ToS - Symbolism.pdf - Dokumenty - vertygont

Symbolism

Classification: IT.IV.C.2.e

Title: Symbolism

Author: Grand Master of the Order of Shuti

Temple of Set

Date: December, XXIV

Published: Dialogues I.3

(The section on "Neters" was published in

issue I.4)

Subject: Symbolism

Reading List: 2L, 2V

The first session of the year-XXIV Order of Shuti Workshop discussed

symbolism.

While the study of symbolism itself is not a primary concern of the

Order of Shuti, several of the Order's activities do involve working

with forms of symbolism, or are discussed using various symbols.

The symbols of the twin lion gods, Shu and Tefnut, who together are

Shuti, are obviously of importance in understanding the activities

of the Order. The topic of symbolism was therefore chosen for the

introductory session of the workshop.

Application

In discussing this session and what would be discussed, the Grand

Master stressed that symbolism wasn't to be discussed simply as an

intellectual exercise, but that all participants should try to

apply the Setian yardstick of "application" to this discussion.

Each and every topic of this session (and all sessions in the

workshop) should be measured by the questions of a) Can it be

applied? b) Is it useful? c) Does it work?

What is symbolism?

One answer suggested by workshop participants is that symbolism is

a language of the unconscious.

It is a dynamic language in which one image, a single symbol, can

conjure up archetypical impressions, complex or complete concepts

and/or meanings, rather than being a structured language in which

many words and/or several sentences are needed to put together an

equivalent concept or meaning.

Another purpose of symbolism offered by the participants is to

serve as a metalanguage which has two levels or multiple levels of

meaning.

1561

Each symbol or set of symbols can have one meaning to the

initiated, and another meaning to the uninitiated. That symbol or

set of symbols could also have different meanings to the

initiated, depending upon how the symbols are communicated, and how

they are mixed with other symbols. A statement in a symbolic

language could even have multiple meanings communicated at the same

time to the same person.

A lot of the symbols Setians use in our writings are like that.

When we read through the Scroll of Set or the jewelled Tablets ,

those of us who have been using the language of the Temple of Set

for a while will see certain words, and will know just from the way

the words are used that the author is writing symbolically as well

as grammatically, and he therefore means "this type of thing".

This symbolic use of language lets us add meaning to an article

without adding substantially to the size of that article.

Those who haven't been in the Temple of Set long enough to pick up

on that symbolic use of language will miss almost all of that

meaning on their first reading.

This is one of the reasons why we all find it useful to reread past

issues of the Scroll and to reread Tablet articles. It enables

us to read meaning in an article that we may have missed on an

earlier reading.

It sometimes happens that "unintended" meaning is found in an

article during such a rereading.

Even though the author may not have consciously intended to convey

a certain meaning, that author's Higher Self may have influenced

the writing in such a way as to symbolically give a specific

message in the writing. These messages remain hidden except for

those who can perceive and understand them.

On the other side of the scale, if our writings are read by someone

totally unfamiliar with occult symbolism, then the message can be

totally lost, and the reader may never see it.

Symbolism can be visual (examples are the Pentagram of Set,

pictures of the Egyptian Neters, etc), and verbal (the closing we

use on our letters, "Xeper and Remanifest", is a statement and

reminder of our dedication to this Formula, a way of developing and

keeping the habit of Xeper and Remanifestation going strong).

Each Word itself is a symbol (Xeper, Indulgence, Thelema, etc.),

as is each Neter (Shu, Tefnut, Sekhmet, Bast). A lot of principles

can be used as symbols which have more meaning to the initiated

than they do to those who just read about them in a dictionary.

Visual and verbal/written symbols involve just one of our senses

(sight). If you include verbal/spoken symbols, we then involve a

second sense (hearing). We then asked the question, "Are there

symbols which are perceived and communicated through each of our

other senses?"

