Symbols

Edward Flores4 said:So, we'll just have to wait and see how people react... no need to play guessing games here.🙂

Everything can function as a symbol. I’m not talking about the physical figure of Christ, but rather his ontological significance.

Whatever.

But let's not get bogged down in nitpicking trivialities—like whether Christ is a symbol or an icon right now.

Is that a polite request or more of a demand...? I'm having a hard time deciding.🤷

Anyway... those "trivialities" are actually what we call semiotics and linguistics, and personally, I find them pretty vital to the conversation. It feels a bit off to me when people skip over those details, especially since the topic is already on the table. Don't take this the wrong way, though—on a forum like this, there aren't really "people"... it's just a massive collection of ideas and perspectives floating around.

We will see, though I am not entirely certain if such distinctions even matter; I write as the thought carries me, without any specific agenda. My only aim while spending my time here is to clarify the subject matter—though, for the record, I have mastered the material and completed my assignments quite thoroughly, even if it seems we have been drawing from different sources. Those who feel inspired should certainly write or read as they please, and besides, wiredbear2 and Jeremy Palmer have already contributed some rather insightful points..

Is that a request or a demand...? I find myself somewhat undecided 🤷

Interpret it however you wish; it would be best for both you and the rest of us if you simply acted according to your own inclinations 😉

Regardless... those "minor details" are actually known as semiotics and linguistics, and I consider them to be quite significant. It felt unnecessary to withhold my perspective when the topic was already being discussed. Please do not take this personally, as there are no actual individuals on this forum... there is only a collection of ideas and various opinions. [

Semiotics and linguistics are by no means subjects to be overlooked, but in this instance, you were simply misinformed. I intentionally cited Jung to demonstrate that these concepts are not merely my own inventions—heaven forbid I should attempt to use my own brain 🤣—but even that remains entirely irrelevant to the point you were attempting to make regarding whether Krist is an icon.

By definition, a symbol stands for something else entirely rather than just what is being shown. Take a dove carrying an olive branch, for example—it’s a universal shorthand for peace. A symbol bypasses the logical, linear left brain; instead, it delivers an entire message through a concentrated visual form that the creative, imaginative right brain recognizes instantly, without needing language to decode the meaning. It’s the exact same deal when you're looking at an archetype.

What I really wanted to point out to Quincy is this little video clip. It demonstrates how symbols can actually be used for manipulation. Because they sidestep our linear thinking, those in power can use them to send non-verbal, subliminal messages, making it hard to realize at first glance that they're actually projecting their own influence and authority.

So-called subliminal messaging🙂
The more we pull back the curtain on them, the less damage they can do and the greater the potential benefit—which is why I truly believe we need to bring art education back into our schools🙂...

The sheer allure of using symbols in how we communicate with almost everything in our existence... so why not start right at the foundation? Let's look at the basics—those elemental forces that surround us and actually make up who we are. Quincy began her journey with water, and I find myself wanting to build upon that by exploring air.

In many traditional cultures, air is viewed as this universal, fundamental life force. Everything that is living, truly organic, relies on breath (from the Latin *spirare*)...

What really interests me, though, is how the element of air is represented within spiritual and esoteric practices.
Through the lens of human perception, air is inextricably linked to the mind, to intellect, to consciousness, learning, and communication. Within the duality of nature, it carries a masculine aspect. When looking at tools or weaponry, we see the staff, the knife, and the sword—all of which appear in Tarot decks as distinct symbols of the air element.

Symbolically, the element of air is also tied to childhood, the dawn, spring, and new beginnings. In terms of human senses, it belongs to smell. In the animal kingdom, it encompasses all flying creatures. As for instruments, think of the flute. The celestial armies of the gods are often invoked through figures like Athena, Zeus, Hermes, and Mercury in Greek mythology, just as we look to Thoth, Sh, Nut, and Horus in Egyptian traditions.

As for the astrological air signs, we have Libra, Gemini, and Aquarius—each possessing those dominant "airy" qualities like kindness, intellect, communicativeness, and sociability.

Something like this, wiredbear2 🙂

or maybe Hermes

Jeremy Palmer said:Something like this, wiredbear2 🙂

Oh my... 🙂 We’ve been absolutely showered with such stunning imagery today. I didn't have anything quite suitable to contribute to the mix myself, so thank you, Jeremy, Uber 👍

hiddenhound3 said:We will see, though I am not entirely certain if such distinctions even matter; I write as the thought carries me, without any specific agenda. My only aim while spending my time here is to clarify the subject matter—though, for the record, I have mastered the material and completed my assignments quite thoroughly, even if it seems we have been drawing from different sources. Those who feel inspired should certainly write or read as they please, and besides, wiredbear2 and Jeremy Palmer have already contributed some rather insightful points..

