The Value of Symbols

[tsunamisama]

I'm thinking out loud here and experiencing quite a few wrenches of the gut as I ponder. Please be gentle in critiquing whatever obvious errors I make and understand that I'm not meaning to cause any offense to anyone

Comments

[tobie_rosemary]

Symbols are indeed beautiful, and I would argue that symbolism and metaphor are a fundamental aspect of the human psyche. We are very much material, and yet as you point out we have the "transcendent" in our nature. To be human is to possess both, and symbol unites them.

As an artist and a Catholic (which things are united for me), however, I see you belittling the symbolic, despite your attempts to elevate it from undeserved ridicule (which I appreciate). Seeing as Christianity--or at least Traditional Christianity, the Catholic/Orthodox root of it--highly values symbol as such, in fact distinguishing it from Sacrament, I am not sold on your argument that it is being used as a crutch.

In fact, the paragraph beginning "The error of theists" makes me wonder how maturely you lived your faith. I'm sorry this sounds insulting; I know it does. I honestly, truly do not mean it to be, it's just that what I have to say about it sounds insulting. Because it sounds like a childlike understanding of religion. And it is certainly very, very belittling. I don't care about your *intent*, because the sweepingness of the statement and lack of understanding present in it is *ridiculous*. Not that I'm saying there aren't individuals it applies to, but they *are* children (and childhood is not bad for everyone, maybe); which is why I wonder, if this was really what *you* experienced, how mature you were. Christianity is not, in fact, a comforting religion. It gives *meaning* to suffering and discomfort. It doesn't make it feel good.

And symbol as minimizing discomfort ... The Eucharist as Sacrament, for example, if you are actually thinking about it, is terrifying, baffling. Not only is God in that room with is, but we are *consuming* him, consuming His Flesh. Shuttering out the uncomfortable? THAT becomes a laughable statement!

Well, that is a specifically Catholic example, and ultimately that is where I must speak from, because I see Catholicism as Christianity in its fullness. See, if you went to a Presbyterian church (for example) and talked about symbolism, I would agree with you. Very nice symbolism, very comforting, emotional fuzzy blankets etc. Crutches. I do dislike crutches. (I HATE warm fuzzy religion.) I am a human being, and therefore lame, and so I use crutches often enough without knowing it, as we all do. The key is to find what your crutches are, to find where you are lame, and go about doctoring it so you don't need the crutch.

Now I am rambling. Can't guarantee I'll respond if you respond to this; it depends on what you respond *to*. In the end I'm arguing for something I you *will* not acknowledge unless you decide you want to. Thus I predict, as happens easily in online conversations, you will respond to what I've said that's least important to me, and ignore the fundamental. This is why I avoid such things anymore. Too stressful. :-P (And I have told you before the way you pursue such conversation does NOT jive with my temperament and serves to madden me! :-P )

I suppose what this all comes down to is: good effort, but incomplete, and incomplete is such a way that it misses the richness and complexity of the whole of the truth of the matter.

Anyway, Merry Christmas. :)

[tobie_rosemary]

Let me know if you understand the second paragraph. I don't think I expressed myself very well and I can foresee my *words* being picked apart fruitlessly. ;)

[tobie_rosemary]

Addendum #2: as I already said, and shall repeat, I do not mean to sound insulting about the "childish" thing (much as I'm sure you didn't mean to sound insulting in your paragraph that *does* belittle people of faith, intentions aside). My point was that the attitude that paragraph expresses, if it is true, is not an accurate or applicable description of a *mature* person of faith.

[tsunamisama]

You appear to have misunderstood the implications of my argument. The fault is no doubt mine; I will do my best to make my meaning clearer.

To reply very simply: A crutch can itself cause discomfort and be no less a crutch.

To reply in detail: People use crutches not because crutches necessarily make them feel *good,* but because they feel that walking would be either impossible, harmful, or too painful without the crutch.

For example, you mention that Christianity gives meaning to suffering and discomfort, without trying to make the suffering feel good. But be honest with the two examples you gave:

-All else being equal, given the choice between suffering that is meaningful and suffering in the face of the indifferent blackness of space, how many pious Christians you know -- yourself included -- would select the latter?

-All else being equal, given the choice between a "terrifying, baffling" Real Presence in the Eucharist, and no terror or bafflement but also no loving and merciful God within or without the Eucharist, how many pious Christians you know -- yourself included -- would select the latter?

