The evolution of symbol systems and society

Cover Page

The Evolution of
Symbol Systems and
Society

Author: Jeffrey G. Long (jefflong@aol.com)

Date: June 26, 1994

Forum: Talk presented at the Fourth Annual International Conference of The
Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology and the Life Sciences.

Contents
Page 1: Proposal and Bio

Pages 2‐31: Slides intermixed with text for presentation

License
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial
3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative
Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

Uploaded June 19, 2011

Submitted for the
Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology and the Life Sciences
1994 Annual Conference
June 1994

The Evolution of Symbol Systems and Society

Jeffrey G. Long
133‐1/2 11th Street, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 547‐0268
jefflong@aol.com


The Whorfian hypothesis has not been generally accepted as applying to language, but it does seem
to apply to notations.  Further, there seems to be a general pattern in the structure of notational
revolutions such as the move to the alphabet, to hindu‐arabic numerals, and to staff musical
notation.  This talk will discuss the significance of these questions as they relate to the co‐evolution
of society and notation, and the social formation of mind.  The 20‐minute presentation will be
followed by a 10‐minute audience question‐and‐answer period.

The Evolution of

Symbol Systems and Society
A Brief Overview

Jeffrey G. Long

voice: (202) 547‐0268
e‐mail: JeffLong@AOL.COM
letter: 133‐1/2 11th Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20003

Presented to the
Society for Chaos Theory
June 25, 1994

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Slide 1: Cover Page

I really appreciate this chance to share some ideas with you.

Twenty‐one years ago I got interested in complex systems analysis when I did simple neural net
simulations as an undergraduate at U.C. Berkeley.

Since then I've been looking at a wide range of issues in order to understand why our society doesn't
seem able to comprehend, create or control complex systems, whether the systems are natural or
by‐design.

I've concluded so far that mathematics and our other primary notational systems have
FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS in what they were designed to represent.

In other words, the NOTATION we use is a critical limitation on our ability to understand the world
around us.

Conversely, a new notation can resolve a large CLASS of problems all at once.

I summarize this belief with the phrase, "The notation is the limitation".

This afternoon I'll talk for 20 minutes about the NATURE of notation and about notational and
societal co‐evolution, using three examples of notational EVOLUTION and REVOLUTION to show the
pattern.

We'll then have about 10 minutes for any questions or comments you may have.

Please hold your questions until the end.

If you'd like to talk more, I can be reached as shown on this slide.

I've also put my business card out, and some reprints of the slides.

Please feel free to contact me at any time with your thoughts and criticism.

Page 3 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


The use of a system of signs or symbols to represent

words, phrases, numbers, quantities, etc. 1

"For the purpose of determining logical structure it is, for instance, a
matter of complete indifference whether we represent certain features of
states of affairs by spatial arrangement rather than by sounds or shapes.
Hence the unimportance in theory of attempts to 'improve' symbolism:
tokens of any properties whatsoever can be used as the material for a
complete language." 2

1 -- Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1984
2 -- Max Black, Language and Philosophy, 1949, page 160

Page 4 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]

Slide 2: Standard Definition

First I would like to acknowledge that MANY people think notation is unimportant.

Looking at the dictionary definition, it's easy to see why they feel this way.

Under this definition, key concepts exist OUTSIDE of notation, presumably in LANGUAGE.

Notation is mere ABBREVIATION.

This premise is widely held, and is stated fairly clearly by the philosopher of mathematics Max Black.

MY OWN explorations of more than a dozen notational systems over the past ten years have
convinced me otherwise.

Page 5 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Successful Notations Wannabe Notations

alphabet chemical formulae
Recognized mathematics dance
Notations music software design
logic

time
Unrecognized Notations money
language ???
votes
medals

What Is a Notational System?

Page 6 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Slide 3: What Is a Notational System?

I believe we can get a better sense of the TRUE nature of notation by looking at examples of what I
CONSIDER to TRULY be notational systems.....

(Upper Left)

(Upper Right)

(Lower Left)

(Lower Right)

Page 7 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


A revolutionary notational system

does not merely symbolize abstractions ‐‐

it invents them,

it reifies them,

and it

provides a calculus for them.

Criteria for a Notational System

Page 8 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]

Slide 4: Criteria for a Notational System

So what criteria am I using to define a notational system?

