The power of symbols resides in their ability, through complex associations, to evoke multiple levels of reality. They evoke in us the transcendece of other realities, or again, they help us understand aspects of reality that would otherwise be hidden to us, all the more so since we are living in an ultra materialistic time. They also evoke the sacred, and even the presence of God.
Some people see symbols everywhere, while others see nothing and scoff at those who do. My question is this: do symbols really exist in the world, whether natural or manmade, or is it a matter of wishful thinking or some other such explanation? And, do we, humans, or maybe do modern peoples, need symbols in order to ourselves exist? Do we rely on them, or are they merely a product of our minds? Further, if the latter is the case, is that wholly removed from the sacred, or could our minds actually be hardwired to see, accept, and interpret symbols? To what do we ultimately attribute symbols and are they real? What is/are their function/s and do we truly rely on them? Or do they rely on us and are thus not real?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Those are some pretty deep questions. I feel that symbols are both inherently natural to the world as well as something of our own imagination. I think it really depends on how each person interprets his/her own beliefs as to what kinds of symbols exist for them. I read this post three times and each time my mind wanders to the movie "The DaVinci Code" and especially the beginning where the main character is lecturing on the Sacred Feminine and symbology.
ReplyDeleteAs to relying on these symbols, again it's a matter of belief. There are many religions that hold high value in certain symbols and still others that look at those symbols as a form of idol-worship. The Cross, for instance is a symbol of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins (our being relative) to many Christians. Yet, to Muslims - who do believe in Jesus as one of the prophets, just not theirs or the way Christians do - it is a form of idolatry. Think back a year or so ago when the Dutch published pictures of Muhammad and the backlash they received from the Muslim community. While the Dutch journalist(s) was simply using a symbol depicting what he believe Muhammad looked like, to the Muslims it was not a symbol at all. It was blasphemous.
I could go on and on with this topic, but I would be interested in your reaction and others' input.
Yes, I totally agree with you that symbols are culturally relative. In my line of thinking, however, I am now wondering if there is ever a time when they aren't relative, or if cross-cultural meaning or transcendent meaning ever offers a pool of meaning that is so similar as to say that there is a universal meaning to a particular symbol? The triangle or pyramid is popping into my mind, as is the circle. Is it simply because these are so vague or simple that they often mean the same things, or is there something more to this? I don't know, I'm just feeling this out too.
ReplyDeleteAnd if there is universal meaning, what does this say about the source? Revelation, common traits of the imagination, coincidence, or something else? And what might that something else be if we eliminate cultural borrowing as a constant?
ReplyDelete