Toward Understanding E-Prime

[universecannon]

no, this thread ain't about optimus primes younger bro who rolls on the weekends

HERE it "is"
Bob Wilson was an amazingly brilliant psychedelic explorer and author. He actually wrote his later works without any form of "is" or the verb "to be".. I first heard about it in his book quantum psychology and found tho whole thing pretty mindblowing.

I'm posting this since I feel that using eprime would prove to have VERY beneficial affects if pursued..or even if we just understood its general concepts a little better..it has helped me to see past some detrimental habits of my/our own temporal-linguistic-framework, and could provide a helpful way of looking at things, especially psychedelic experiences.

i actually don't think i'd ever switch fully to it, it sounds almost impossible to me :lol:
and im not implying that i think people should really try and use it, if they don't want to..i just think the concept is interesting

 

[dumbstruck]

Yep. Nothing simpler than a whatever than the whatever itself. No way to reduce it at all. No correct, single level of order than encompasses all of the aspects. Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, yeah? Though I prefer "don't want to mistake the map for the territory" rather than the menu for the meal.

RAW was an interesting fellow and he hit a winner with Quantum Psychology. I think it was 1992 it was written in but holds up as if written yesterday. Pleasure to read. Cover says Philip K Dick said his mind was pulled through infinity, causing him to be astonished and delighted. So I can second ya'll out there seeking it out. You don't need any background in quantum mechanics or physics even, it is very lay man style. Well layman that likes to think style. No real prerequisite knowledge necessary, though if you are already familiar with QM then this will help you incorporate a lot of what it actually means.

EPrime is fascinating. Sorry, it IS! I cant help it. It's not to me that it is fascinating. It is just fascinating! But in all seriousness -- it is fascinating (to me. Damn, had to do it). I had trouble reconciling the fact that many of his observations, although stunningly deduced, lead to almost a manual telling one how to perceive the world. I agree that popular use of the term 'is' is not "real". There is no essence to things, "no spook" as RAW says. So I don't believe in "is". But that doesn't mean that other people shouldn't. Perhaps there is benefit in it we have yet to notice because we don't all use EPrime. It might make us sterile creatures unwilling to argue a point of view, for all we know. I know it hasn't done this to the few who force themselves to use it, but as stated they force themselves to adopt it -- it doesn't come naturally, they find themselves reverting to use accidently. They still structurally have learned language and comprehension of thought through other humans as if there "is" an essence to things. So can that ever be naturally, consciously changed on a global scale? I guess we have to set up EPrime language tapes and have to throw kids immediately after birth into a box and teach him for 20 years using the tapes, and then release them on the world to see it correctly? Skinner box-ish.

For some reason the Alan Watt type arguments of "there is no things and no events" always seemed to tie into RAW's philosophical meanderings. He may have brought up such things in Quantum Psychology but I just don't remember. I'll have to dig it out from somewhere or other and read it. For those interested in reading it was fairly concise (not too long and not wordy) but full of thought exercises and deep philosophical realizations. So you'll read a paragraph or two and then stare at a wall for a bit, and repeat. Thanks for bringing up a cool topic!

 

[endlessness]

Yeah since I read RAW's books I've been trying to incorporate E-PRIME in my posts and thoughts. I doubt I do it every single time but it has certainly become a nearly automatic part of me. I agree we (humans in general) do speak too much in absolutes and certainties "this IS good/bad/whatever", instead of expressing that its only our way of seeing it.

I think it was Enoon that rightly pointed this out in some other thread, maybe in Joebono's thread where he made all sorts of accusations with absolute words instead of realizing it was only his way of seeing things.

By the way where should I move this thread, because this is not 'general dmt information'.. Hyperspace tavern? Methods of Exploring Consciousness? Philosophy and Spirituality?

 

[Enoon]

So has anyone read Korzybski then?

I find E-Prime to be fantastic; I try to use it whenever I can, because it really helps to remind me of how everything we state seems to be intimately tied and inseparable from the perspective it is stated from. I love it and it can go a long way in saving you from sounding preachy I think, though of course there's no 100% protection from that...
I guess I have to buy the Korzybski book now after all. going to be a great addition to my library, thanks for reminding me!

much love
Enoon

 

[dumbstruck]

Woah. Did the OP get radically changed? I swear there was a lot more but boy is my memory poor for these things. I'll take an idea and run off with a post only tangentially related, but I don't remember doing it too bad this time.

