International E-Prime Month

[forestofclarity]

David Bourland, in his article E-Prime! The Fundamentals, suggests that the verb "to be" in our language causes sloppy, uncritical, and wrong thinking. When we say, "the apple is red", it appears that we state a fact, but we do not. If we look at the apple through an electron microscope, it would not appear red. Saying that "the apple is red" fixes redness as a static quality of the apple. In reality, "red" depends on many changing factors: the presence of a working eye, the presence of light, etc.

 

In fact, he suggests that the verb "to be" causes us to speak of the world as a fixed, static phenomenon rather than a fluid dynamic happening.

 

In order to investigate this further, I propose that we declare March "International E-Prime Month" in honor of the death of Korzybski, his mentor who died 45 years ago on March 1. I personally will try to write all of my posts in E-Prime. E-Prime has only one rule:

 

In E-Prime one simply does without 20 or so of these lexical

items; specifically, the "to be" family: be, is, am, are, was, were, been, being;

plus contractions — 'm, 's, 're; plus various archaic and dialectual forms — e.g.,

war, wert, beest, amn't, ain't.

 

Any other takers?

Edited March 3, 2010 by forestofemptiness

[Birch]

Ok I try it!

 

The apple reds.

 

What about negatives? And is "going to" a cheat? Like "I not going to get up early"

[forestofclarity]

You can use "will" and "going to." Forbidden words include: am, be, being, been, are, is, was, were.

 

Ok I try it!

 

The apple reds.

 

What about negatives? And is "going to" a cheat? Like "I not going to get up early"

[forestofclarity]

It requires a lot of patience. I find that the practice illuminates certain assumptions we make about the world. Often, I find that I talk unwittingly in absolutes.

 

[quote name='Rainbow_Vein' date='04 March 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1267728228'

That ought to be a cinch. Challenge me, it just might! (Oh... it already has.) Ok, I'll try.

 

(It just happens that the title of my new personal practice forum starts with the word "be." )

[Taomeow]

This can elucidate many interesting points especially when applied to people. Instead of saying "Lucy is an administrative assistant," one would have to actually figure out what Lucy DOES for a living. The only way to accomplish this would entail turning one's awareness on. "Lucy rearranges papers on her desk, answers phones, manicures her fingernails, looks at her watch every five minutes, and suffers her boss's foul moods for a living." Likewise, instead of saying "John is my husband" --? Instead of "Li is a fraud" -- ? Instead of "Anna is German" -- ?

 

E-prime can show you right on the spot how your language has conditioned you to avoid awareness (sic!) at all costs by substituting labels. "Is" means a (=) mark. It causes you to equate phenomena that can't really be equated, and in the process you lose the habit of noticing with any clarity what you're actually looking at. This encourages not merely static but downright faulty thought patterns. Worse: faulty perception patterns.

 

The above, with the exception of examples in quotes, I wrote in E-prime. I don't mind doing this for a month.

[Mal]

I believe you need to add some more quotes, not that I noticed. I require this E-Prime spell checker I like the mindfulness this practice produces. But in writing I find it hard to notice all instances of slip ups. Please let me know about this checkers correctness if it slips up when

you use it.

 

I have never listed grammatical correctness as one of my skills and I feel my high school English teacher would laugh his head off hearing this attempt at changing my writing and I would not achieve this without the above tool.

 

This took quite a few edits

 

Resource

 

I can see E-prime and nonviolent communication as beneficial for this site.

[forestofclarity]

Only one word can possibly describe this: AWESOME!

 

 

Taomeow: You have improper contractions! Thanks E-Prime Checker!

 

I believe you need to add some more quotes, not that I noticed. I require this E-Prime spell checker I like the mindfulness this practice produces. But in writing I find it hard to notice all instances of slip ups. Please let me know about this checkers correctness if it slips up when

you use it.

Edited March 6, 2010 by forestofemptiness

[Mal]

At the moment infuriatingly difficulty, yet I forsee a benefit in doing this.

[Mal]

Mal, with any new task, practice makes perfect.

 

I agree. The thing I enjoy most about this exercise, rewriting my sentences, yet conveying the same meaning without the use of unconscious predication.

[Taomeow]

Only one word can possibly describe this: AWESOME!

 

 

Taomeow: You have improper contractions! Thanks E-Prime Checker!