In all of these cases, the notational SYSTEM does not merely ABBREVIATE anything; instead:

FIRST, it INVENTS or DISCOVERS a new abstraction that I call an ONTOLOGICAL INVENTION

An ontological invention is something we invent (or discover) and subsequently treat as "real", e.g.
numbers, truth , money, or time.

I suggest that what we call LITERACY is learning about the existence and properties of these
unobservable entities. And that when we learn about them, we literally see the world differently (a
la Vygotsky and Luria)

When I say invent or discover, I mean that these entities have ontological REALITY, but whether they
were ALWAYS there (a la Plato, and therefore DISCOVERIES) or whether they are products of mind
(therefore emergent, and therefore INVENTIONS) is unclear to me

SECOND, it REIFIES that abstraction with a SYMBOL inscribed on some MEDIUM (not always 2‐
dimensional, as we presume, but 1‐D, 3D, and n‐D also), and

FINALLY, it provides a CALCULUS or GRAMMAR of legal operations on those new symbols.

The difference between this and formal languages or formal systems is thus that it is fundamentally
exploratory and EMPIRICAL rather than AXIOMATIC; semantics are the BASIS of it, not an
afterthought or application as in model theory.

Page 9 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Logic Arithmetic

implication numbers
Geometry
Cartography,
Speech
& Charts Causality Quantity
form truth
Relation Naming
Experience
Change ???
time ???
???
Calendars Value Sound

money
notes & rests

Accounting Music,
Choreography

Abstractions Lead to Ontological Inventions
Page 10 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Slide 5: Abstractions Lead to Ontological Inventions

So the key concept that I am advocating here is the notion of an ONTOLOGICAL INVENTION.

In this chart, we start with the undifferentiated mess that we call RAW EXPERIENCE.

Both societies and individuals, as they mature, develop and apply abstractions to this experience.....

From the abstractions we distill an ontological invention.....

Based on the ontological invention, we develop a notational system....

Page 11 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Whorf's theses of linguistic relativity were summarized by the semanticist Stuart Chase as follows:

"First, that all higher levels of thinking are dependent upon language.
Second, that the structure of the language one habitually uses
influences the manner in which one understands his environment.
The picture of the universe shifts from tongue to tongue."3

Restating this in notational terms, we might say:

First, that various kinds of abstract thinking are dependent upon the
existence or invention of notational systems.  Second, that the
notational systems one habitually uses influences the manner in
which one understands his environment.  The ability to picture the
universe accurately shifts from notation to notation.

The Notational Hypothesis

3-- John B. Carroll (Editor), Language, Thought, & Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge
MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1956. Page vi

Page 12 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Slide 6: The Notational Hypothesis

Looking at notational systems this way, we can broaden Whorf's hypothesis of linguistic relativity
regarding the effect of language.

I think he erred in making the theory too narrow, applying it to only one notation, namely speech.

If broadened to include all notations, not just language, I suggest that it is true.

And as with his hypothesis, it is true not just individually but societally.

Page 13 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


1.  Notation "A" is invented, and is revolutionary

2.  Notation "A" is developed and applied to its farthest limits

3.  Notation "A" hits a "complexity barrier" and progress stops

4.  Notation "B" is invented, and is revolutionary

5.  Notation "B" is developed and applied to its farthest limits

6.  Notation "B" hits a new "complexity barrier"; progress stops.

Notational Fulfillment & Societal Evolution

Page 14 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Slide 7: Notational Fulfillment & Societal Evolution

The revolutionary new ways of seeing, created and required by revolutionary new notations, have a
big impact on the cognitive capabilities and subsequent accomplishments of both individuals and
societies.

Based on my study thus far of 12 notations, there seems to be a broad general PATTERN in notational
and societal co‐evolution.

First, a NEW notation is created, based on a revolutionary new ABSTRACTION that never existed
before, and this FIRST GENERATION notation is packaged as an ANALOGY of what it represents.

Next, this notation EVOLVES through improvement of PRAXIS, e.g.

 symbols are STREAMLINED for greater ease of use
 NEW symbols are introduced, e.g. lower case, punctuation
 there's a CONSENSUS on standards for USING the system
 new and better MEDIA is used [e.g. clay ‐> papyrus ‐> paper]
 new REFERENTIAL TIERS are created for the new media.

This process is generally what people think of when they think of notational evolution, e.g. the shape
of letters, the introduction of a new punctuation mark, etc..

