Hello everyone, Krimel: 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 claiming otherwise? -----
Yes, your explanation is correct. If you Google "symbol manipulation" you come up with pages and pages of discussion on how this can be implemented in computer languages. I had to dig pretty hard to come up with the 3 quotes I posted; but, I do not for a minute think Pirsig is saying that the Intellectual Level is mere symbolic representation ala computers. There's more to it than that. "Platt's Principles of the MOQ" (thanks, Platt! A truly excellent summary!) which Marsha posted for us all on Saturday (thanks, Marsha!), negates the idea that the Intellectual Level is nothing more than basic symbol manipulation. It can't be since each level evolves from the level below it. Basic symbol manipulation must have started in the Biological Level. The Social Level depends on it, after all. I am starting to wonder if Pirsig meant something more along the lines of the Carl Rove example I found. Especially after reading the next quote which Andre provided: Andre: I have come to conclude that we are looking at the wrong section in Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner, the section I posted to Ian and Arlo. Here it is: 'What complicates all this discrimination between intellectual and social thought are intellectual patterns that are no longer intellectually valid but are sustained by the social traditions that they created long ago. Religious beliefs are in this class. Classical physics is in this class. I think much of the opposition to the MOQ falls in this class as well'. ----- At first read, one might thing the Carl Rove example demonstrates the Social Level. But does it really? Mr. Rove seems to be manipulating socially held beliefs in service to a higher purpose that is not necessarily transparent in his arguments. This is cunning. So help me here. I ask you one and all, is Carl Rove demonstrating a Social Level pattern or an Intellectual Level one? Why? The Carl Rove Example: ----- http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Symbol+manipulation+and+boomerang+spin.(CALLIN G+OUT+THE+SYMBOL+RULERS)-a0138483284 First, Rove has become a master at putting out images that first strike the viewer or reader at the lower level of abstracting, nearer the sensory level, and then encourage a big semantic leap to a higher level, of political theory, social values, or cultural bias. He has done that with rhetoric and other symbol manipulation. He created sound bites and visual images of George W. Bush that convinced millions of Americans he shared their values and was better for the country than Kerry. Bush came across as the plain-spoken, Christian-values candidate. Rove did that again in his speech about 9/11, using language that invoked emotional, sensory reactions and then sent you soaring to those higher-order biased abstractions. Rove expertly takes a slice of rhetoric, or part of what sounds like a factual statement, and uses it out of context. To use general semantics terms, he knows how to create elementalism--symbols and images that seem to take on a truth of their own even though they are not in their original context. ----- Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. 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/
