Questions about Korzybski's ideas

[fluidistic]

I have read a little bit about Korzybski's ideas, and I am wondering if his ideas on language have been made obsolete by Chomsky? I could not find anything, any comment or whatsoever, from Chomsky about Korzybski.
It seems to me that Korzybski believed that language cannot reveal reality, from what I understand, because it is not structured as the neural system is. That seems to be an extremely odd idea to me, but he says this is so, in the same fashion that a map is not the territory because it doesn't contain the map that contains the map that contains the map, ad infinitum. But I personally find extremely hard to buy the argument about language, I fail to see the logic in it. Wouldn't it be like saying that a computer program that plays chess must have its structure as a chessboard for it to play? How does this make any sense?
Anyways, furthermore when a baby lacks language, he sees the world as it is, according to Korzybski, because language hasn't spoiled his mind.
However, from Chomsky point of view, we humans are somehow pre-wired in understanding the world, the words are just missing. So the concept of say, a chair, is already in our mind, and we just put a tag/word on it when we learn our native language. That seems to be in sharp contrast to what Korzybski would think.
I have also read strange statements in Science and sanity by Korzybski, such that a man cannot be considered intelligent if he doesn't understand quantum mechanics and general relativity. That man can be distinguished from animals (no mention of other "intelligent" extinct Homos who had developed language) as if it stood on special ground. That we cannot skim through that 800+ pages book to even get something out of it (it would be a total loss of time), and that one must re-read that big book over and over until each word makes sense, etc.

So yeah, I am just wondering what is up with his ideas, now that almost a century has passed since they were expressed.

 

[Rive]

It seems to me that Korzybski believed that language cannot reveal reality...
However, from Chomsky point of view, we humans are somehow pre-wired in understanding the world

I don't think that those claims should be contradicting or being in any relation what induces any kind of superiority between them. Yes, there are limits to language: also, we likely has some (just 'some'!) pre-wired structures which are connected to their actual function/meaning through practice/accumulated experience. Due the experiences being different for every individual, we are back to the limits of the standardized language which cannot mirror all the differences of the individual perception and intent. So both works within their limits.

Originally all this was barely more than philosophy anyway (as we take it now). The real deal came later, as our knowledge about the brain and cognitive functions increased. Just take the originals as a prelude and skip directly to the new stuff.

 

[Klystron]

Interesting questions to ponder, particularly considering how humans acquire speech as babies.

The idea that children literally learn language at their mother's breast; their 'milk tongue', becomes more meaningful from studying verified feral or 'wild child' incidents where a child received care after birth long enough to survive yet became orphaned from human contact before developing spoken language skills.

Despite lack of controls, S. I. Hayakawa and others found useful data points. I remember a rough 'rule of thumb' from semantics classes that children not taught spoken language before approximately three to four years old may never learn to speak language despite normal physical structures and apparent intelligence.

Mathematician Eric Temple Bell deserves priority for proving the expression "The map is not the thing mapped.". Korzybski's later better known epigram "The map is not the territory" remains a specific though useful reminder that abstract mathematics describes but does not instantiate or resemble physical reality. Structuralism pervades so much 20th Century linguistics, philosophy and related social sciences, not to mention Art; meaningful discussion requires specifics.

[edit: As for Korzybski's notions of what constitutes intelligence in modern man, I now understood as ]"A modern human should understand or at least be conversant with physics and current technology in order to be considered educated. ".

As our understanding of physics and technological applications consistently evolve, an intelligent (educated) person studies and learns throughout life; justifying practical sources such as Physics Forums, ongoing adult education and public libraries.

To paraphrase Umberto Eco and others, "We continue learning language throughout life." and "No two people experience learn language the same way."

[edits entered after response. Thanks.]

 

[fluidistic]

As for Korzybski's notions of what constitutes intelligence in modern man, I understood as "A modern human should understand or at least be conversant with physics and current technology in order to be considered educated. ". As our understanding of physics and technological applications consistently evolve, an intelligent (educated) person studies and learns throughout life; justifying practical sources such as Physics Forums, ongoing adult education and public libraries.

To paraphrase two favorite semiotics professors, "We continue learning language throughout life." and "No two people experience language the same way.".

I don't think that's what Korzybski had in mind. To him, GR and QM required their authors/discoverers/pioneers to go beyond language and "fall back" to how a baby sees the world (according to him). I think he analyses how Einstein went through the development of his theory(ies), the mental abstraction outside language he had to make, or something like that. This has nothing to do with keeping up with modern theories or technologies. It is instead peculiar to QM and GR, specifically.
I fear I, and we here so far, have deformed so much what Korzybski wrote, that he would want to tear his hairs out. I haven't read his book even once, and he insisted so much that we read it several times until everything makes sense, that I know I am not doing justice.

In the meantime I have found a few quotes from Chomsky regarding Korzybski (but no source is given), and indeed, he does not see any meaning in Korzybski's work, or anything not trivial.
If the quotes are real, then yeah, Chomsky does not agree with Korzybski on language. I guess this means that Korzybski's work is obsolete, either entirely or mostly.