[MD] Some historical perspective

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ron]
however, I do think that certain paradoxes arise in complex languages 
by virtue of the reification of symbol for symbol as, the painting of 
a pipe is not a pipe.

[Arlo]
One of the ways, I think, you can frame the social-intellectual 
division is to consider that the intellectual level began the process 
of examining the symbols used on the social level as entities in and 
of themselves. Language, of course, is very much a part of social 
activity patterns. You'd be hard press to find a social activity that 
is not dependent in some way on an interaction via symbolic 
discourse. Within the social level, symbols mediate the activity 
between participants. A buyer and seller of "bread" use the 
word-sound "bread" or the character-image "bread" to point to/refer 
to a particular object that is the focal point of this particular 
activity. With the advent of the intellectual level, "bread" as an 
abstract symbolic entity separate from any particular manifestation 
became itself the object-of-inquiry.

The intellectual level could very well be characterized as that which 
turns language onto itself, that which uses symbols to examine 
symbols. This necessitates a certain self-referential loop that, 
invariably, leads to paradox (a la the Godel-Hofstadter line of 
thought). This is why, I argue, that any "intellectual system" is at 
the same time powerful and paradoxical; the more powerful a system 
becomes, the more inherent paradox is introduced. This does not mean 
that we should abandon intellectual systems (such as mathematics or 
philosophy), but that we must recognize the limitations as well as 
the power such systems offer. There is no need to stop counting our 
cows because Godel has shown that complex mathematical 
representations are inherently incomplete.

In any case, I think the "reification of symbol for symbol", or 
rather using symbols to ponder symbols as "things-in-themselves", 
will always lead to inevitable paradox. We can't avoid it, well, 
except by abandoning symbolic representation entirely. Short of that, 
all we can do is knowingly nod at the fun and silliness, find 
amusement in the "(((((All this is just an analogy) even this) even 
this) even this).... )" infinite series. Of course, we can also stop, 
recognize this, and just say "okay, all this is an analogy, and 
despite the infinite recursion of this symbolic representation, it 
can also bring us great value.

Social level "language" is a mirror reflecting "things/activity/etc". 
Intellectual level "language" is a mirror reflecting this other 
mirror, and all the fun paradox and powerful representations this 
brings. Or perhaps a better "image" is a mirror that attempts to warp 
and reflect itself.

A painting of a pipe is a symbolic representation of a "thing", a 
reflection. "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" is the warping mirror. It is a 
reflection of a reflection.