[MD] Some historical perspective

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Arlo

27 Oct. :

Ron had said

> > however, I do think that certain paradoxes arise in complex languages byArlo
> > 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.

This evoked my interest . What Ron's above says is beyond me, but 
your reply shows (traces of) the SOL interpretation of the 4th level. 

    "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."  

I would of course wanted a more radical formulation "Intellect occurred 
when language's words became abstract symbols symbolizing some 
non-symbolic reality. Yours sounds as if there was an "intellect" in 
beforehand that "began the process" (there was an intelligence) You 
see how Pirsig's own definition of the 4th. level (in the Turner letter)

    "The skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no 
    corresponding particular experience and which behave 
    according to rules of their own."  

takes for granted that words are "abstract symbols" so he  merely 
describes what language is seen from inside intellect, while you at 
least regard "intellect" as something that began a re-evaluation of 
language . A great leap forward.   

> 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). 

But here you wander back into SOM's self-conscious "intellect" . 
However below you point to the paradoxes this engender. All in all 
signs of progress. 

(the kiss of death? ;-)

from

Bodvar
















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/
> 
>