1562

The first examples offered by workshop participants were incense

and music: Incense can bring about different emotions and responses

through the sense of smell. Music can bring about different

responses through the sense of hearing, in ways totally different

than the verbal symbols do (the difference between right brained

behavior and left brained behavior).

Where does symbolism come from?

When dealing with incense and music, we are leaving the mental

processes and intellectual reactions that visual symbols will

evoke, and going instead to the more reactive, bodily, reactions.

We react to the smell of bodily feces with distaste because of the

body's reaction to that sort of an input. We find the fragrance

of a rose very pleasing.

One of the reasons we use fragrant incenses during a ritual is to

bring about bodily reactions which enhance a ceremony because of

the smells and our reactions to the smells.

The discussion of one question leads to another. We learn the

reactions / interpretations / meanings of visual and verbal symbols

(at least those discussed above). Do we also learn reactions to

incenses and music, or are those reactions more innate?

The first response was that our reactions and interpretations, even

our likes and dislikes of music are learned.

The example given was classical music, which strikes some people

as very soothing and relaxing, and which is likely to put these

people to sleep. But others who are aware of the intelligent

dynamics and many other ingredients of classical music will find

the same music very stimulating.

(We believe that the workshop participant was thinking about the

lighter classical pieces, such as "Tales from the Vienna Woods,"

and not the more active pieces such as "Night on Bald Mountain.")

The second response disagreed with the first, pointing out that

regardless of whether they are used in classical, modern, or any

other form of music, harps and strings tend to evoke emotional

(peaceful) moods, while drums are more primal and physical, evoking

more active responses.

The next example we discussed referred to the sense of smell. To

a farmer, feces and fertilizer are pleasing and filled with

promise, a smell of promised growth and life, a totally different

reaction than most people will have (especially after scraping a

dog's refuse off the bottom of one's shoe).

Similarly, an inlander's first pleasant reaction to sea gulls on

wing, grace in motion, can be compared to the reaction of those who

live on the beach and have to live with the noise and the mess and

the droppings le ft behind by those very same sea gulls.

These examples tend to support the theory that we learn our

interpretations of the sounds and smells around us.

1563

It seems from these examples that our reactions to inputs are

learned, or at least they arise from our experiences. The question

then becomes, can symbols have innate visceral responses, or is the

response to a symbol necessarily a learned one?

To look at innate responses, the original responses to stimuli, we

necessarily looked at children.

For instance, children generally have no innate response to feces,

and will often eat them until they learn not to. They later learn

to either react with disgust to feces, or to view them as

fertilizer and the source of life.

The first example of a possibly innate response brought to the

discussion was that of the ephemeral beauty of a butterfly on the

wing. None of the participants could envision any child's reaction

other than awe and delight at such beauty (or at least none would

admit to any other vision).

This brought forth remarks concerning innate childish "awe", where

almost everything is new and wonderful.

Children as they begin to distinguish between the multiple events

and objects in their world are simply delighted at the beauty and

diversity they find around them. There is no "evil" during this

time -- only the beauty of nature.

Few of us have any reason to unlearn this initial response to the

butterfly. These reactions can therefore be considered innate,

stemming from the earliest days of our consciousness. Other

reactions, unpleasant reactions and also more complex reactions,

seem to be learned over time.

Therefore, there's some of both types of reactions. People will

have initial reactions to many meaningful symbols and inputs, but

their reactions can be modified by their experience and training.

This discussion raised yet more questions, for which no answers

were attempted during this workshop. The questions were, how much

of our symbolism is learned, and how much of our symbolism is

innate? And if some form of consciousness or memory can survive

from one life to another, then how much might be remembered from

past lives?

Symbols may or may not come to one's attention. An extremely

visually-oriented person may not notice or respond to other types

of symbols, such as a room's smell, or a background level of music,

while those who are oriented towards those senses will respond to

those inputs, but perhaps not to others.

Symbolism may have personal and/or experiential meaning (such as

ToS - Symbolism.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: