History of E Prime

"our concern was speech, and speech impelled us To purify the dialect of the tribe" T.S. Eliot

Aristotle devloped rules of logic as a model for polite discussion of issues.

Bertrand Russell developed rules for set theory and propositional calculus to extend the reach of Aristotle's rules. (around 1900)

Gödel and Popper found limitations in the program of Russell and the Logical Positivists. Benefits from the attempts of the Logical Positivists were tools for math, philosophy, and language, including the computer and set theory. (in the 1930s)

Korzybski recognized a need for E Prime, but was never able to develop it. (in the 1940s)

In the 1980s the book "To Be, or Not" was published, with proof that E Prime was workable[3]

I talked to Eddie MIddleton about this last month (7-2002) and he summed up Popper's argument against the logical Positivists with these sentences:

"They state that 'all statements must be verified through experience'. But that statement too must be verified by experience if they are consistent."

I paraphrased it to : "All statments must be verified by experience except this one."

Ayer and E-Prime

In the book "Language, Truth and Logic" , Ayer shows with mathematical rigor that many statements in English and other languages using the verb "is" have no meaning.

Professor Staloff says; "metaphysics results from grammatical superstition" when describing the point of Ayer's book. [1]

One topic in "Language, Truth and logic" puts it this way: "Linguistic confusions the prime source of metaphysics."

From page 42 of "Language, Truth and Logic":

"A simpler and clearer instance of the way in which a consideration of grammar leads to metaphysics is the case of the metaphysical concept of Being. The origins of our temptation to raise questions about Being, which no conceivable experience would enable us to answer, lies in the fact that, in our language, sentences which express existential propositions and sentences which express attributive propositions may be of the same grammatical form. For instance, the sentences 'Martyrs exist' and 'Martyrs suffer,' both consist of a noun followed by an intransitive verb, and the fact that they have grammatically the same appearance leads one to assume that they are of the same logical type." [2]

This is the grammatical "superstition", or mistake, that can be avoided by E Prime. Avoiding the verb "to be" or "is" (except as a "helping verb") will prevent many of these logical mistakes and result in less ambiguity.

"It is seen that in the proposition 'Martyrs suffer,' the members of a certain species are credited with a certain attribute, and it is sometimes assumed that the same thing is true of such a proposition as "Martyrs exist." If this were actually the case, it would, indeed, be as legitimate to speculate about the Being of martyrs as it is to speculate about their suffering. But, as Kant pointed out, existence is not an attribute. For, when we ascribe an attribute to a thing, we covertly assert that it exists: so that if existence were itself an attribute, it would follow that all positive existential propositions were tautologies, and that all negative existential propositions self-contradictory; and this is not the case." [2]

Eldon New...7-22-2002

From Inversions, by Burt Alpert:

A connotation of dialectic persists, even in Plato, that is thus quite different from its use to refute an opponent, to reject other views as being "contrary," or to narrow the scope of an inquiry.

The concept of dialectic as a "co-operative" rather than antagonistic enterprise is deeply rooted in the linguistic origins of this and the other words in question....

In short, the point of view associated with the root words for dialectic and for dialogue/syllogism/logic was one that might be characterized as a "YES, AND" resopnse rather than a "NO, BUT." Its intention was that of adding to conversation rather than contradicting it. This response must have reflected a relationship to other conversationalists as fellows rather than as rivals and the substance of their speech as being of value rather than competitive or a threat. The outlook implied is one of acceptance, mutual regard aand social synthesis, instead of the polarity, refutation, rejection and repression that is developed in Plato and Aristotle.Inversions, Chapter 7

[1] Staloff, from a videotaped lecture"The Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition," part 5

[2] "Language, Truth and Logic" by Alfred Jules Ayer, 1946 pg 42, 43