RE: Is there no-one brave enough?
So would you say that symbols are a key to understanding but not understanding itself?
A child learning to read may look at glyphs (house, tree etc.) with the names of those things (symbols) written with them. Such are only the representation of the objects, not the actual house, tree, etc. Eventually, the child will (via that key) come to understand the meaning of those symbols.
Don't know if that makes sense, but I know what I mean!![sm=bouncy.gif]
RE: Is there no-one brave enough?
You're making me work hard;)
Basically, anything that represents something else is a sign. A sign has a certain structure, take the number 2 and say it represents a cat. The signified is the cat and the representation is the number 2. To be a sign you must have both the 2 and the cat. It is not the number alone, because if it has no significance in other words, nothing to represent. It is not a sign, it has nothing to say about something other than itself. A symbol is in a completely arbitrary relationship. The connection between the symbol and the observer depends entirely on the observer and symbols are dictated by social convention or habit. An example is words, language, which as a group of sounds or a group of characters are linked to what they signfy because WE decide this. And this can all change with the passing of time. So the real question here is 'does this all take place in the mind' or possibly in 'collective subconcsious? But symbols are ideas, and we are only pointing to the idea behind that symbol. Am I anywhere close to answering your quesyion?
Love Gillyxxx
RE: Is there no-one brave enough?
Thank you. Yes, I think so. It's been a long time since I've had the chance to exercise my own grey matter like this.
(Have also just shown my 11 yr old son how to do back-stitch! Off with one hat and on with another!)
Now, if I remember correctly, Jung saw the creation of symbols as a key to understanding human nature. It is an expression for something which may be essentially unknown.
So, he developed the two-layer theory of the unconscious. One layer had to do with events, memories during life that had been suppressed. But there was another layer that related to (I think) archetypes of a collective unconscious - to do with symbols etc., appearing in dreams and often being thematic in religion. The similarity of some of these symbols across diverse socio-cultural groups led Jung to theorise about collective unconsciousness (race memory?).
All of which underlines the importance of symbology but does it imply that symbols themselves are sacred? Is it not, rather, the importance we place upon them that sanctifies them?
(All this and I haven't even got a glass!!)
RE: Is there no-one brave enough?
But I have, !!! Got a glass that is;)
Ah dreams. Well a funny subject for me personally. When I attended spiritual healing classes for three years, the tutor was someone I was hugely impressed with. Unlike many so called 'teachers' she was grounded in commonsense and she was (is) intelligent and saw past the layers of deception we humans put up as comfort blankets.
We held one of our workshops on dreams. We could have easily held half a dozen or more, as dreams are a contentious subject, hugely misunderstood and viewed differently by everyone.
We were asked about our dreams and then as a group asked to explain them. My explanations were shallow[:-] I immediately thought, 'oh goody, how easy is this' and I was very humbled and surprised to see that there were so many layers to dreams, more than I ever thought possible.
Angie dug very deeply and I was frustrated at this as when I tried to do the same as her I could not achieve this.
What I thought was a simple explanation of one dream in particular turned out to be far more complex than I imagined. Layers over layers, depths beyond depths.
Jung was bought into the equation, but it was agreed he did not have the whole answer.
Coming back to this in a short while - and oh yes, with a young child, (how well I remember) you switch from this to that and back again. Keeps you alive.;)
Gxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
RE: Is there no-one brave enough?
Hi again Glnys,
Hope you slept well;) To continue with our discussion:D
For Jung scholars there is nothing mystical about the human collective subconscious mind or memory, although for others, including myself, we have some doubts? Are we, for example as Jung thought, the end product of one of Natures evolutionary paths??? One huge difference is that human cognitive ability is FAR beyond that of any other species on earth! There still is an immense gap between our ability to think, imagine, read, pontificate, learn, so much more than that of any other species, BUT the fact is we do share a common pool of genetic material with other species. Apparently this includes 'instinct' or instinctual behaviour. Jung and many others believe it is because we have a marvellous Diivine gift ofo thinking why? It makes our thinking patterns so highly complex in comparision to other speicies. Yet again, Jung thought this 'questioning' ability was subconsious, or, buried very deep within our minds. But it is 'collective' in that it appears in all humans throughout the earth.
Coming back to this later
Love Gxxx