Thanks, Forestofemptiness, I forgot about these. (One of these, was it? 'cause "don't" constitutes merely a phonetic shortcut, not a mental awareness-cut. Or do the rules forbid all phonetic shortcuts too? That I would consider superfluous, but I do not mind avoiding all abbreviations, just in case.)

 

Of course the problem of using generic labels as substitutes for (more aware and more accurate) individual descriptions of individual phenomena can not disappear from just purging the "guilty" auxiliary verb from the language. In other languages such labels function without the use of the actual "bad verb" and owe their existence solely to specific (and widespread) structures of certain sentences that imply it without naming it. In Russian, for instance, older versions of the language named it, modern ones omit it, but the outcome remains the same -- in modern Russian, you simply say "John plumber" or "John a jerk" to express exactly the same thing as "John bad verb a plumber" or "John bad verb a jerk" in English. So R-prime can not function the way E-prime does, the problem lies deeper...

 

How deep?.. "The whole of John" can not and should not, in our minds and in our definitions, equal anything we choose to label as equal to John (by using or implying the "bad verb") that does not really constitute the whole of John. Plumber, jerk, hero, husband, movie star, patient, teacher, driver, whatever... John the whole can no more get stuck in any one of these states than the wind can get stuck in a tree it blows through. Grammar lies... John truly consists of everything he consists of at all times; what our languages offer boils down to a method whereby you artificially stop this ever-shifting phenomenon of John with whatever definition provides for a manageable and limited John... Grammar lies big time. I think we have come to believe that our entire process of aliveness depends on nonstop manageability of our states and never-ending limitations imposed on them precisely because of the language we developed or acquired, whether naturally or, as I tend to think, not entirely naturally. We the human race I mean.

 

I did not E-prime-check the above, just did my best.

[forestofclarity]

The rules allow for phonetic short-cuts. For instance, the rules forbid "you're" because of the hidden "are."

 

I suppose one might say that the very act of language "languages" the world, translating it from dynamic flowing to static symbols. There exist a number of other (harder) rules that could help correct this, but the extra baggage may render communication impossible.

 

The ideas offered by semanticists include the use of numbers and dates. For example, if I would not say USA, I would say USA(1968) or Taomeow (2008). Also, we could say Communists(1) (people who believe in Marx/Engels) to differentiate this from Communists(2) (Commie-pinko-liberals).

 

Thanks, Forestofemptiness, I forgot about these. (One of these, was it? 'cause "don't" constitutes merely a phonetic shortcut, not a mental awareness-cut. Or do the rules forbid all phonetic shortcuts too? That I would consider superfluous, but I do not mind avoiding all abbreviations, just in case.)

 

Of course the problem of using generic labels as substitutes for (more aware and more accurate) individual descriptions of individual phenomena can not disappear from just purging the "guilty" auxiliary verb from the language. In other languages such labels function without the use of the actual "bad verb" and owe their existence solely to specific (and widespread) structures of certain sentences that imply it without naming it. In Russian, for instance, older versions of the language named it, modern ones omit it, but the outcome remains the same -- in modern Russian, you simply say "John plumber" or "John a jerk" to express exactly the same thing as "John bad verb a plumber" or "John bad verb a jerk" in English. So R-prime can not function the way E-prime does, the problem lies deeper...

 

How deep?.. "The whole of John" can not and should not, in our minds and in our definitions, equal anything we choose to label as equal to John (by using or implying the "bad verb") that does not really constitute the whole of John. Plumber, jerk, hero, husband, movie star, patient, teacher, driver, whatever... John the whole can no more get stuck in any one of these states than the wind can get stuck in a tree it blows through. Grammar lies... John truly consists of everything he consists of at all times; what our languages offer boils down to a method whereby you artificially stop this ever-shifting phenomenon of John with whatever definition provides for a manageable and limited John... Grammar lies big time. I think we have come to believe that our entire process of aliveness depends on nonstop manageability of our states and never-ending limitations imposed on them precisely because of the language we developed or acquired, whether naturally or, as I tend to think, not entirely naturally. We the human race I mean.

 

I did not E-prime-check the above, just did my best.

[forestofclarity]

"I see change as the only constant."

 

Ooooohhhhhh, good points.

 

You could even say forestofemptiness(3-6-2010 10:15am EST) - the time that you wrote this post. You could be a markedly different person in an hour or a day. Or in a different time zone.

 

The only constant is change.

 

How would you rewrite the preceeding sentence in ePrime?

[Apech]

"I'm being. Was 'be' being?"

 

"Was? Is!"