I submit to you that almost every pious Christian out there would choose for the symbol to be a reality, however uncomfortable, rather than face the (to them) greater discomfort of the alternative. Ascription based on a need for meaning or a need for God to exist is still a crutch against the uncomfortable, even if the ascription itself results in symbols that are not entirely pleasant. A crutch needn't be warm and fuzzy; it need only shield against a less pleasant alternative.

It's also important to note that not all crutches are crutches to all people. A quick thought experiment will illustrate this. Someone might become Catholic due solely to his personal craving for access to infallible truth, via the Magisterium in this case. Here, the Magisterium is a crutch for this individual against the discomfort of ambiguity and human limitations on knowledge. He might not need a whit of insulation against, say, needing the difficulties of life to have meaning; but such symbology (Catholic doctrines of grace and heaven) is part and parcel of the framework he has adopted for other reasons. Another person might become Catholic because she needs the difficulties of life to have meaning, while not having any need for infallible truth; this would make the doctrines of grace and heaven crutches to her, while just having the Magisterium along for the ride. And a third person might simply be Catholic as a relic of culture. The relativity of symbols-as-crutches does not, however, obviate the fact that symbols originate -- and are used -- as crutches, when they are asserted as empirical reality rather than illustrative / educational / inspirational mythos (and I mean the term positively and kindly).

It is important to emphasize that I am not taking issue with symbols that are acknowledged as symbols; the theistic error, as I assert it, is when symbols are used as additions to or substitutions for observed reality.

Merry Christmas to you, too. Thanks for keeping me clear and honest. :-)

--R

PS: As a side note, I would vigorously dispute that Christianity is *not* a comforting religion; you obviously aren't reading your Bible if you've missed all the declarations that "we are comforted by God," "in Me you have peace," "God comforts the downcast," etc. When compared with, e.g., the death cult of Kali in India, the assertion becomes downright laughable.

PPS: I am well-known for my opposition to orthodox Presbyterianism. However, you came off as monstrously condescending toward the Presbyterian Church by suggesting that it's "warm fuzzy religion" and uses symbols as crutches in a way Catholics (uniquely?) do not. I am sure this was not your intention; but be aware that in the absence of disclaimers, the tone came across as both ignorant and offensive. I should know, I've done similar stuff often enough -- hence so many disclaimers in my OP. :P

[tsunamisama]

BTW, I did my best to carefully read over your argument and reply to what seemed the most fundamental point you were trying to make: that symbols can be attended by discomfort, and are therefore not necessarily shields against discomfort. I disagree, and replied as comprehensively as I could.

If your fundamental point was that I just was never mature enough in my faith to appreciate the value / meaning of symbols, I don't really have a reply. It's not really something one can reply to, my apologies.

If your fundamental point was that we should all try to figure our crutches out, I absolutely agree with you; my point was simply that theists quite often make this job comparatively more difficult because they refuse to class symbols -- often the most pervasive and deep-rooted crutches -- as among the items they must ruthlessly examine.

Finally, if for whatever reason I haven't been sufficiently amenable to your position to merit a reply, I apologize. I would, however, gently suggest that you reconsider the wisdom of putting up lengthy and potentially inflammatory chastisements and/or corrections if you are unwilling to dialogue and discuss the implications of your statements. I adore conversations; I'm not much for speeches.

[tobie_rosemary]

Disclaimer: "warm fuzzies" was not meant as a modifier of Presbyterianism; rather, Presbyterianism was a reference to show that the Eucharist as mere symbol does exist. But when I speak of the Eucharist, I mean not a symbol but the Real Thing. (To paraphrase Flannery O'Connor, if it is a symbol, no matter how nice a symbol, to Hell with it.) And the idea of communion/community that the mere symbol expresses is a very nice thing, but without the reality to back it up, ultimately that's all it is. Nice. Warm fuzzies. Nice is ...well, nice. But it's insufficient. So that element of a Presbyterian service is warm and fuzzy; it is not unique to Presbyterianism nor inherent in the denomination as a whole. (In any case, I don't think Calvinism is a warm and fuzzy worldview. :-P) Saying that may be insulting to some people, I suppose; I did once insult Lyn with a comment about the Eucharist, which he may or may not remember, and it was a needless comment I regret. But this particular distinction is vital.

