The Blackberry Walk

Let's begin by saying that symbolism doesn't exist. Why? Because by declaring something symbolic is to say something doesn't exist. The modern mind draws a line in the sand: the symbolic on the right, where there's some kind of oblique meaning; and the literal on the left wherein the meaning is straight forward. What a meaningless and unfriendly divide - why should these once married concepts be divorced in modern times? Des Cartes is a major culprit. By separating mind and matter, matter is freed from psychic associations and participations so it can be studied by science, and mind is left to be argued over forever more. Well I'm just sick of it. This divide is meaningless. There is no 'symbolism' insofar as there is no 'literalism' - it's a false dichotomy from the start. When we look at a tree in a forest we name it a 'tree'. When we look at an image of a tree on a computer we name it a 'tree'. When we see an abstract cartoonified image of tree we name it tree'. When do these have in common? Their tree-ness, their form - not their matter. In all three examples, the name 'tree' isn't the only choice at hand: we can use a specific kind of tree like an 'elm' or an 'oak'; an adjective like 'brown and green' or 'wooden and leafy'; or even a metaphor, or better yet a poem. For each of these descriptions, I could point to what could plainly be called 'a tree' and say "This is:" followed by any of the above, each getting across a different aspect of the tree's being. Why elevate and sanctify one 'literal' definition above all else, when each definition, each unfolding of the tree's being, can reveal different aspects of the tree's nature. What we must consider instead is the goodness of fit of each definition for the situation. The cartoon tree could be described as playful, whereas the oak before your eyes could be called majestic. Despite both being trees - a superlative literal category we're trained to think within - we manage to conflate the playful with the majestic, confusing the virtual cartoon with the grand and real. We miss the wood for the trees. In essence then, instead of literalism and symbolism sharing the pie 50:50, the pie wholly belongs to symbolism, with literalism sitting sad in the corner pie-less. But even if one head of the hydra of literalism is cut off, another can arise. Take the rainbow and the pride flag. "Gay" has become many people's first thought when any kind of rainbow flag or even a rainbow is seen. It may not be the literalism of rainbow, but it is another literalism all together, one which does not pertain to it's original essence. This trained response to understand the allegorical meaning of the rainbow withdraws us from reality, since the map we use to plot the territory of the rainbow tells us nothing of the rainbow's nature nor meaning - only the allegorical association. The symbol can be understood as a broad rainbow-like colour spectrum of meaning which can be discovered through perceiving, feeling, testing the object, feeling, story, or whatnot, in question. In understanding that broad spectrum of meaning as a single literalism, or as some kind of allegory, one filters the spectrum with a certain coloured filter, only permitting one meaning of the symbol to shine through. Though these narrow bands of meaning, we develop narrow understandings of the world, unable to understand symbols beyond the trained literal/propagandised response. What is a symbol then? Well anything - the word symbol is just there to aid in thinking symbolically. It can refer to a physical object, a piece of art, a feeling, an instinct, a dream - anything which is perceived. It is down to us, however, to ensure that our perceptions aren't mangled and contorted by our notions of how the world ought to appear to us. Our models should aid us in conveying and understanding reality, not bend reality to its form - at that point it isn't reality we see anymore, but rather our own tail we're biting. How do we understand the world better then? First, one must learn to see the world as it is without the cataracts of pre-conceived notions. Then the divine, boundless, infinite of reality will make itself known. Next one must hone their knowledge of the world and their skills in conveying it. Knowledge of the world can come from secondary sources like books, but better still primary sources like observing, touching or feeling. You can read as much about crows as you like, but only by observing a crow will you properly understand their nature, their meaning, and their symbolism. The issue is then reporting a crows nature. Sure, scientific verbage is at your disposal to describe their nesting habits and feeding habits, but is this a handy way to understand a crow? Crows have a personality, a certain look in their eye, a certain purposeful movement which their bird cousins seem to lack. Learning to speak properly and write properly is paramount. Mastering not just prose, but also poetics, in order to capture the symbolism of a crow will bring you closer to understanding consciously what a crow means. To end, there is not correct way to read a symbol - but there are certainly many incorrect ones. It isn't up to you to decide what something means - it's up to you to discover what something means through perception and testing followed by practicing to convey the meaning. Think in this way, and reality will begin to loosen its tightly hunched shoulders and the chaos will all start to make a little more sense. If you want the somewhat similar ideas written more eloquently, I strongly recommend Owen Barfield's Saving the Appearances.