But this is NOT where notation gets its enormous power.

Next, in spite of all refinements, the notation hits what I call a COMPLEXITY BARRIER.

No amount of effort seems to overcome the barrier, and progress comes, if at all, by random insight,
not systematic analysis.

The complexity barrier by its nature is very widespread, affecting entire fields of activity at a time.

Characteristics of a complexity barrier are that:

 there is a large class of problems that thwarts resolution
 increased money and effort produce FEW, if ANY, results.

Next, somehow, a NEW notation is created, based on a revolutionary new ontological invention.

This often leads to, or co‐exists with, a tremendous boom in cultural evolution.

For example, the introduction of speech and writing, logic, money, time‐keeping (e.g. calendars and
clocks), all had a big effect on what society could do because suddenly a whole CLASS of problems
was resolved.

This is what I call a Second Generation Notation.

Page 15 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


While the first generation was hindered by its preference for ANALOGY with common experience,
the second and subsequent generations are not so based and can be vastly stranger and more
abstract.  Second generation notations are therefore based on far more powerful insights into the
nature of what can exist and be represented.  Its characteristics are that it:

 Solves a broad class of problems with far less effort
 Is accessible to more people
 Is accepted only grudgingly by the elite because it changes the power distribution in society

Finally, this notation, too, goes through the same KIND of evolutionary refinement that its
predecessor did, but eventually it hits its OWN complexity barrier.

Page 16 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


(Ideogram)

(Phonogram)

voice pattern: written word:
MAN "M - A - N"

Representing Qualities

Page 17 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Slide 8: New Ontological Invention: Words

The first example of this pattern is the development of technique for representing QUALITIES.

In this and the subsequent examples, the things that are in the "real world" are shown without
boxes, while the ONTOLOGICAL INVENTIONS (i.e. NOTATIONS) are in rounded‐edge boxes.

First, there's something in the "real world" that we want to represent, such as this man.

The first generation notation was SPEECH that represented by VOCAL SOUNDS, using AIR as a
medium.

This is believed to have occurred with the first homo sapiens sapiens, around 100,000 years ago.

But speech has limitations, primarily because of its impermanence but also (as we discovered much
later) because of its imprecision.

So first CAVE ART was developed, then these were reduced and codified as PICTOGRAMS starting in
about 3400 BC.

After about 600 years, these evolved to be able to represent IDEAS and ACTIONS through the use of
IDEOGRAMS (where ideas are communicated through clever combinations of symbols) and
PHONOGRAMS (where concepts are hinted at by symbols that represent something that evokes a
particular sound) (circa 2800 BC).

This worked pretty well in ancient society, but eventually this ICONIC NOTATION hit its COMPLEXITY
BARRIER:  several thousand symbols are needed to convey the concepts of even a fairly simple
culture.

Continuing to add new symbols or simplify existing symbols would have been fruitless: you can
imagine what a Shakespeare play might be like if every symbol was subject to personal
interpretation.

A new Notational Revolution occurred when, about another 1,500 years later, someone noticed that
there were a limited number of SOUNDS we make in human speech, and they designed SYMBOLS to
represent our SPEECH (first alphabet, circa 1500 BC).

This was a 2nd TIER notation, i.e. a notational system that represents a notational system.

With this new approach, and after the invention of VOWELS by the Greeks about 750 years later
(circa 750 BC), we were able to represent the >50,000 words known by the average adult with only
26 letters.

Thus the SCOPE of what could be represented was greatly increased, while the NUMBER of SYMBOLS
greatly decreased.

Page 18 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]

This made the notation far more powerful and accessible to a far greater proportion of society.

As the result of this ontological invention, society was able to create a collective memory that
superseded the fragile memory of the oral tradition that preceded it.

This was literally the beginning of "history", and is probably the most classic notational revolution.

Historian Eric Havelock said, "The Greek alphabet...is here introduced, when it impinges on the
Greek scene, as a piece of explosive technology, revolutionary in its effects on human culture, in a
way not precisely shared by any other invention" [Havelock, 1982].

Historian James Breasted notes, "The invention of writing and of a convenient system of records on
paper has had a greater influence in uplifting the human race than any other intellectual
achievement in the career of man. It was more important than all the battles ever fought and all the
constitutions ever devised" [Breasted, 1926, pages 53‐54].