Is that a request or a demand...? I find myself somewhat undecided 🤷

Interpret it however you wish; it would be best for both you and the rest of us if you simply acted according to your own inclinations 😉

Regardless... those "minor details" are actually known as semiotics and linguistics, and I consider them to be quite significant. It felt unnecessary to withhold my perspective when the topic was already being discussed. Please do not take this personally, as there are no actual individuals on this forum... there is only a collection of ideas and various opinions. [

Semiotics and linguistics are by no means subjects to be overlooked, but in this instance, you were simply misinformed. I intentionally cited Jung to demonstrate that these concepts are not merely my own inventions—heaven forbid I should attempt to use my own brain 🤣—but even that remains entirely irrelevant to the point you were attempting to make regarding whether Krist is an icon.

Exactly. For some people, Carl Jung is the ultimate starting point for everything, while for others, he’s just one piece of a much larger puzzle. I'm not entirely sure which specific texts you're looking at that don't include someone like Joseph Campbell—whose work builds directly on Jung's foundation, but actually dives much deeper into the subject matter after spending a lifetime expanding on things Jung only scratched the surface of.

Anyway... now that you're interested in the symbolism tied to religion, mysticism, mythology, and history, at least you know the name of the one author who has tackled this seriously and successfully over the last fifty years. Because, honestly, there aren't many other sources quite like him... regardless of what anyone else might say. Of course... feel free to try and prove me wrong by listing your own sources... maybe you've stumbled upon something I completely missed, and if that's the case, I'd genuinely love to know what it is.

take it however you want; it'll be best for you and all of us if you just do what you want to do.

That’s what I thought too... which is why I was so thrown off by your attempt to lecture me on what, how, and why I should write, or even how exactly I should communicate with you.

semiotics and linguistics aren't things to be ignored—not at all—but in this instance, you were simply uninformed. That's why I intentionally cited Jung, just to show you that I wasn't making stuff up on the fly (heaven forbid I actually use my 🤣), but even that has nothing to do with what you were trying to convince me of—that Christ is an icon.

I'll be polite and skip over that part because I have no desire to insult or belittle you... even though a comment like that almost deserves it. Look, if you can reflect on the past and just acknowledge that little lapse in judgment, we can probably avoid some awkward exchanges.

And if that doesn't happen... I'll be more than happy to dive into your "intentional" use of Jung, and the fact that since his time, the sheer volume of knowledge and our models for understanding it have expanded significantly. We don't just treat every single thing Jung wrote as the absolute final word anymore. Especially considering that Jung's work actually PRECEDED the formalization of semiotics as a discipline—the field that systematically studies symbols, icons, and indices and draws clear distinctions between those three categories. The reality that symbols and icons can switch roles led to the development of parallel analyses of the syntagm and the paradigm; basically, when we talk about symbolic meaning, we're establishing the syntagm, whereas iconographic meaning falls under the paradigm.

Unfortunately, Jung didn't live to see those disciplines evolve, which is why his writings don't cover them. However, thinkers like Noam Chomsky, Joseph Campbell, Marshall McLuhan, and others certainly do.

The Ankh: a symbol of eternity

Edward Flores4, I am still sitting here eagerly awaiting your deep dive into symbols, especially after that incredibly lengthy introduction you’ve been building alongside hiddenhound3... I can tell you have an absolute mountain of insights waiting to be shared, so I find myself wondering why you're being so hesitant to jump in. The subject is symbols, after all, and everyone deserves their own space to explore the topic at their own pace, regardless of how much time it takes. None of us are quite brilliant enough to claim we hold all the answers, but that is precisely why we are gathered here—to engage in dialogue, to challenge one another, and perhaps... just perhaps... to actually learn something new.

So, please, just go for it and put your thoughts down on paper.

Thanks,

☕

I’m backing up wiredbear2 here—let’s actually talk about symbols, what they mean, and how we use them,
rather than debating whether someone is grounded, clueless, a jerk, empty-headed, or just plain lacking a brain.

Since I haven't been following this thread closely, I'll leave those insults exactly as they are, regardless of who threw them,
but any further attempts at "diagnosing" or psychoanalyzing other users will be deleted and tossed in the trash—as per usual.

