AntiEverything said:
the symbolic is a realm of radical alterity. speech and language are beyond the subject's conscious control, it's dimension is constituted by weight of it's mutual differences within the linguistic context. you only speak up as it were because you are projecting bad faith on the listener's ability to mediate signal and signified. even though the symbolic exists beyond actual language, example:
when someone winks at you, the wink is the signifier. you deliver the wink to fill in a gap that the other was previously missing
it is the essence of in-authenticity in my opinion
Within the context of the conflict between our symbolic* and physical existance, often, it is presumed that the use of symbolism to cushion the blow of our physical existance is inauthentic, because our physical existance is self evident, but the symbolic, abstract; but I ponder, by its very existance, the symbolic (abstraction) cannot be denied. edit: and my intention in this is not to get onto the Spaghetti Monster train, which is why I began with the premise that I am not referring to the objects of symbolism, but rather the essence of the act itself.
*Rhizoid's use of "abstract" is a far better represenation, I was just using Becker's language
Psiles said:
Symbolism is definitely inauthentic. It's basically a crappy attempt on our part to transpose the subtle qualities of life into a symbol that is supposed to represent the original idea but fails miserably. Suppose you're sitting on the banks of a stream, watching this clear, glassy, glistening liquid flow through the landscape, and you're just experiencing that moment there and now. Now suppose you find out that other people refer to that thing by name. They call it "water". The word "water" is a symbol that is supposed to represent that glistening, shiny liquid that you experienced on that day... So yeah symbols are definitely inauthentic.
What of these subtle qualities and their meaning?
I am questioning whether our experience of these subtle qualities is inauthentic, to explore the common representation (that it is) of Becker's work.
The idea is, as you may have come across in countless threads before, that the stark reality of our finite existance causes us to find meaning to cushion us from the pain of this reality...the common interpretation is that because of this the physical reality is the authentic, and therefore, the symbolic is the inauthentic.
This black and white reasoning could in itself, be throw back thinking created by the "symbolic" interpretation from our trust in the authenticity of the dualism of our physical existance.
I am wondering if, by its very presence we can call it inauthentic. I was not referring to symbols objective, but rather, our symbolic being.
blingbling said:
symbols are inauthentic in an objective sense but symbols also create genuine parts of reality that would not be here without them. this is done in the same way that emotions create reality, for example desire in an objective world does not make sense because it's premise is that the desired object is more valuable than a neutral object but none the less desire is real. the mcdonalds M creates desire which is real. without the skewing of reality found in emotions and symbols genuine parts of reality could not exist. perhaps this skewed reality is actually more real than objective reality.
this guy explains it better than me:
I think you explained it really well and helped me to clarify my thoughts 
thecake said:
What do you mean? Symbols are what you perceive them as. They are only inauthentic if you are inauthentic as a person..?
You are quite right that symbols are what you percieve them as.
Where might I find an inauthentic person?
Edited by somaholiday (01/03/12 04:32 AM)
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
somaholiday 
redgreenvines 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
r72rock
Chronic7
Kickle
longstrangetrip8
Poid
OrgoneConclusion
gettinjiggywithit