We are a generation that is drunk on the ideal of the "literal." Our public discourse at all levels is increasingly turning to what amounts to suffocating jargon, dominated by the seeming clarity of the commonest words whose definitions are assumed to be known and mutually agreed-upon. Any ironic (now mostly sarcastic) or idiomatic phrases are so dully common that the average mind -- and there are many of those -- can catch the "meaning" easily, or seem to.
I will save the reader from a lengthy tirade about the role of language in a culture, and how the habitually shallow use of language is a subtle but essential tool of cultural demise.
Going a little deeper (optional):
See “Poetry” in The Encyclopedia of Maredi:
If you use the word “poetry” in conversation, it will generally be met by a combination of rolled eyes and yawns. Why? Because the word is now associated with only two types of writing – both of which in our day have had most traces of true poetry diluted by glop. The two types are:
(1) “free verse” – in which regular prose gets broken into poetic-looking separate phrases simply because it looks more consequential; e.g.:
today you
Broke
my heart with your Cruel
joke
(2) simple rhymes and methodical rhythms that have remained associated with the great poetry of the distant past but are structurally indistinct from mere nursery rhymes; e.g.:
Today when you bantered with me,
you meant it as a joke.
But it was cruel. I was a fool.
Today my sad heart broke.
What is real "poetry"? And - here's a shocker for many - why do we use poetry in our own lives daily, and find it satisfying? And why do we allow ourselves to be delighted, crushed, hypnotized by poetry on a daily basis without even knowing that it is poetry?
The answer is coming.
Do you want people to "just say what they mean" as clearly and as concisely as possible? Do you want them to use terms that are so meticulously defined that they can not create confusion and conflict because of the nuances of differing individual personalities, contexts, or agendas? If so, you share the primary goal of the theoretical mathematician and the high level AI programmers who not only pursue increasingly sophisticated technology, but in many cases, serve a passion to reduce all things human to statistics and equations. Or to put it another way, to reduce Reality until it is bound within a frame of their own making.
We humans have been doing exactly that since the three-fold tragedy of our Fall (Genesis 3, 6 and 11). We have developed innumerable ways to do so. The present age simply upped the ante in majestic and terrifying ways.
I guarantee it: You do not want to live in a world where everyone is compelled - in one way or another - to communicate only in ways that someone in authority defines as "literal," so that we all have to "just say what we mean" - regardless of context, without nuance, without individuality. Be certain: Some future generation of AI will be tasked with translating everything a person says (and means) into chewable doses for the masses. Never mind freedom of speech. The human mind itself is the ultimate target, and much territory has already been yielded.
And finally, think of what is meant by the word "symbol," or the phrase: "It's a symbol of..."
What exactly is A a "symbol" of? What is the "B" that is being reduced to mere symbol status?
A dollar is a symbol of wealth. Buying power. But a dollar can also buy things! It actually, in itself, performs the very task of which it is supposed to be a mere symbol.
A wedding ring is (or once was) a symbol of marital commitment. Lifelong union, oneness - body and soul - with one other person. Of course, the power of such symbolism is one of the dilutions that has taken place in our midst. Yet, even then, if person A sees person B across the room and is immediately romantically attracted, the eventual sight of that wedding ring will make the setting at least a little more nuanced.
Baptism is a "symbol" of dying and rising again in union with Jesus Christ, to a remarkably new life. Is it really just a symbol? I pray that it not be so in my own case.
Communion is a "symbol" for a gathering of disciples and would-be disciples of Jesus Christ coming together as one in identity and intent. If it is just a symbol, Lord have mercy on us all.
The swastika was a "symbol." Did it or did it not produce effects deep inside the German people: feelings, convictions, impulses? And eventually, deeds.
Symbols, metaphors, parables, analogies, memes, word pictures, allusions, fables. They all convey more (and when necessary, less) meaning than is even remotely possible if we only try to "say what we mean."
To summarize four thematic strands that must be united into one:
- The verbal and written language by which the members of a group or culture communicate is a critical component of the health and survivability of that culture.
- We are being culturally hypnotized to value communication only in the shallow realm of the merely “literal,” the unchallenging, the easy to grasp.
- We owe it to ourselves and to those we love to give a new level of attention to what human language does, and can do, for both good and ill. Our routine communications used to reflect an almost infinite world of possibilities. In a given moment, many of these possibilities can only be vaguely sensed, and expressed only as hints or shadows. But to ignore them for that reason evokes that which begins with ignore, namely ignorance.
- Rather than being merely illustrative of these issues, real poetry – which is used with gratifying regularity by virtually everyone in the world – is a doorway into a solution. In its essence, origins, and unpretentious real world usage, the poetry that is hiding in language is a buried treasure, covered over by layers of multi-generational ignorance.
Picture a father coming home several hours early from his workday. His wife is most likely still at her place of work. His youngest son, age 14, is out of school and almost certainly out with friends…
One response to “Just a Symbol? or, “Why don’t poets and song-writers just SAY WHAT THEY MEAN?””
[…] [continued from Just a Symbol, Part 1] […]