The ontological invention behind writing are the abstract voice sounds that are more‐or‐less well‐
represented by LETTERS, which reify that ontological invention. WRITING is a notational SYSTEM
built upon LETTERS representing ABSTRACT VOICE SOUNDS, and it defines a number of
CONVENTIONS regarding the proper use of this ontological invention.

Page 19 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Representing Quantities
Page 20 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Slide 9: New Ontological Invention: Numbers

Again, there's something in the "real world" that we want to represent, such as how many lions we
saw or how many enemy soldiers we saw.

Needless to say, getting the number right can be very important, although many societies had no
words for numbers greater than two or three.

The first generation of quantitative notation, introduced over 30,000 years ago, was TALLIES that
represented by ANALOGY (circa 30,000 BC).

These were based on the idea of a 1:1 CORRESPONDENCE.

Any objects ‐‐ stones, whatever‐‐ could be used as the basis for creating a 1:1 correspondence.

22,000 years later (circa 8,000 BC), this notation evolved so that "accounting tokens" represented
both the number of items AND their nature.

Each commodity, and each quantity of a commodity, could have its own clay token.

Impressions of these tokens on clay envelopes, and later on clay tablets, is believed to have become
the basis of writing.

This worked pretty well for the commercial requirements of the first cities, but eventually it hit a
COMPLEXITY BARRIER: it required too many separate and identifiable symbols.

Continuing to ADD new symbols or SIMPLIFY existing symbols would have been fruitless.

6,000 years later, a Notational Revolution occurred when someone noticed that there were
commonalities among certain groups of (say) seven things, if you eliminated everything about them
but the quantity of their members.

This "set of all sets of seven things", although it wasn't thought of that way at the time, was the FIRST
TIME that numerical concepts were represented BY THEMSELVES.

Examples of this are Egyptian hieroglyphic numerals (1900 BC), and ROMAN NUMERALS (circa 500
BC),  where (e.g.) a "V" could represent five "IIIII".

This was a revolution in SPECIFICATION, that moved us from E‐NUMERATION to NUMERATION.

This worked okay, but required a SECOND‐TIER notation called an ABACUS in order to facilitate
computations.

The abacus worked very well for all PRACTICAL purposes up until recent times, but this notational
system was unable to represent irrational numbers, very large numbers, imaginary numbers, and so
on.

Page 21 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Continuing to ADD new symbols or SIMPLIFY existing symbols would have been fruitless: we could
never send a man to the moon using what I call Abacus Notation.

About 500 years later, in India, another Notational Revolution occurred (circa 200 AD) when
someone noticed that the operations of the abacus (the computational device used up to then) could
be simulated by using ICONS for the counters of the abacus.

One of these was the icon for ZERO, which represented a line with no beads.

By defining the MEANING of each symbol absolutely by its LOCATION rather than by the symbols
SURROUNDING it (place‐value versus relative value), the groundwork was set for mathematics to
move beyond simple arithmetic.

The concepts of number line and more abstract operations on numbers could be contemplated.

This was not an easily accepted idea: for 400 years (1100 AD to 1500 AD), there was a long and
sometimes bitter fight between the "abacists" and the "algorists".

Eventually the algorists won, so since the 18th century few people in the West use an abacus for
calculations.

In 1525 the decimal point was introduced, and complex numbers were introduced in 1545.

Thus the SCOPE of what could be represented was greatly increased ‐‐ twelve basic symbols,
including the decimal point and "i", could represent all possible numbers.

This was a classic notational revolution.  The logician Alfred North Whitehead stated, "By relieving
the brain of all unnecessary work, a good notation sets it free to concentrate on more advanced
problems, and in effect increases the mental power of the race" (An Introduction to Mathematics).

So we again have created new entities in the world: NUMBERS.  MATHEMATICS began as a notational
SYSTEM built upon NUMBERS, and it defines a number of CONVENTIONS regarding the proper use of
this ontological invention.  Mathematics has evolved to deal with OTHER ENTITIES besides numbers,
such as angles and vectors.

Page 22 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


me di a vi ta ...

440

me di a vi ta ...

Representing the Making of Sounds

Page 23 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Slide 10: New Ontological Invention: Musical Notes

To understand musical notation we have to realize that a note played on an instrument does not just
generate ONE pitch or sound vibration, it generates a NUMBER of these.