PS
Since my appeals clearly aren't working on some of you, I've trimmed the fat from this discussion, and that’s how it’s going to stay moving forward.
If you’re just here to pick fights and prove how stupid or uninformed everyone else is—go find somewhere else to hang out.

Edward Flores4 said:Exactly. For some people, Carl Jung is the ultimate starting point for everything, while for others, he’s just one piece of a much larger puzzle. I'm not entirely sure which specific texts you're looking at that don't include someone like Joseph Campbell—whose work builds directly on Jung's foundation, but actually dives much deeper into the subject matter after spending a lifetime expanding on things Jung only scratched the surface of.

Anyway... now that you're interested in the symbolism tied to religion, mysticism, mythology, and history, at least you know the name of the one author who has tackled this seriously and successfully over the last fifty years. Because, honestly, there aren't many other sources quite like him... regardless of what anyone else might say. Of course... feel free to try and prove me wrong by listing your own sources... maybe you've stumbled upon something I completely missed, and if that's the case, I'd genuinely love to know what it is.

take it however you want; it'll be best for you and all of us if you just do what you want to do.

That’s what I thought too... which is why I was so thrown off by your attempt to lecture me on what, how, and why I should write, or even how exactly I should communicate with you.

semiotics and linguistics aren't things to be ignored—not at all—but in this instance, you were simply uninformed. That's why I intentionally cited Jung, just to show you that I wasn't making stuff up on the fly (heaven forbid I actually use my 🤣), but even that has nothing to do with what you were trying to convince me of—that Christ is an icon.

I'll be polite and skip over that part because I have no desire to insult or belittle you... even though a comment like that almost deserves it. Look, if you can reflect on the past and just acknowledge that little lapse in judgment, we can probably avoid some awkward exchanges.

And if that doesn't happen... I'll be more than happy to dive into your "intentional" use of Jung, and the fact that since his time, the sheer volume of knowledge and our models for understanding it have expanded significantly. We don't just treat every single thing Jung wrote as the absolute final word anymore. Especially considering that Jung's work actually PRECEDED the formalization of semiotics as a discipline—the field that systematically studies symbols, icons, and indices and draws clear distinctions between those three categories. The reality that symbols and icons can switch roles led to the development of parallel analyses of the syntagm and the paradigm; basically, when we talk about symbolic meaning, we're establishing the syntagm, whereas iconographic meaning falls under the paradigm.

Unfortunately, Jung didn't live to see those disciplines evolve, which is why his writings don't cover them. However, thinkers like Noam Chomsky, Joseph Campbell, Marshall McLuhan, and others certainly do.

I find myself unable to agree with your perspective; I believe that Jung delved incredibly deep, perhaps even profoundly so, as his observations were born from his own lived experiences. He was never a mere theorist who simply organized information and paraphrased existing ideas; his books were not compiled through study, but rather through direct experience. This distinguishes him fundamentally from the theorists you mention, which is why Jung remains my absolute cornerstone in these matters. While I do not intend to diminish the validity of your sources, my primary source is actually the very origin of your authorities, making it both more immediate and more essential.

Furthermore, there are other scholars who have engaged quite seriously with symbolism, imagery, and visions, such as Mircea Eliade.

hiddenhound3 said:I find myself unable to agree with your perspective; I believe that Jung delved incredibly deep, perhaps even profoundly so, as his observations were born from his own lived experiences. He was never a mere theorist who simply organized information and paraphrased existing ideas; his books were not compiled through study, but rather through direct experience. This distinguishes him fundamentally from the theorists you mention, which is why Jung remains my absolute cornerstone in these matters. While I do not intend to diminish the validity of your sources, my primary source is actually the very origin of your authorities, making it both more immediate and more essential.

Furthermore, there are other scholars who have engaged quite seriously with symbolism, imagery, and visions, such as Mircea Eliade.

But how can you be sure you haven't just been reading Carl Jung? On what basis are you deciding he's more "direct," when (maybe) you aren't even aware
of what everyone else was actually researching and writing back then?

plus, there are plenty of other thinkers who took symbolism, imagery, and visions very seriously—take Mircea Eliade, for example.

What I’m talking about are the people who dedicated their entire lives to rigorous, systematic study—exactly like Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell did.

hiddenhound3 said:I find myself unable to agree with your perspective; I believe that Jung delved incredibly deep, perhaps even profoundly so, as his observations were born from his own lived experiences. He was never a mere theorist who simply organized information and paraphrased existing ideas; his books were not compiled through study, but rather through direct experience. This distinguishes him fundamentally from the theorists you mention, which is why Jung remains my absolute cornerstone in these matters. While I do not intend to diminish the validity of your sources, my primary source is actually the very origin of your authorities, making it both more immediate and more essential.

