"Is of Identity" and E-prime

TOWARD UNDERSTANDING E -PRIME
Robert Anton Wilson

E-PRIME, abolishing all forms of the verb "to be," has its roots in the field of general semantics, as presented by Alfred Korzybski in his 1933 book, Science and Sanity. Korzybski pointed out the pitfalls associated with, and produced by, two usages of "to be": identity and predication. His student D. David Bourland, Jr., observed that even linguistically sensitive people do not seem able to avoid identity and predication uses of "to be" if they continue to use the verb at all.

Bourland pioneered in demonstrating that one can indeed write and speak without using any form of "to be," calling this subset of the English language "E-Prime." Many have urged the use of E-Prime in writing scientific and technical papers.

Korzybski felt that all humans should receive training in general semantics from grade school on, as "semantic hygiene" against the most prevalent forms of logical error, emotional distortion, and "demonological thinking." E-Prime provides a straightforward training technique for acquiring such semantic hygiene.

To understand E-Prime, consider the human brain as a computer. (Note that I did not say the brain "is" a computer.) As the Prime Law of Computers tells us, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT (GIGO, for short). The wrong software guarantees wrong answers. Conversely, finding the right software can "miraculously" solve problems that previously appeared intractable.
It seems likely that the principal software used in the human brain consists of words, metaphors, disguised metaphors, and linguistic structures in general.

The Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis, in anthropology, holds that 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.

Consider the following paired sets of propositions, in which Standard English alternates with English-Prime (E-Prime):

lA. The electron is a wave.
lB. The electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-l.

2A. The electron is a particle.
2B. The electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2.

3A. John is lethargic and unhappy.
3B. John appears lethargic and unhappy in the office.

4A. John is bright and cheerful.
4B. John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.

5A. This is the knife the first man used to stab the second man.
5B. The first man appeared to stab the second man with what looked like a knife to me.

6A. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford.
6B. In memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford.

7A. This is a fascist idea.
7B. This seems like a fascist idea to me.

8A. Beethoven is better than Mozart.
8B. In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance, Beethoven seems better to me than Mozart.

9A. That is a sexist movie.
9B. That seems like a sexist movie to me.

10A. The fetus is a person.
10B. In my system of metaphysics, I classify the fetus as a person.

The "A"-type statements (Standard English) all implicitly or explicitly assume the medieval view called "Aristotelian essentialism" or "naive realism." In other words, they assume a world made up of block-like entities with indwelling "essences" or spooks- "ghosts in the machine."

The "B"-type statements (E-Prime) recast these sentences into a form isomorphic to modern science by first abolishing the "is" of Aristotelian essence and then reformulating each observation in terms of signals received and interpreted by a body (or instrument) moving in space-time.

Relativity, quantum mechanics, large sections of general physics, perception psychology, sociology, linguistics, modern math, anthropology, ethology, and several other sciences make perfect sense when put into the software of E-Prime. Each of these sciences generates paradoxes, some bordering on "nonsense" or "gibberish," if you try to translate them back into the software of Standard English.

Concretely, "The electron is a wave" employs the Aristotelian "is" and thereby introduces us to the false-to-experience notion that we can know the indwelling "essence" of the electron. "The electron appears as a wave when measured by instrument-1" reports what actually occurred in space-time, namely that the electron when constrained by a certain instrument behaved in a certain way.

Similarly, "The electron is a particle" contains medieval Aristotelian software, but "The electron appears as a particle when measured by instrument-2" contains modern scientific software. Once again, the software determines whether we impose a medieval or modern grid upon our reality-tunnel.

Note that "the electron is a wave" and "the electron is a particle" contradict each other and begin the insidious process by which we move gradually from paradox to nonsense to total gibberish. On the other hand, the modern scientific statements "the electron appears as a wave when measured one way" and "the electron appears as a particle measured another way" do not contradict, but rather complement each other. (Bohr's Principle of Complementarity, which explained this and revolutionized physics, would have appeared obvious to all, and not just to a person of his genius, if physicists had written in E-Prime all along. . . .)

Looking at our next pair, "John is lethargic and unhappy" vs. "John is bright and cheerful,' we see again how medieval software creates metaphysical puzzles and totally imaginary contradictions. Operationalizing the statements, as physicists since Bohr have learned to operationalize, we find that the E-Prime translations do not contain any contradiction, and even give us a clue as to causes of John's changing moods. (Look back if you forgot the translations.)

"The first man stabbed the second man with a knife" lacks the overt "is" of identity but contains Aristotelian software nonetheless. The E-Prime translation not only operationalizes the data, but may fit the facts better-if the incident occurred in a psychology class, which often conduct this experiment. (The first man "stabs," or makes stabbing gestures at, the second man, with a banana, but many students, conditioned by Aristotelian software, nonetheless "see" a knife. You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.)

The reader may employ his or her own ingenuity in analyzing how "is-ness" creates false-to-facts reality-tunnels in the remaining examples, and how E-Prime brings us back to the scientific, the operational, the existential, the phenomenological--to what humans and their instruments actually do in space-time as they create observations, perceptions, thoughts, deductions, and General Theories.

I have found repeatedly that when baffled by a problem in science, in "philosophy," or in daily life, I gain immediate insight by writing down what I know about the enigma in strict E-Prime. Often, solutions appear immediately-just as happens when you throw out the "wrong" software and put the "right" software into your PC. In other cases, I at least get an insight into why the problem remains intractable and where and how future science might go about finding an answer.