These are called OVERTONES, and they form the TIMBRE or character of each different instrument.
These overtones are very IMPORTANT to music.

The first generation of Western musical notation that we really know about was developed only
1,000 years ago.

NEUMES represent the rising or lowering of the voice by an upward or downward line.

This was thus a first generation notation by ANALOGY (circa 900 AD).

These evolved over the next 600 years to a dead‐end.

They were changed to represent pitch better through the use of HEIGHTENED NEUMES (where
relative spacing indicated pitch) and LIGATURES (where the broader part of a line indicated pitch).

Later (circa 1260) MENSURAL NOTATION was better able to indicate the DURATION of each note,
using   four symbols, each with 3x duration of the previous (perfect) or 2x (imperfect).

These were fine for simple music sung in unison, or even for the later organum music sung in fixed
intervals.

But they were unable to represent simultaneous different pitches, to coordinate the timing of
diverse themes, or to provide a reliable basis for tuning multiple instruments.  Their COMPLEXITY
BARRIER was their inability to represent the kind of complex POLYPHONIC MUSIC we are used to.

Continuing on that path of adding new symbols or simplifying existing symbols would have been
fruitless: no extension of that approach would have permitted polyphonic music such as Beethoven's
"5th Symphony".

A Notational Revolution occurred around the year 1,000, when Guido de Arrezo, a music teacher
trying to find a better way to teach music to his students, started a separate developmental path
involving LINES around the notation; defining separate NOTES and, equally important, RESTS; and
"pinning" the notes to a particular PITCH.

This essentially meant that the notation of music represent the INPUT to the instrument rather than
its OUTPUT.

Like the mathematical revolution, this also represented a move from RELATIVE VALUE to PLACE‐
VALUE notation.

Page 24 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]

This tool settled down over the next 3 centuries to a 5‐line staff, permitting composers to write
complex musical ideas down, and then EDIT and REFINE them.

Thus the PRECISION and SCOPE of what could be represented was greatly increased.   Music could be
edited and COMPOSED before it was PERFORMED, unlike jazz (which is composed on the spot) or folk
music (which is memorized and traditional).

But it required the ontological invention of NOTES.  Musical COMPOSITION, the notational SYSTEM
built upon NOTES, defines a number of CONVENTIONS about the proper use of this ontological
invention.

Page 25 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Salt

ATTRIBUTES:
companionship $20

food (value)

Twenty

Dollars

Credit Card Pay to the order of:

Representing Value, Present and Future

Page 26 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Slide 11: New Ontological Invention: Dollars

Finally, I'd like to talk now about an UNRECOGNIZED NOTATION, namely MONEY.

This slide shows the PRE‐NOTATIONAL situation at the top.

If you want to trade your duck for my cat, we may agree on a BARTER arrangement.

A duck and a cat are roughly commensurable, partly because they're both animals and they both
have some real and obvious values to somebody; so it is fairly easy to make that trade.

But as you offer things that are less and less commensurable, it gets harder to make a trade.

The first generation of notation was COMMODITY MONEY that represented a certain REAL,
PRACTICAL VALUE.

Examples include cattle, salt, and tobacco.

This was widely used up until about 4,000 years ago; tobacco was the principal medium of exchange
for several CENTURIES in MARYLAND and VIRGINIA; and as recently as 1935, salt was still used in
Ethiopia!  Even now, during its trying times, some people of the former Soviet Union are using vodka,
Levis, and other commodities as a preferred method of exchange.

Like all notations, commodity money evolved.   Any item having real value could be used, preferably
meeting the following criteria:

 known to many people
 recognizable in value
 scarce
 portable (at least not too bulky)
 physically stable over time (preferably imperishable)
 easily sub‐divided.

But eventually this basis for exchange hit a COMPLEXITY BARRIER: these items were logistically
inconvenient.

Commerce was thus still very DIFFICULT, and the more COMPLEX an economy got the more problems
were caused by commodity money.

We can hardly imagine what the New York Stock Exchange or our economy in general might be like if
every transaction was paid for by weighing salt or some other physical commodity; continuing on
that path would have been fruitless.

A Notational Revolution occurred about 5,000 years ago (3000 B.C.) when people noticed that VALUE
could exist INDEPENDENTLY of an object, i.e. the ontological invention of ABSTRACT VALUE.