Furthermore, there are other scholars who have engaged quite seriously with symbolism, imagery, and visions, such as Mircea Eliade.

Aside from the Jungian canon, I haven't read much regarding symbols. I was truly captivated when I learned how he consciously stepped into psychosis, guided by instructions from the Tibetan Book of the Dead—essentially choosing to fracture his own psyche just to navigate what lies beyond the reach of the logical mind.

Personally (as I’ve mentioned before), as a spiritual traveler, I use symbols as signposts along the way. As an artist, I let them work through me, allowing my subconscious to express itself via symbols. When I'm feeling lost, I might pull some Tarot cards, or I simply track and record the symbolism appearing in my dreams... For me, that's a practical way to learn their language. I don't think extra intellectual study of literature is strictly necessary. It can be fun, sure, but it isn't a requirement.

The more a person moves away from the intellect—which we naturally do during meditation, spirituality, any kind of creative flow, art, or even in romantic relationships—the more we tap into a form of communication with the "other side" that bypasses the linear, logical mind entirely. This is a visual language where symbols and archetypes serve as the grammar. An image doesn't need an explanation; it is understood instinctively. So, I’m with you on this: symbols should be experienced, not just intellectually dissected.

In fact, an intellect that tries to force everything into a rigid mental grid—into a system that is tidy, clear, and logically consistent—often just gets in the way of the awakening process. This internal psychic evolution happens through the language of symbols and archetypes, yielding insights that are often fluid, weaving together subtle psychic and spiritual truths that tend to defy logic altogether...

"Quote:"

Jeremy Palmer As specified by: Aside from the extensive works by Carl Jung, I haven't delved very deeply into the study of symbolism... But I found myself completely captivated once I learned how he deliberately surrendered himself to psychosis, guided by the principles found in the Tibetan Book of the Dead; he essentially chose to fracture his own psyche just to gain the ability to navigate those realms that remain forever hidden from the logical mind...

I haven't actually delved into the deep waters of Carl Jung’s actual written works—I haven't sat down with his books myself—but I have certainly spent quite a bit of time reading about him and the profound impact of his research... so, I suppose you could say my understanding is somewhat limited to the periphery of his ideas...
I honestly feel that the subject of Carl Jung is so incredibly vast and layered that it deserves its own dedicated thread entirely... It really feels like it would be best if someone with a genuine passion for the material and a solid grasp of his theories were to spearhead a discussion, just so we can give such a profound topic the space and depth it truly merits...

Jeremy Palmer As if I haven't heard this all before...
The intellect, in its relentless pursuit to force everything into a rigid mental grid—to build a system that feels transparent, orderly, and logically airtight—often ends up becoming an obstacle to true awakening. It creates a barrier against the deep, internal processes of consciousness that unfold through the subtle language of symbols and archetypes... because the insights we gain through those channels are rarely linear; they are fluid, intricate tapestries of psychic and spiritual truths that tend to defy logic entirely...

The intellect, which weaves itself into nearly every single one of our experiences and memories, constantly tries to apply logic to things that simply aren't ready to be understood yet—those messy, tangled threads that are still unraveling deep within our subconscious... This tendency only makes an immature problem even more convoluted and heavy, because the logical mind demands immediate resolution or a quick fix. It’s like trying to bite into a bright green apple and then complaining when your teeth start to ache...
They are trying so desperately to force results out of thin air, completely ignoring the fact that everything is still very much in the processing stage...
On the other hand, the subconscious and the psyche operate under an entirely different set of rules... they follow a logic that our rational minds struggle to grasp. They don't present us with abstract concepts; instead, they bombard us with vivid imagery and fragments of memory that represent our struggles. If we attempt to force cold, hard logic onto those images while we are still in that vulnerable state, we end up making a terrible mistake—we inadvertently identify ourselves with those painful snapshots. We essentially drag ourselves back to the very scene of the "crime," forcing ourselves to relive the trauma all over again, which is nothing short of agonizing... And so, we find ourselves caught in this endless, exhausting loop, spinning in circles without any way out, which is exactly why these deep-seated issues tend to linger for so long, remaining stubbornly unresolved...
On the contrary, if we can manage to take a bit of a mental step back from those images and actually allow the irrational to exert its influence, we begin to observe certain subtle details that remain completely invisible to us when we are too deeply "in the frame"...
We possess the ability to distill our raw, lived experiences into potent symbols, and once those symbols are forged, we can wield them at our own discretion and for our own ultimate benefit...

