[MD] Re Proposed solution to SOL/Intellectual level

[Krimel]

> [Andre]
> Pirsig's definition [of the Intellectual Level] in the letter to Paul
> Turner.
> ...manipulation of symbols (and words are not symbols!!)
> That is the intellectual level proper. Pure symbol manipulation 
> without social pattern words.

[Mary]
I am hung up now on trying to understand what Pirsig means by "Symbol
Manipulation".  I've stumbled across some gems I think.  These seem all of a
piece if you use the World War I context as a starting point.  

[Krimel]
Modern thinking on "symbols" begins with Peirce and Saussure. Both of them
advanced theories about sign relations. That is, how does one thing comes to
stand for another. A sign relation involves a signifier and a signified.
When a signified points toward something that is signified we have a sign
relationship. 

Peirce claimed there are three kinds of sign relationships. Icons are signs
where there is a direct correspondence between the signifier and the
signified, cave paintings and hieroglyphics are examples. An index is a
signifier that points to or indicates the presence of something signified.
For example, smoke is an index for fire, tracks are indexes of the presence
and activities of animals as are excrement and patterns of broken twigs and
crushed grass. 

Symbols are the most complex of the three kinds of sign relations. In
symbolic signs, the connection between signifier and signified is entirely
arbitrary. Symbolic signs are socially mediated and depend entirely on
culturally established rules and conventions. Language is indeed a symbolic
system. Speaking IS symbol manipulation. What possible justification could
there be for e claiming otherwise?