Awesome introduction and summary about General Semantics as a metalinguistic system, it's use as a method of accurately describing the world we live in, and applications to epistemology and psychotherapy. The author is also much less pedantic than Alfred Korzybski, hence the four-and-a-half stars. The writing remains very accessible. It was written in the 1950s and includes some interesting historical context related to the rhetorical persecution of people during the Red Scare. There are a good number of parallels to the political rhetoric in 2026. The cybernetics section also was fascinating because it gave a glimpse into the understandings of simple interactive and feedback systems from the 1950s.

Three stars; this book has been a laborious read. The author was verbose and pedantic at times and used mathematics in a way that a plebian such as myself has had difficulty following. I am finishing up with the last part of the book, the geometry section. I took calculus 1 and college physics but never really imagined using higher mathematics to create a kind of structural metaphysics in the way Korzybski did. However, I can definitely see where Albert Ellis and both REBT and CBT were influenced. Some of the information appears a bit dated, but it was originally written in 1933. Also, personally, I think that Korzybski may have made an error in over-interpolating from Freudian psychoanalysis. However, Freudian analysis was the only major psychology player in 1933. Some of his language and analysis do have a strange tinge of--it appears very, very unintentional--racial emphasis. From my recollection, when he does talk about 'race' it appeared--to me--in terms of referring to 'Western/European culture.' I would have thought that Korzybski being a guy writting about language and it's effects and utility would have caught that himself. However, this appears to minute, and not egregious. I also think he was unobservant of his own biases in regards to women. For example, expecting women to somehow not be attracted to powerful men and avoid integration within historically bellicose societies is not realistic; it's idealistic. Definitely he could argue for non-bellicose show more attraction being a better ideal. But ethics was not the basis of his thesis. If you read it, consider that the author wrote the original text in 1933, was a well-off Polish guy, who had been in the millitary, served, had his own preconceptions. Also consider that he was trying to formulate a mental hygiene system to make accurate evaluations and reduce the effects of reactive language. I think those are nobel and novel goals. In summary: it is a hard read but it can help build reading discipline and an awareness of language and evaluation; all important skills in this digital age of abject nonsense. Oh yeah: it will also improve your vocabulary, analytical thinking skills, and may make you more annoying to your significant other during arguements. The latter may or may not be a benefit.

Follow up: finished.
Reading this book is worthwhile. I still say three stars. The exposition of how Einstinian relativity and maths is relevant in how people can experience events and stay well adjusted appears, to me, to be very unique. The supplements also were very interesting and synthesized the elements of his thesis nicely at the end. The book is something very different and I was able to find a great deal of application for what I found with the mathematical modeling. I am keeping it in my library as a trophy for the energy I put in to read it. I still think that the author was overly verbose and did not need to be quite so pedantic. There is another pair of sources which I believe to be better made for the newbie to this kind of language use and analysis: (1) Levels of Knowing and Existence, by Harry L. Weinberg; (2) a series of videos hosted by Irving J. Lee, starting with "Language General Semantics" https://share.google/cck6JsjrhiMi6uRKp. show less