 

[universecannon]

Dumstruck, great post! It 'is' hard not to call it something without using 'is'!..i recall the person who started (idk who) it even breaking his own rule when defining Eprime, saying "whatever we say it 'is', it 'isn't". And yea while fixing some grammatical errors (swim was swimming around quite stoned late last night) i accidentally deleted like almost my whole post since my mouse is out of wack, lol

Endlessness, i think the tavern would be a better place my friend, thanks
I guess i posted this under general dmt info because i find it all really helpful when applied to dmt experiences..It can open up a fresh new way of looking at them.. Often times we jump to conclusions and get lost in our mental categorizations of the experiences, which is a natural habit..but this can lead to a whole collage of strange beliefs and dogma, often taken too seriously..and then we hear such solid conclusions as "it is good, it is bad, it is evil, it is aliens, it is god, it is all in your head, it is out to get me, i 'am' going insane, i 'am' enlightened and reached the ultimate level, it is just a drug it is this it is that" ectect . And when we think we understand what something is, we tend to stop thinking about that aspect of reality.

afterall, the only thing that equals reality is reality. Our mental maps are a black and white 1d rendering of a multidimensional, buzzing, kaleidoscopic world. When we experience reality we constantly reduce and limit it by making these mental models- We take in billions of bits of info every second!- But this is all filtered for convenience, NOT for deeper understanding-So a change in the way we handle our mental software can have huge affects on us. After learning the concept of Eprime my lsd trips took a huge turn for the better :]

This quote from it illustrates this nicely: "a change in language can alter our perception of the cosmos. A revision of language structure, in particular, can alter the brain as dramatically as a psychedelic. In our metaphor, if we change the software, the computer operates in a new way. "

I find it best to just observe and pay attention as best as possible during psychedelics, then find multiple possible interpretations after the experience, and describe it as best as possible. Although this itself feels laughable sometimes- since some trips can have such a straight forward message that it just smacks you dead in the face..while others are so far from normalcy that they remain impervious to any sort of interpretations you lay over it. So i dunno, i still really think being as open as possible to ALL possibilities, suspending all beliefs, assumptions, and rationality during trips allows it to open up in other ways previously impossible-since our minds weave up the borders of our scope of experience..and afterward i can drag it down into any framework necessary when trying to pull some possible meaning out of it

 

[Enoon]

I find it best to just observe and pay attention as best as possible during psychedelics, then find multiple possible interpretations after the experience, and describe it as best as possible. Although this itself feels laughable sometimes- since some trips can have such a straight forward message that it just smacks you dead in the face..while others are so far from normalcy that they remain impervious to any sort of interpretations you lay over it. So i dunno, i still really think being as open as possible to ALL possibilities, suspending all beliefs, assumptions, and rationality during trips allows it to open up in other ways previously impossible-since our minds weave up the borders of our scope of experience..and afterward i can drag it down into any framework necessary when trying to pull some possible meaning out of it

Yes, finding multiple possible interpretations seems to work really well. It reminds me of the idea of integral philosophy. You could view the trip from multiple levels of consciousness, rationally, pre-rationally i.e. magical/mythical, and whatever comes after rational, and whatever other levels and ways you can come up with. Then integrate them all into one multiplicity of views, a structure with different facets each pertaining to the same experience, each perhaps giving you something valuable. After all we as humans seem to be multileveled beings, our containing all these facets ourselves, and each experience is experienced by all of these levels, so why shouldn't each have its own interpretation and integration that finally becomes a whole, without losing the structures and energies of its parts...

And all this from E-prime?

 

[dumbstruck]

So has anyone read Korzybski then?

No, but I think I may now. I would take up this post with a bunch of interesting quotes from the wikipedia entry because it is damn fascinating and entertaining (and tangentially relevant), but I can't do that in good conscience knowing how much great discussion could take place on EPrime. But I do recommend many of ya'll readers do a quick wiki on his name, cool character to say the least.

 

[olympus mon]

thanks universe cannon for putting this up. ive been reading about eprime for the past few nights and found this link.
its an e prime checker. you simply type in the box your message or letter ext and it will highlight possible banned words.
im finding it helpful to get the hang of writing in this new way. also i can write a response or email on it, check it for infractions they copy paste it to wherever.
anyway just thought id share this with you.

E-prime checker

 

[Livingstrategy]

Wow, I'm all about precision in language. This is something I definitely do. I like how socrates says the only thing I know is that I don't know. Without proper context of reality, a proper foundation, nothing has a solid base and therefore we cannot really be too sure of anything. In the dynamic reality of time/space it seems all truths are but relative truths anyway. We live in a subjective universe it seems and everything is open to interpretation. I really despise that scientists have to say that they've proven things without a doubt and that they 'know' things and that their experiments prove without a doubt... etc etc.

We're human, and in being a human, that means we are imperfect beings that're prone to make errors. We need to seek the truth, not vanity. It's not about having to be right, it's about learning and evolving so that we can become better and hopefully understand more. I wish other people were as fanatical about precise communication (and I suppose thinking/conceptualizing to remain honest with one-self) as I was. Miscommunication happens when the original message is somehow lost in translation or not properly/accurately conveyed/etc. Essentially, it's the birth of delusion/illusion/unreality. The more miscommunication happens, the more delusion and darkness gets introduced to our world and anyone who has studied buddhism has heard the postulation that suffering comes from delusion and dualism (seeing yourself as separate from the whole I believe).