Page 27 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]

People and, later, governments, designated arbitrary objects as commonly accepted SYMBOLS of this
abstract value.

The intrinsic PRACTICAL VALUE of these objects was nowhere near their DECLARED VALUE, and was
often basically zero.

Examples include seashells, beads (strung together = "wampum"),  gold, silver, and copper.

Eventually, the precious metals (particularly silver) won this contest, especially with the help of
government LAWS that regulated their availability and use.

But those tokens of value were subject to dilution, unfair scales, and other problems, so they evolved
into other equally value‐less forms.

After another 750 years (2250 B.C.), COINS having a declared FACE VALUE were introduced.

These dominated for over 4000 years, until  recently, although TRANSFER‐RABLE RECEIPTS were
introduced in the Middle Ages, and then FIDUCIARY MONEY in the form of BANK NOTES was
introduced by the government of Sweden in 1656.

From 1825 through 1875 in the United States there was a major political debate between the "paper
money men" and the "gold bugs" about how abstract value should be represented in America.

America ended up being the birthplace of widespread use of paper money in the Western world.

This paper money was initially backed by gold  ‐‐ an equally worthless commodity until its electrical
properties began to have real value in electronics.

Eventually we ended up with FIAT MONEY (circa 1934), not based on the gold standard, to enable
governments to print money as desired, independently of their actual gold reserves, and thereby
control aspects of their economy through monetary policy.

A second‐tier advance over that is checks, where actual money does not even change hands during a
transaction, but waits until a later and more convenient time.

This too was limiting, as people could only spend what they had.

So a Notational Revolution occurred with the invention of FUTURE EARNING POWER, as represented
by credit in general and credit cards in particular.  ,

Thus VALUE‐IN‐THE‐ABSTRACT came to be REAL, and could be traded like a real duck for my cat.

Since in principle anything could be traded for this symbol, the BREADTH of what could be readily
traded was greatly increased, and this EASE OF USE encouraged more commercial activity.

Once governments understood the power of this notation, they regulated it and then completely
took it over so THEY could control its abuse.

Page 28 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Again we created a new entity in the world: DOLLARS (or their equivalent). ACCOUNTING is the
notational SYSTEM built upon DOLLARS as ontological inventions, provides RULES for the proper use
of this notation.

As the result of this ontological invention, society was able to divide work more readily into
specialized categories, for there was now a common denominator that could be used in any
commercial activity.

This was the beginning of "commerce" as we know it today.

I wasn't able to find a quotation about the impact of money on societal evolution, but I think you'd all
agree that money is important in society!

Page 29 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]


Conclusions

1. There are limitations to what any notation can express, based on what domain that
notation was designed to represent and consequently what abstractions it
embodies. This is true even for the "language of science": mathematics.

2. A key factor in the evolution of society is the introduction and fulfillment of
revolutionary new notational systems such as the calendar, writing, mathematics,
and money.

3 Our society currently faces a "complexity barrier" in dealing with so-called
"complex systems" such as medicine, ecology, economics, psychology, and public
policy. But complexity is in the eye of the beholder and can be eliminated by an
appropriate notation based upon a new ontological invention. Larger computers,
more data, and more money will not overcome this complexity barrier.

4. We need to perform research to develop at least one wholly new notation, using
abstractions beyond fractals or other fundamentally quantitative constructs. I
believe a key area of research should be the study of complicated conditional
rules, and higher-level abstractions of classes of rules. Towards this end I am
seeking funding for a Notational Engineering Laboratory at a local University.

Page 30 of 31

Jeffrey G. Long [6/19/2011 2:49:00 PM]

Slide 12: Conclusions

So much for the past; Janus‐like, we must also look to the future.

The history of notation shows ongoing evolution punctuated by periodic revolution.

Have we reached the end of the road?

Do we already have all the notations we need?

I don't think so.

Particularly in the area of complex systems, as one example, we have poor empirical results.

I believe we have hit a complexity barrier that no amount of money or effort will overcome.

We need a new Notational Revolution.

Towards this end I am currently trying to get funding for a Notational Engineering Laboratory at a
local university.

Thank you for your attention.

Are there any questions?

Page 31 of 31

The evolution of symbol systems and society

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The evolution of symbol systems and society

Similar to The evolution of symbol systems and society (20)

More from Jeff Long

More from Jeff Long (18)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The evolution of symbol systems and society