Talk:General Semantics

Being raised with English as my first and only language, I believe that "to be" can be the same as "equal" and bassically the same as "remains".

I agree that the distinction of "becomes" is a critical one to make.

"equals" especially when used in the context of expressing mathematical and scientific laws is not limited to a moment in time. It is universal. (Except, of course when the law is really only an unproven theory thought to be a law due to a healthy mix of hubris and ignorance)

Scientific laws are not eternal. They are limited to the time when they are believed in, and applied. All such "laws" are theory, forver, since proof is not an empirical idea, but a definitive one. Thus "equals" applies only to a snapshot. Visit the whole theory of snapshot algebra in time related databases.

"remains" is often a distinction that needs not be made. if something already was, and it continues to be, it is not critical to know that historically it was.

Nonsense. Historicism is key. There is no ahistorical theory. Nor even any ahistorical proof.

For my understanding, some examples of how "to be" can be used unethically would help to make things more clear for me.

Read General Semantics itself or good articles on it. A simple one is that if someone says "A is a troll" that is inherently abuse. At some future time that person may cease to satisfy the conditions that apply to being a troll. At another time those conditions may change. And choice to be one or not is denied. The statement stands universally for all time, it is eternal and from God's Eye View. It has no time horizon. It's just nonsense. Not information, but dogma.

Now, a proud claim to be a troll or at least troll-friendly is quite different, in that, it is a choice to become one... ;-0

See you around the world tree.