 

(Just trying to max the e-prime checker)

[RyanO]

It requires a lot of patience. I find that the practice illuminates certain assumptions we make about the world. Often, I find that I talk unwittingly in absolutes.

 

This E Prime stuff intrigues me.

 

It seems rather difficult but I will try my best!

 

The spiritual implications of what something "is" become very apparent.

 

It reminds me of an Osho talk I heard where he spoke about how many 'relationships' fail because nouns stagnate, whereas a verb like 'relating' keeps things fresh.

 

After much difficulty writing this post, I fear I will have to bow down from this experiment for the moment but support the spirit of it.

[RyanO]

I believe you need to add some more quotes, not that I noticed. I require this E-Prime spell checker I like the mindfulness this practice produces. But in writing I find it hard to notice all instances of slip ups. Please let me know about this checkers correctness if it slips up when

you use it.

 

I have never listed grammatical correctness as one of my skills and I feel my high school English teacher would laugh his head off hearing this attempt at changing my writing and I would not achieve this without the above tool.

 

This took quite a few edits

 

Resource

 

I can see E-prime and nonviolent communication as beneficial for this site.

 

 

Haha, I feel like I'm back in grammar school too!

 

Seriously, pure E Prime seems sooo difficult. I substituted "is" with "seems" in that last sentence, and I see how E Prime helps one to not speak in absolutes.

[freeform]

 

I wrote my dissertation in E-Prime.

 

It tends to remove many semantic ghosts... and very importantly, it forces us to reference our awareness, rather than our abstract thoughts.

 

Just notice how when we write in E-Prime we often substitute a sensory term for the 'is'... 'The apple is red' becomes 'The apple looks red'... suddenly the process used to make this distinction reveals itself.

 

I also practice 'grounded and ungrounded assessments' - quite simply - 12 jurors would agree with a grounded assessment... they wouldn't with an ungrounded one...

 

"John looks angry" - Ungrounded

 

"John furrows his brow and raises the volume of his voice as he speaks" - Grounded

 

Avoid implying a preference for one or the other, but noticing the difference (even if only done for a day) can teach you a lot about your habitual thought processes. And helps you notice when you mistake thoughts for awareness - one of the major 'sleep inducers' in our culture.

[三江源]

On reading this notion my brain shut down and I made an assumption

that I couldnt understand the process. Little bits of word I must

avoid? Like a very hard crack in the pavement game...

 

Then I saw the eprimer and thought I'd have a go seeing as how it

makes the

process less difficult for me. But it still makes my head feel

funny. Whatever part of the brain this uses, my brain doesnt like it..

 

it makes my own language suddenly become not my own anymore..

 

ag! I jump forward to wanting to eschew language entirely.

 

A space beyond familiar or unfamiliar, just communicating in some

invisible way.

 

I wonder who would pick up the signals.

[Athanor]

Although David Bourland is most likely right with his observation regarding the apple , I think the E-Prime concept has a general error which is actually well corrected with the use of common sense and a little education.

 

The thing is, and I use "is" with full confidence, that we cannot claim anything for sure, simply because we cannot be sure whether anything we observe is real or not, or whether anything exists or not. We have no other perspective of reality than from inside of reality, so reality ultimately can be something totally different. In fact, several signs show that the world is not how we perceive (for example, perspective exists only in our heads). So we should always avoid using words like "is", "be", etc. But then we would have a problem in communicating.

"The apple is red" would then be something like "According to my thoughts about an apple and the color red, I think I perceive redness in relation with the apple." Now, this is already a complicated sentence, yet, it's still not really more accurate than simply claiming that the apple is red. If you look at it, "my thoughts" assumes that there ARE thoughts in my possession, which assume that I am, and that I have possessions, and that the ability of possessing exists. Further more, the fact that I perceive something claims that something exists that I perceive, and also that I exist. So to put it in a more accurate form, the whole sentence has to be conditional, somewhat like this: "If reality exists and if I am a part of it, then according to my thoughts, if I have any, about what an apple and the color red might be, if such things can possibly exist, I think I perceive something I might define as redness in relation with the thing I might define as an apple."

 

I don't think that my last sentence was totally accurate, but I think I could fairly render the difference between our usual sentence and a more proper one. However, we all know, or at least should know because of our education, that red is not in the apple but it is the name of a specific length of light wave, and an apple is also just a word which identifies a thing that has a shape, taste, etc. which can be referred to as the shape, taste, etc. of an apple.

