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? -----
[Mary] 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. [Krimel] Computers do not manipulate symbols. We manipulate symbols using computers. [Mary] "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. [Krimel] I did not comment of Platt's Principles and don't plan to other than to say Marsha did you no favor by replicating faulty intellectual patterns. The intellectual level is not "symbol manipulation." It is patterns of symbol manipulation. It includes the accumulation of patterns and the tools for encoding and decoding them. As for the evolutionary trajectory of the intellectual level, we are primates. We come from a long line of social animals. Our social behavior is an evolutionary biological pattern for reproductive success. Symbol manipulation is a social form of behavior. The intellectual level emerges from the fact that for our species the social environment has existed and played a critical role in our past for so long that we can talk about social selection in the same way we talk about sexual selection in other species. [Mary] 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: [Krimel] I think you are confusing the purpose and content of the intellectual patterns Rove uses with the level at which they reside. One can use intellectual patterns to serve social functions but that does not make them social patterns any more than the intellectual patterns of Newtonian mechanics as inorganic patterns because they are about mass and motion. 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/
