Society," shows us new ways of looking at the world, which accept undecidability, uncertainty, and paradox; by so doing, they reinforce the notion of nonidentity and other general-semantics formulations. Torosyan draws on writings of philosophers, physicists, and novelists in elaborating these complex notions.
One thing that troubles me here is "Paradox," which does not occur nonverbally. Paradox occurs in the way we express what we think is going on in the world. Of course, we can draw figures which cannot possibly exist in the solid state, but there again, the paradox is in the representation; it's not in the thing you think it is. So beware of accepting 'paradox' placidly. It means there's something wrong in the way you're looking at it.
D. David Bourland discusses "ΓEOS: A Fourth Non-Aristotelian Model," which he has developed, summarized in the "Relational Differential" diagram. He assumes a sign level denoted by sigma (Γ), preceding the event level, containing the highest-order abstractions, which give us some description of the undescribable event level. He thinks this is a very fundamental advance from Korzybski's models, and I don't. Read his paper in conjunction with Korzybski's and others' work in general- semantics, and critically evaluate this formulation for yourself.