Tolkien v. Howard v. Lovecraft

[thormagni]

It is my thinking that it doesn't really matter who understands symbolism and who doesn't. The average joe has no real inkling that when he gives up candy to the demon-clothed kids outside his door at Halloween that he is participating in ritual and symbolism, or if he does, he doesn't really care or investigate it further. Johnny Colts Fan...

Yes, I absolutely agree. Symbolism goes right over the average Joe's head. Which raises the question, is it symbolism if the person enacting the ritual doesn't do it for a symbolic reason? Does symbolism only work for those "in the know?" And if those "in the know" are a tiny minority, or even non-existent, then does symbolism really exist at all? Sometimes a costume is just a costume. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

He cannot escape this, therefore it behooves religion, if its goals are to really speak to human beings in the most efficient manner, to incorporate more symbolism and ritual alongside its "concrete" interpretations of reality.

I think the goals of religion are two-fold. First, to provide a coherent, concrete answer to the spiritual questions of our existence. Second, to provide a social organization for humankind, outlining mores and prohibitions, providing structure and community. "God is in charge, let me tell you about him and what he wants."

I read a recent study that shows that Christian sects with strict rules and prohibitions are growing while those with less regimentation are shrinking. Of course, I also read a recent study that showed that "strict" religious believers are just as likely to fall under the sway of many social ills as non-believers.

Let me say that if an evil person were to set out to define a system designed to mentally enslave people, turning them into sheep, mindlessly following the edicts of superiors, it would be hard to come up with a better model than a religious one.

 

[Grimhelm]

Yes, I absolutely agree. Symbolism goes right over the average Joe's head. Which raises the question, is it symbolism if the person enacting the ritual doesn't do it for a symbolic reason? Does symbolism only work for those "in the know?" And if those "in the know" are a tiny minority, or even non-existent, then does symbolism really exist at all? Sometimes a costume is just a costume. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.



.

Symbolism is symbolism. It is not defined by how well it works. It is not defined, really, by those in the know. It springs from a deeper place. In a sense, symbolism works precisely for those people who do not understand it. Those who do are somewhat less likely to be affected by it, but this in no way diminishes the symbol itself. The fish, for instance, has always been a profound and strong symbol of quickness, cunning, and slipperiness. Doubtless other ideas have been added to it, but the core symbolism will likely remain due to the fact that the symbolism we associate with the fish is, in essence, inherent traits of the fish itself! Only if the fish changes its nature will the symbolism likely change.

I think symbolism is generally a projection of our own understanding onto the world, then back again, as though our darkest, mysterious thoughts come out, bounce off of the fish, and become symbolized. Does this make sense? If it does, then perhaps it is clear how symbols are not really depenent upon people's understanding of them. Rather, they are dependent upon people's understanding of themselves and the world in which they live...

 

[InzeladunMaster]

[quote="Thormagni]I think the goals of religion are two-fold. First, to provide a coherent, concrete answer to the spiritual questions of our existence. Second, to provide a social organization for humankind, outlining mores and prohibitions, providing structure and community. "God is in charge, let me tell you about him and what he wants."[/quote]

I notice that Spiritual Enlightenment is not a goal of your religion.

Most of my resources mention those same two purposes of religion but a few add spiritual enlightenment to the mix. Most of those resources are books, but here is a neat internet article about it.

Purposes of Religion: He says religions should teach moral theories relative to the society and its needs and spiritual theories but should stay away from scientific truths.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Symbolism is symbolism. It is not defined by how well it works. It is not defined, really, by those in the know. It springs from a deeper place. In a sense, symbolism works precisely for those people who do not understand it. Those who do are somewhat less likely to be affected by it, but this in no way diminishes the symbol itself.

I agree completely there. They function on a subconscious level. As soon as they are on a conscious level, they lose some manipulative power - but maybe they become more enriching on some level?

 

[Grimhelm]

The Goal of a Good Religion

It is my personal feeling that a good religion will guide a man past the illusions fostered by the mistakes formed by confused minds. A good religion will help a man to reaffirm the truths that have existed and always will exist within him for the rest of his life. There really is only one "truth" or "way" or "enlightenment". The mistake most religions make is claiming to have the market on what that truth is. In fact, it exists everywhere. In truth, a good religion should recognize that "truth" springs into being everywhere, whether it be from the pen of the poet, the brush of a master, the mind of Einstein, or the rantings of a coffee shop philosopher. I love seeing this message in all of its forms. It begs to be expressed. It will always find light, though those viewing it may not understand it when they see it. Whitman sang it, Jesus sang it, Han Shan sang it, Einstein sang it, Buddha sang it. So many have gone before, realizing this clear knowledge.

A good religion will instruct a man how to live with this knowledge. It is one thing to realize a thing. It is quite something else to live in accordance with this knowledge.

 

[thormagni]

Purposes of Religion: He says religions should teach moral "truths" and spiritual truths but should stay away from scientific truths.

Thanks, I will go check it out. However, I have serious concerns about using the word "truths" in the sense of morality or spiritualism. Both of those are entirely relative concepts, influenced and changed by society and people. A "truth" by definition is something concrete. There is very little "truth" in morality or spirituality, except as they ring true to the observer based on his or her own, existing prejudices.

I would argue that the only truths are those things that can be observed and agreed upon without interpretation. For example, if I drop my soda off of the edge of my desk, it will fall. That is a truth. What causes that fall and the moral and spiritual implications of that fall are up for discussion, obviously.

And this is not even talking about the philosophy majors who will want to argue whether or not I can ever KNOW that there ever really was a soda can or if it ever really fell, and if at a certain moment in time there exists a soda can which is simultaneously falling and not falling.

 

[thormagni]

In fact, it exists everywhere. In truth, a good religion should recognize that "truth" springs into being everywhere, whether it be from the pen of the poet, the brush of a master, the mind of Einstein, or the rantings of a coffee shop philosopher. I love seeing this message in all of its forms. It begs to be expressed. It will always find light, though those viewing it may not understand it when they see it. Whitman sang it, Jesus sang it, Han Shan sang it, Einstein sang it, Buddha sang it. So many have gone before, realizing this clear knowledge.

I find this a very noble concept and one completely foreign to most religious expressions of faith.

 

[Grimhelm]

Well, it is a great concept! Unfortunately, many religions start out with such wonderful teachings and concepts only to have the message cluttered and sullied along the way.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Thanks, I will go check it out. However, I have serious concerns about using the word "truths" in the sense of morality or spiritualism. Both of those are entirely relative concepts, influenced and changed by society and people. A "truth" by definition is something concrete. There is very little "truth" in morality or spirituality, except as they ring true to the observer based on his or her own, existing prejudices.

Right, which is what I said before: Religion should deal with the subjective. Symbolism and ritual are ideal for that. As soon as they start dictating scientific theories, they run the risk of falling on their faces.

Didn't you say the goals of religion are: "First, to provide a coherent, concrete answer to the spiritual questions of our existence. Second, to provide a social organization for humankind, outlining mores and prohibitions, providing structure and community"?

Those are all going to be subjective and relative.

 

[thormagni]

Those are all going to be subjective and relative.

Yes, which is why I am leary of calling a moral or spiritual position a "truth." I can't imagine a basic level of morality or spirtualism that would be true for all people, at all times. Even our basic rules, like against killing or stealing, are morally relative.