 

I believe this about covers the demonstration of the uselessness of this stuff. But if you like it then enjoy

[RyanO]

Although David Bourland is most likely right with his observation regarding the apple , I think the E-Prime concept has a general error which is actually well corrected with the use of common sense and a little education...

 

 

While I agree that doing away with all forms of "to be" is futile, I think you're missing the point here.

 

The E Prime experiment, as it pertains to this board, focuses on watching our statements about absolutes in order to cultivate a more friendly atmosphere.

 

Here, you infer that people interested in or are doing this experiment lack common sense and a small amount of education. Writing this as an "is" makes your statement appear even more offensive.

[Athanor]

While I agree that doing away with all forms of "to be" is futile, I think you're missing the point here.

 

The E Prime experiment, as it pertains to this board, focuses on watching our statements about absolutes in order to cultivate a more friendly atmosphere.

 

Here, you infer that people interested in or are doing this experiment lack common sense and a small amount of education. Writing this as an "is" makes your statement appear even more offensive.

Alright, in case I really don't understand this, please tell me how you would have changed my sentence. Show me how to avoid "to be", please.

[freeform]

red is not in the apple but it is the name of a specific length of light wave...

 

A perfect demonstration of what E-Prime does. 'Red is the name of a specific light wave'... Seems like a reasonable thing to say, right? In reality though, it again creates faulty thinking- it removes the process used to observe from the statement.

 

Abstractions of abstractions of abstractions...

 

Thoughts about thoughts about thoughts...

 

Based on a true story about a story about a story...

 

"If reality exists and if I am a part of it, then according to my thoughts, if I have any, about what an apple and the color red might be, if such things can possibly exist, I think I perceive something I might define as redness in relation with the thing I might define as an apple."

 

 

We have awareness - a part of an earlier evolutionary step for us (deer also have awareness)... Awareness relies on our senses - and never abstractions laid over the top of senses... A deer doesn't hear a sound and think "oh shit - that sounds like a predator - I better get going!".

 

We also have consciousness - a distinctly human trait... it allows us to create any illusion we choose to. It allows us to study patterns using mathematics and it allows us to blame our favoured football team for our bad mood.

 

We make our life more complicated and less fun by confusing consciousness for awareness. "is" does this by making this mistake an accepted part of our language. I don't think E-Prime solves this completely, but it certainly highlights it and makes it obvious.

 

"The apple is red" makes it seem like there 'is' an apple, there 'is' red - whereas these things are all creations of consciousness.

 

"The apple looks red" accurately relates the dance between awareness and consciousness.

 

(for those that have discussed 'process and content' with me will recognise how "the apple looks red" demonstrates some process as well as content... "the apple is red" demonstrates only content. Content with no process makes thought stagnant.)

[RyanO]

Alright, in case I really don't understand this, please tell me how you would have changed my sentence. Show me how to avoid "to be", please.

 

I think E Prime is unnecessary as well as too difficult for practical purposes but also that it is interesting. With that in mind, I respectfully decline your challenge.

 

My post might have been better if I simply stated that I thought your post seemed insensitive and that you might not have grasped the spirit of why others are into it.

[Mal]

Well you can still make quite absolute and specific statments in e-prime

 

If you meant this quote

Although David Bourland is most likely right with his observation regarding the apple , I think the E-Prime concept has a general error which is actually well corrected with the use of common sense and a little education.

you could say.

 

Although David Bourlands correctly makes this observation with his

apple example. I think the E-Prime concept has a general error easily

corrected by the use of common sense and a little education...

 

 

Thanks for 'process and content' examples Freeform. Food for thought. I feel hunger now and would like to eat an apple of indeterminate colour

[Mal]

I can not recall that feeling of hunger at the moment, as I just ate a yellow banana

[Athanor]

Although David Bourlands correctly makes this observation with his

apple example. I think the E-Prime concept has a general error easily

corrected by the use of common sense and a little education...

You know, if we would translate your sentence to my language, we would still have to use "to be" - however, we don't have such word, but we build it into the word it refers to, just as well as you did when you said "makes". In another tense you would say "is making" - i.e. 'to be' would refer to making.

So technically it is still the same, and I still think that being concerned with this makes no sense, however, it shows that you might need to get a life

 

Let me just remind you that while you were arguing with me about using "is" and "was" and such words too often, other people simply call forum members dogs, and use morally inappropriate sentences. No one seemed to have a problem with that.