This text comes from:
D. David Bourland, Jr. & Paul Dennithorne Johnston, "To Be or Not: An E-Prime Anthology," International Society for General Semantics, 1991, pp. 23-26

Reading Interrogatives

Ask yourself the following questions as you read:

What is the topic of the book or reading?
What issues are addressed?
What conclusion does the author reach about the issue(s)?
What are the author's reasons for his or her statements or belief?
Is the author using facts, theory, or faith?
Facts can be proven
Theory is to be proved and should not be confused with fact
Opinions may or may not be based on sound reasoning
Faith is not subject to proof by its nature

Has the author used neutral words or emotional words?
Critical readers look beyond the language to see if the reasons are clear
Be aware of why you do, or do not, accept arguments of the author


Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

They are honest with themselves
They resist manipulation
They overcome confusion
They ask questions
They base judgments on evidence
They look for connections between subjects
They are intellectually independent
Flash exercise contributed by Jennifer Kelly and Dr. Brad Hokanson, Interactive Media (DHA 4384) School of Design, University of Minnesota.

See also:
Mindquest Academy's free course "Effective Reading" with sections on
Reading Profile, Building Vocabulary, Understanding, Using Patterns.
See the index if you wish to register with an instructor

Ruth Sunda & Kyrene de las Brisas: Bloom’s Critical Thinking/Questioning Strategies (9/26/02)

Wakefield, D.V., From a paper to the Governor's Teaching Fellows, Athen,s Georgia, November 19, 1998.

Story A

STORY A

(1)A certain west coast university scientist chartered a ship for exploration purposes.

(2) When a large white bird was sighted the scientist asked permission to kill it.

(3)He stated that white albatrosses are usually found only off the cost of Australia.

(4)He wanted the bird as a specimen for the university museum.
(5)The crew protested against the killing of the bird, calling the scientist’s attention to the old sea superstition that bad luck followed the killing of a white albatross.
(6)Nevertheless the captain granted permission to kill the bird and the bird was killed.

(7)These mishaps happened after the bird was killed:

(8)The net cables fouled up three times.

(9)The net caught on the bottom and was ripped to shreds.

(1O)The shaft on the main winch snapped and it took the crew members five hours to reel in by hand 1700 feet of cable.

(1 1)A rib was broken when Jackie Larson, a scientific aide, fell down a hatch ladder.

(12)The scientist became seasick for the first time in his life.

(13)Lost gear forced the ship to head for land.

(14)The cook left his job.

Story A Questions

Questions on Story A


1 .The scientist had never been seasick before.

2.The purpose of the voyage was primariiy pleasure and sight-seeing.


3.The story lists various incidents which follow the killing of a bird.

4.After the scientist shot the albatross the troubles happened.

5.No scientist’s name was mentioned in the story.

6.The scientist was surprised to see a white albatross in the vicinity.
7.The scientist was not from a university or college.­8.The scientist asked the captain for permission to kill the bird.

9.It took the crew members less than five minutes to reel in the seventeen hundred feet of cable,

1O.A lost gear made it necessary for the ship to return to the west coast.

11 .Fortunately, the net cables never fouled up.

12.A ship was chartered by a scientist.

13.The net was ripped in the bottom of the sea.

14.The cook was fired because of his objection to the killing of the bird.

15 .Larson broke a leg.

1 6.After the bird was killed the mishaps occurred.

17.The white albatross was sighted near Australia.

1 8.When an albatross was sighted flying near the ship the scientist asked permission to kill it.

19.The net was not damaged.

20.The troubles happened after the albatross was killed.

21 .The scientist was less influenced by the old sea superstition than were the members of the crew.

22.The ship, propelled by a motor, was in difficulty after the gear broke.
23 .Permission to kill the bird was given by the captain.

24. Seventeen hundred feet of cable were reeled in by hand.

25 .The bird that was killed was an albatross.

26.The sailors were not disturbed when the scientist violated the old sea superstition.

27.The person who fell down a hatch ladder was a man named Larson.

28.Larson broke one of the ribs of the ship.

29.The scientist did not want the bird as a specimen for the university museum.
30.The naturalist did not charter the ship.

31 .The scientist did not asked the crew for permission to kill the albatross.

32.The scientist attention was called to the old sea superstition that bad luck follows the killing of the white albatross.

33.The naturalist did not ask permission to kill the bird on order to secure it as a museum specimen.

34.The scientist expected to see a white albatross in that vicinity.

35 .The scientist was influenced by the warning of the crew.

36.The cook did not leave his job.

37.The captain broke one of his ribs.

38 .The bird was killed against the captains orders.

3 9.The crew members were only to frighten the scientist by protesting against the killing of the bird.

40.A lost gear was not the reason the ship landed.

41 .The crew protested against the killing of the bird.

42.Jackie Larson became seasick before the albatross was killed.

43.The scientist’s aide was Jackie Larson.

44.The bird was not killed.

45.The bird was killed by scientist.

46.The cook helped reel in the seventeen hundred feet of cable.

47.While the crew men were undoubtedly upset by the scientist’s action the cook was the only man to actually leave his job.

48.A scientist fell down a hatch ladder.