[MD] Some historical perspective

[MarkHSmit at aol.com]

Well put Arlo,

I would also add that once a symbol materializes much is
lost of the original.   Once a language comes to being, much
is lost of experience.   However, the power of language can
communicate experience over a wider sphere than otherwise
available.   Too bad it is so limiting, but that is its nature.   Language
is a telephone line between beings.   It is also a virus since it
infects with ideas.   Sometimes good, sometimes deadly.

Cheers,
Willblake2

In a message dated 10/27/09 7:34:58 AM, ajb102 at psu.edu writes:


> [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/
> 
>