Adult Non-fiction: Linguistics / semantics / knowledge by (Korbinski?). Read in 1990s, possibly over 20-70 years older than that.

[Justanotherbiblophile]

I may be confusing the author of the book I'm looking for, with this great in the field. I'm pretty sure it was a foreign-sounding last name; and likely was Polish.

This is NOT _Manhood of Humanity_ (or at least not this version).
It is NOT "Foreword to a Theory of Meaning" (here)
It is NOT "What I Believe" (here)

I've not found a complete list of all his works.

The thing I remember most about this book/monograph, is something in the beginning. The author basically said, (paraphrased): you will need to read this book twice in order to understand it. I remember thinking, 'what a pompous prick'. Spoiler: I ended up immediately re-reading the book.

He then proceeded to talk about words, and language, and how they impacted thought (which is pretty much most of the books in the field), and what reality is.

I'd checked this out from the university library. They kept no records, and when I went back a couple years later looking for this book, I could not find it.

I want to say the title had 'system', or something along those lines in the title (which, again, is most of the books in the field).

This was a rather slim volume (maybe 98, maybe 150 pages?), hardback. Plain, green(?) cover, no art-work (but that might've just been how the university bound it?).

[Lobstergirl, au gratin]

Year?

[SBC]

It sounds to me like something Jacques Lacan might have said (although admittedly his writing is pretty impenetrable!). Something by him?

[Justanotherbiblophile]

Lobstergirl wrote: "Year?"

Which year are you asking about? Book was old, could be up to 40-100+ years old. Korbinsky wrote in the '20s, which have rolled back around again.

[Justanotherbiblophile]

SBC wrote: "(although admittedly his writing is pretty impenetrable!)"

This was not impenetrable, it was engaging and thought provoking, and (IIRC), concise. Dude wasn't writing for word-count, he was on a mission.

[Lobstergirl, au gratin]

Justanotherbiblophile wrote: "Lobstergirl wrote: "Year?"

Which year are you asking about? Book was old, could be up to 40-100+ years old. Korbinsky wrote in the '20s, which have rolled back around again."

The year you read it, or the year it was published.

If the OP knows a time range it would have been published, of course that's useful.

People don't often know that so we ask them when they read it.

[Justanotherbiblophile]

90s, but could easily have been 20-70+ years older.

[Justanotherbiblophile]

*covid bump*

[Justanotherbiblophile]

*Halloween bump*

[Justanotherbiblophile]

*bump*

[Judy]

There's Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives. You may also have read Verbal Behavior, which was based on a series of lectures, or possibly something by Noam Chomsky, as he is also very well known in the field (alternately called Cognitive Linguistics or generative grammar depending on which scholars you follow). One possible way to find the specific author you are thinking of is to look at the bibliography of works by George Lakoff, Chomsky, B. F. Skinner or Ronald Langacker to see if anything seems familiar.

[Justanotherbiblophile]

Don't think of an Elephant was published approximately a decade and a half after I read the book I'm thinking of, and the book I'm thinking of was likely decades older.

I doubt it was BF, nor Chomsky - but I will review.

These are general suggestions, and I gather that you don't recall the key phrase that was in the book I'm looking for.

Still looking.

[Justanotherbiblophile]

*bump*

[Genesistrine]

The name you're looking for is probably Alfred Korzybski. The (first) preface in Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics has the phrase "... for the best results the book should be read consecutively without stopping at passages which at first are not entirely clear, and read at least twice. On the second reading, passages which at first were not clear will become obvious ..." - is that close enough?

[Justanotherbiblophile]

Looks plausible: pg. xcviii

Maybe it was Time-binding?

----
I think I read a dual of time-binding+1

This excerpt is from the transcript of the 1924 presentation:

"For a full understanding this essay should be read twice, at least, because the beginning presupposes the end, and vice versa. This theory is built upon the minimum of the best ascertained scientific facts of 1924. Its scientific soundness has to be judged on theoretical grounds (1924). Its working cannot be judged by arguments, only by application. Fortunately, it works with the reader who has understood it. If it does not work, the reader has not understood."

How's that for blaming the reader :D

[Lobstergirl, au gratin]

This is in Possibly Solved, how close are you to knowing the answer? Usually Possibly Solved is a purgatory where nothing happens to threads.

[Isabel]

Really sounds like a shortened version/excerpt of Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski, like Genesistrine said.

If not, maybe Thought as a System by David Bohm?

[SamSpayedPI]

Thought as a System for Isabel's link.

[Lobstergirl, au gratin]

Lobstergirl wrote: "This is in Possibly Solved, how close are you to knowing the answer? Usually Possibly Solved is a purgatory where nothing happens to threads."

Moving to Unsolved, since this has been sitting in Possibly Solved for a year.