(no subject)
Ok, so I was reading Cirlot. Do NOT read his Dictionary of Symbols for an introduction to symbolism(and it's about literary, not psychological, symbolism). It was written in an age when caucasians still felt a bit holier-than-though, and has some things written about symbolism that I find questionable. Especially where he states that symbolism is proof that there is a God and cosmic order.
No.
But I have some ideas on this subject. Usually symbolism is seen in the context of an inner/outer reflection, the microcasm reflecting the macrocasm, simply because many events in life seem eerily symbolic and take on symbolic value under scrutinization. Perhaps we project onto the world order that we see the inner guides that we use to make make sense of life. This makes symbolism a "grid", one of the so-called constraints on human perception. In my opinion, if you see through many grids at once and the thing in it's true form, then that does not intefer with reality at all and in fact enriches it. Of course, the Buddha disagrees with me, or at least some of the interpretations of his work do(I think he wants no thought so that you can get rid of the cloud around your core of being)but what is reality without patterns and perception? A bunch of discontinuous white noise. But white noise makes..fractals. It does not make sense to us.
Also, like in HP lovecraft's "Through the Gate of the Silver Key"(REEAAD IIITTT), it has been suggested that humans are simply splintered archetypes all the way up to archetypal infinity. However, I believe that limiting yourself to one archetype for the sake of it is confining(of course, a sea of potential with no development is no good either). It's still a thought-provoking theory though. Esp since symbols are ambivalent.
I'll probably edit in some sense later, I have a feeling I forgot half of what I was going to say.
PS For those who say symbolism is a modern construction HAHAHAHAHAHA and read something about the mysteries and the roots of secret societies. Hell, the Greeks and the Egyptians and the Hindus and....every stage of civilization after the primative.
No.
But I have some ideas on this subject. Usually symbolism is seen in the context of an inner/outer reflection, the microcasm reflecting the macrocasm, simply because many events in life seem eerily symbolic and take on symbolic value under scrutinization. Perhaps we project onto the world order that we see the inner guides that we use to make make sense of life. This makes symbolism a "grid", one of the so-called constraints on human perception. In my opinion, if you see through many grids at once and the thing in it's true form, then that does not intefer with reality at all and in fact enriches it. Of course, the Buddha disagrees with me, or at least some of the interpretations of his work do(I think he wants no thought so that you can get rid of the cloud around your core of being)but what is reality without patterns and perception? A bunch of discontinuous white noise. But white noise makes..fractals. It does not make sense to us.
Also, like in HP lovecraft's "Through the Gate of the Silver Key"(REEAAD IIITTT), it has been suggested that humans are simply splintered archetypes all the way up to archetypal infinity. However, I believe that limiting yourself to one archetype for the sake of it is confining(of course, a sea of potential with no development is no good either). It's still a thought-provoking theory though. Esp since symbols are ambivalent.
I'll probably edit in some sense later, I have a feeling I forgot half of what I was going to say.
PS For those who say symbolism is a modern construction HAHAHAHAHAHA and read something about the mysteries and the roots of secret societies. Hell, the Greeks and the Egyptians and the Hindus and....every stage of civilization after the primative.