Is this relevant?
"Plans to alter Chinese characters sparks disapproval"
"....'The characters are treasures handed down by our ancestors, which we must respect and protect instead of changing....'"
Ottawa Citizen A13 22 OCT 09
According to the article, which is brief, the Chinese ministry of education, based on a State Language Work Committee report from eight years of consideration, is proposing to alter 44 out of the 3,500 most commonly used characters. This has "met with a chorus of disapproval."
This is a very good positioning of the problem in question. It strikes me that given your formulation, processes of learning will turn out to be crucial in providing a locus for iconographic knowledge as it is put into practice and acquires abstract properties.
It is curious that whereas stories can include 'systems' as elements or tropes in the story, systems seem at first glance to exclude stories. One of the things that activates bundles, or heaps are human habits; which have a physical and thoughtful side to them.
What I seem to be moving toward is the notion that any thick description begins with cases that are, in effect, what Deleuze and Guattari call "aggregates," Levi-Strauss calls "bricolages," and Buddhist metaphysics calls "heaps": assemblages of elements that appear to cohere to form coherent wholes. On close examination, however, the elements in question originate in stories or systems, in distributions that range from the idiosyncratic (local degree zero) to the universal. Some are the cultural analogues of hydrogen or helium, found everywhere. Others are the cultural analogues of superheavy elements that exist for nanoseconds in high-energy particle physics experiments. What am I missing here?
It is curious that whereas stories can include 'systems' as elements or tropes in the story, systems seem at first glance to exclude stories.