[MD] Some historical perspective

[X Acto]

Arlo,
I think that would be an interesting distinction to use to define an "intellectual level".
You provide an excellent arguement.

-a collection of illusional static patterns of value that prefers the symbolic
representation of "Ron" to demark existence within a continuim for linguistic
and communicative purposes.



----- Original Message ----
From: Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tue, October 27, 2009 10:34:54 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Some historical perspective

[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.



Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/