Jeremy Palmer said:Aside from the Jungian canon, I haven't read much regarding symbols. I was truly captivated when I learned how he consciously stepped into psychosis, guided by instructions from the Tibetan Book of the Dead—essentially choosing to fracture his own psyche just to navigate what lies beyond the reach of the logical mind.

Personally (as I’ve mentioned before), as a spiritual traveler, I use symbols as signposts along the way. As an artist, I let them work through me, allowing my subconscious to express itself via symbols. When I'm feeling lost, I might pull some Tarot cards, or I simply track and record the symbolism appearing in my dreams... For me, that's a practical way to learn their language. I don't think extra intellectual study of literature is strictly necessary. It can be fun, sure, but it isn't a requirement.

The more a person moves away from the intellect—which we naturally do during meditation, spirituality, any kind of creative flow, art, or even in romantic relationships—the more we tap into a form of communication with the "other side" that bypasses the linear, logical mind entirely. This is a visual language where symbols and archetypes serve as the grammar. An image doesn't need an explanation; it is understood instinctively. So, I’m with you on this: symbols should be experienced, not just intellectually dissected.

In fact, an intellect that tries to force everything into a rigid mental grid—into a system that is tidy, clear, and logically consistent—often just gets in the way of the awakening process. This internal psychic evolution happens through the language of symbols and archetypes, yielding insights that are often fluid, weaving together subtle psychic and spiritual truths that tend to defy logic altogether...

I share a very similar experience to yours. Occasionally, through my dreams, the symbolic language presents the reality of my life in a remarkably direct manner—situations that I otherwise perceive as chaotic or confusing due to social complexities and intellectual frameworks. Furthermore, my attitudes toward myself and others frequently manifest in much clearer forms through these symbols. Many of the insights I have recorded were presented to me with striking clarity through symbolic language, whether within my dreams or during semi-lucid states.

My own fascination with symbolism deepened as I encountered the Bible, Christianity, and various other religions that crossed my path. I could never simply take the contents of holy scriptures, myths, fairy tales, or fables at face value, yet I found it impossible to ignore the profound messages they convey. Consequently, I began to study symbolism more deeply, finding that Carl Jung resonated with me most profoundly because he refuses to overlook the emotional dimension of our relationship with religious and transcendent phenomena.

Jeremy Palmer said:Florine, this is such a fascinating topic...🙂

Symbols belong to that collective archetypal level. To me, learning to speak their language and grasp their semantics means understanding the language of the transcendent—that otherworldly realm that constantly leaves us breadcrumbs through both our dreams and our waking lives.

Take Kundalini Tantra, for example; if someone hasn't mastered the art of reading symbols in their dreams or the signs they encounter during the day, they simply can't step into the role of a spiritual teacher.

The transcendent is non-causal and non-local, yet it establishes a dialogue with us using symbols, dreams, and synchronicity. That’s why I believe that decoding these meanings is incredibly valuable for any spiritual seeker.

Personally, whenever I run into a certain type of black bird, I take it as a message from Saturn telling me to get some discipline in order. Finding a feather on the path tells me angels have been there and want to guide me along. A cross suggests I'm not properly centered—that the Earth and sky within me aren't in sync. A spiral acts as a little nudge to watch out for repeating past patterns and to try a different approach this time. In my experience, tracking and interpreting these symbols (just like synchronicity) in our daily lives is essentially a way of consciously communicating with our inner guidance.🙂

Of course, without grasping intuition and the subconscious—or more broadly, without understanding every facet of one's own being and, by extension, the struggle on a global scale—we truly know nothing. We are merely sleepwalking, effectively blind; not only are we incapable of being teachers, but we become a burden to ourselves and everyone in our orbit.

Because of this, I believe it is an essential lesson for anyone wishing to dedicate themselves to spirituality to study symbols—not as isolated phenomena, but as a way to practice interpreting the messages they convey to us. Through this self-insight, a person attains an unshakable sense of peace.

I had a bit of a vision today involving that old Asclepius staff.
But it wasn't straight.

Everything was twisted—both the staff and the serpent...

It strikes me as quite profound, really: the eternal transformation of the ephemeral.

They used to depict it similarly to Zeus, though with Asclepius, there were always those snakes; because they shed their skin, they served as symbols of rejuvenation. It was especially revered back in Asheville, over in North Carolina. Its festivals were held just a day before the Dionysian celebrations.