Anyway, thanks for pointing that implication out. As I've already said, the sweeping generalizations you make (not even implications!) about guardian angels etc are offensive and belittling and would make me mad did I not know you and trust your motivation; as it is, I find them rather ridiculous caricatures. (If this sounds angry or harsh, I apologize, but I don't know how to say this without being blunt.)

I am going to sit on your reply for a bit and let it simmer. Hopefully it will be done simmering before classes start, in which case I will no longer have time or energy for a response; but I would like to respond.

Take care and be rested before law school starts boiling your brain cells for another semester. ;)

[tobie_rosemary]

I was discussing the nature of symbols, yes. I think we are talking slightly at cross-purposes with each other, but that is more because there is a difference in how we perceive things rather than in misreading each other's words. (At least, that is how I see your answer to me. You would know better in my answers to you.)

I am not unwilling to dialogue, but ONLY if it is potentially fruitful. When I sense a conversation is pointless, only arousing emotions and stirring the muddy waters, for whatever reason (because there are many) ... then it is better to cease, preferably by mutual agreement, but that doesn't often happen.

In any case, I suppose my saying the thing about responses was mostly a matter of pride, so that if I didn't respond you wouldn't think it was because I didn't have anything to say. Silly of me? Yes. I'm sorry it has come across as a personal thing.

[tsunamisama]

Obviously I'm caricaturing; I explicitly state that I am. You give the example of the guardian angel; yes, I am giving a sweeping one-line generalization to what is certainly a much more complex symbol. Detailing every last psychological element that goes into the symbol is not relevant for purposes of my analysis, however -- I'm just (simplistically) pointing out that natural and understandable human cravings underpin the conflation of the symbolic with the observable.

That said, I will eagerly hope for your response. :-)

[tsunamisama]

I should also clarify, for the purpose of any response, that I am *not* saying that the asserted positive substance of *all* symbols is merely a crutch. It is quite possible that there are numerous symbols with positive substance. However, we *do* see that the claimed positive substance of a symbol is very often a crutch interposed between reality and the believer (e.g., Zeus posited as an agency behind lightning).

As such, (1) when a symbol is asserted to have positive substance, (2) no testable evidence exists to verify the reality of the asserted positive substance, and (3) the assertion may be plausibly explained as a psychological insulation against a negative aspect of observed reality, we should presume that the symbol is indeed a crutch until testable evidence arises.

For example, heaven:

(1) Heaven is a symbol asserted to have positive substance -- it is claimed to be a postmortem destination.
(2) There is no testable evidence to verify or falsify the existence of heaven; we can't attach a tracking device to consciousness or detect a dimension in which angels dwell. (Anecdotal evidence, not being testable, doesn't count here.)
(3) There is at least one plausible explanation for how heaven serves as a psychological crutch: It insulates the believer from the apparent reality that bad things happen to good people by positing a place of infinite postmortem bliss for those who might have been treated unjustly in life.
Conclusion: We should presume heaven is a crutch until we can testably verify its existence.

[tobie_rosemary]

This is not the deserving, well-thought response I wanted to give (and alas, the semester has started ... :( ), but a thought at least: if all true things could be verified by testable evidence, I don't know that we'd have much use for symbol. Though I suppose that would depend on what can be defined as "testable evidence." I would think that Truth in its entirety is something that can only be arrived at (or journeyed towards, or grasped at, or whatever suitable phrase) by the collaboration of the truths of testable evidence and the truths that can be accessed by symbolism. (Truths such as Meaning, for example, which is something we *make* on many levels, but which I believe also exists apart from us, or rather that we human beings are a part *of*.)

Hoping the parenthetical statement makes sense outside as well as inside my head. :-P

[tsunamisama]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Rose. :-)

Of course not all true things are testable, and I think symbols are wonderful tools for taking disparate real / testable concepts and making something out of them which is greater than the sum of their parts. That, after all, is the nature of art itself; and I see symbol as the extension of art into philosophy, theology, science, etc.

As you rightly point out, symbols are key to the development of meaning in human psychology. This is why I think it rather tragic that symbols are (in my view) misinterpreted (misappropriated?) as reality rather than remaining in their rightful and productive place as food for the imagination and heart, the spice of well-balanced reality rather than its junk-food imitator.