lists of causes seem like about the right content for these benefits/costs.
I imagine another way of organizing this would be something like a list of the costs and benefits of the product and costs and benefits for the organizing, with the corresponding conclusions that the costs were generally higher than the benefits for the reasons you mentioned.
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.
Great work here.
I like the content, though am not sure that “A list of causes” is the ideal organization. I think with General Semantics there needed to be an ecosystem where the benefits were greater than the costs for a range of stakeholders, and in this case they plainly weren’t. Your lists of causes seem like about the right content for these benefits/costs.
I imagine another way of organizing this would be something like a list of the costs and benefits of the product and costs and benefits for the organizing, with the corresponding conclusions that the costs were generally higher than the benefits for the reasons you mentioned.
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?