Anyways, apologies for the rant. I just wanted to say great post and what better way to do so than going on one of my signature philosophical rants. It's fresh posts like these that make the nexus such an epic site!! =)

 

[Enoon]

Wow, I'm all about precision in language. This is something I definitely do. I like how socrates says the only thing I know is that I don't know. Without proper context of reality, a proper foundation, nothing has a solid base and therefore we cannot really be too sure of anything. In the dynamic reality of time/space it seems all truths are but relative truths anyway. We live in a subjective universe it seems and everything is open to interpretation. I really despise that scientists have to say that they've proven things without a doubt and that they 'know' things and that their experiments prove without a doubt... etc etc.

We're human, and in being a human, that means we are imperfect beings that're prone to make errors. We need to seek the truth, not vanity. It's not about having to be right, it's about learning and evolving so that we can become better and hopefully understand more. I wish other people were as fanatical about precise communication (and I suppose thinking/conceptualizing to remain honest with one-self) as I was. Miscommunication happens when the original message is somehow lost in translation or not properly/accurately conveyed/etc. Essentially, it's the birth of delusion/illusion/unreality. The more miscommunication happens, the more delusion and darkness gets introduced to our world and anyone who has studied buddhism has heard the postulation that suffering comes from delusion and dualism (seeing yourself as separate from the whole I believe).

Anyways, apologies for the rant. I just wanted to say great post and what better way to do so than going on one of my signature philosophical rants. It's fresh posts like these that make the nexus such an epic site!! =)

I love how your rant doesn't contain E-Prime at all!

 

[dumbstruck]

We live in a subjective universe it seems and everything is open to interpretation. I really despise that scientists have to say that they've proven things without a doubt and that they 'know' things and that their experiments prove without a doubt... etc etc.

We're human, and in being a human, that means we are imperfect beings that're prone to make errors.

This reminded me of another argument by RAW in Quantum Psychology -- that we can never know physics, or chemistry, or anything. We can only know how it appears to us through the human nervous system. I forget the prefix he used, but it was something like psyche. So we can only know psychophysics, psychochemistry, etc. We can never actually know what is there, but only how it appears after extensive filtering.

Good man with a good book with some great thoughts in it (at least as it appears to me ).

@Enoon. I laughed pretty good! But hey, give the man a chance! He just got exposed to the concept. It takes a while to fully grok its' repercussions. RAW's concise wording and thought experiments help greatly for this.

 

[bransondude]

This has seemed very interesting to me. I was aware of this nature of language for sometime but never had I heard of E-Prime until now. It seems to clarify and solidify this concept for me. It appears to me that it could improve the accuracy of language between people. It seems it should foster scientific-style thinking, or objectivity.

This appears to be a philosophical concept that could apply to any language that uses "to be" verbs.

Thinking and writing like that appears hard for me. It seems likely that E-Prime takes time to get used to.

 

[Malaclypse]

I've spent a lot of time in with E-Prime since I read Quantum Psychology. Very fascinating stuff that I think has influenced my thinking greatly in a positive fashion. I find it easy enough to do when writing, but as even Bob said it can be very hard to get rid of it completely in casual speech, not to mention you can sound like a goofball . That sentence I just wrote could easily have contained 3 'is's' in it It seems especially useful for thinking about some of these experiences that we are familiar with so that you don't fall into some crazy belief system, allowing you to organize your thoughts without absolutes.

I picked up 'Science and Sanity' based on R.A.W's reading list a long time ago, but I have failed to dive into it yet. It is quite a large tome and I have a slew of books waiting for me so I keep pushing it off. Maybe I will give it a go after this nice little reminder.

Fun note, I had an amusing stoned experience while thinking about E-prime and nothingness that is always spouted in mystical lit. Can't remember exactly how it went down, but eventually I was thinking to myself the only good use of "is" is in the sentence "nothing is" as with E-prime you can't use "is" because it "is" nothing there is nothing that "is" or some dumb stoned shit like that. Or alternatively "nothing is" means that nothing "is all that there is". It was pretty funny in one of those epiphany moments that probably doesn't mean jack squat.

 

[Livingstrategy]

Good point enoon. I wrote that up in a hurried impulse last night. Things have been busy recently and I haven't got as much time to spend with the nexus as I like to =D

Appreciate the constructive criticism too.. What I tell other people is that whenever i present things like I know them, always know that it's just my 'best working hypothesis' and I'm glad to change it whenever sufficient evidence has moved me to do so. Always at the end of the day, I still have to admit myself that I really don't know anything at all. It gets tiring to walk on eggshells so much, but I do believe in it and I should push myself to become even more legit with my communication!!

Good thread again like I said [E-prime alternate: I found this thread to be very enjoyable for myself ]

Love you guys!!

 

[picatris]

As a rather curious fact, the reasons for e-prime are basically the same ones that contribute to demonstrate that the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus as one of the greatest aberrations in philosophy (and Wittgenstein one of the most overrated "philosophers" of all time)

 

[Enoon]

just today I had a conversation with a fellow scientist who laughed at the idea of e-prime saying that if it was up to him he would always be speaking this way, because as a scientist it feels very difficult to state anything with absolute certainty. However the people that you talk to might find you sound like you don't know what you are talking about at all and will not want to listen to you.

I guess this is where good rhetoric-skills come in