{"id":2276,"date":"2018-11-06T09:06:43","date_gmt":"2018-11-06T09:06:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=2276"},"modified":"2018-11-05T17:16:40","modified_gmt":"2018-11-05T17:16:40","slug":"a-symbol-is-always-you","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/open-religion\/a-symbol-is-always-you","title":{"rendered":"A Symbol Is Always YOU"},"content":{"rendered":"

Symbolism is always vertical, a communication between conceptual and subconceptual. In this sense, it is always about YOU.<\/h3>\n

[see also: \u2018Symbolism lost. Symbolism regained.<\/a>\u2019]<\/p>\n

\u2018Vertical\u2019?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As in this drawing, showing the difference between an analogy (concept-to-concept) and a symbol:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Eventually, it\u2019s about you as a total person, body and mind, conceptual [see: \u2018About Concepts<\/a>\u2019] and subconceptual [see: \u2018About \u2018Subconceptual\u2019<\/a>]. It\u2019s about you as a whole, an undividedness. Vertical communication enhances such integration.<\/p>\n

Thus, it is also always about \u2018inner growth\u2019.<\/p>\n

Every worthwhile symbol is a means<\/u> by which to experience<\/u> this.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To be \u2018Open\u2019 \u2013 as in Open Leadership for instance \u2013 is to be open to this. Thus, as an Open Leader, you are open to yourself as total person, and also open to others who can experience you as being this (striving to be) not dissociated person.<\/p>\n

So is deep, symbolic ritual<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

to be seen as \u2018symbol in action\u2019. Any deep ritual is an enactment of symbolic communication. The latter is a necessary condition. Thus, this text is as much about ritual as it is about symbol.<\/p>\n

This is of utmost importance if you are looking for a good \u2018ritual\u2019(or symbol), say, for yourself or for a community. There is of course nothing wrong with a good \u2018ritual\u2019(or symbol). It is not manipulative unless you impose it on others.<\/p>\n

Bringing \/ experiencing it with good quality.<\/p>\n

So, wherein lies the quality of a symbol \/ ritual?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

According to me, this lies in the way that it makes one prone to feel \u2018vertical communication\u2019. The symbol itself is of course only form. By itself, it\u2019s nothing. Any person who \u2018uses the symbol\u2019 should be made aware of this openly, all the way through. Only this way can you encounter YOU in the symbol.<\/p>\n

This is an ethical question. Actually, from AURELIS viewpoint, it is THE ethical question. There is no appropriate ethics without openness (as always: in the striving, which then again, is never-ending).<\/p>\n

Is this even possible?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I do think it so: a symbol may be brought openly, still being a symbol. Unfortunately, the way that religious symbols are being used, is all but open. There is generally an unrealistic \u2018story\u2019 stickily attached to it \u2013 different in each religion \u2013 that closes the door to this openness. If looked upon with critical mind, the stories that are used, are even mostly absurd. Yet, this may precisely help keeping it closed. Human mind is prone to fall into this trap.<\/p>\n

This trap is principally to be avoided.<\/p>\n

Does the symbol lose its power through openness?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At least not necessarily. However, if the power sticks to the trap, then it does [see: \u2018Symbolism and Placebo<\/a>\u2019]. Logically, one needs to avoid any stickiness. For this, the symbol should be an invitation (better: auto-suggestion). The involved person should experience it as such, with a willingness to \u2018let go\u2019 into the symbol.<\/p>\n

A trust. Therefore, from symbol side, trustworthiness.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the symbol should be never-endingly \u2018vertical\u2019, as mentioned. I think these two are the necessary and sufficient<\/em> conditions towards a good symbol or ritual.<\/p>\n

Simple in practice?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yes and no. I leave that to you, dear reader. I\u2019m not very much myself a three-dimensional-symbol-maker. But maybe that\u2019s not needed, if one \u2018borrows\u2019 existing symbols, or even an entire religion now and then.<\/p>\n

Why not, well\u2026 taking some caution into account\u2026<\/p>\n

A concrete religion<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

may more or less \u2018hijack\u2019 symbolic communication, putting itself between you and YOU. This is, sadly enough, an efficient means to control people into obedience to any organization, including or even foremost a religious one.<\/p>\n

It has been done many times.<\/p>\n

If, contrary to this, an individual starts seeing the symbol in the vein of this text, that individual gets more and more \u2018inner strength\u2019 and independence. Say: \u2018freedom\u2019, \u2018self-respect\u2019\u2026<\/p>\n

And a way to truly enjoy religion.<\/p>\n

That is: Open Religion.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Symbolism is always vertical, a communication between conceptual and subconceptual. In this sense, it is always about YOU. [see also: \u2018Symbolism lost. Symbolism regained.\u2019] \u2018Vertical\u2019? As in this drawing, showing the difference between an analogy (concept-to-concept) and a symbol: Eventually, it\u2019s about you as a total person, body and mind, conceptual [see: \u2018About Concepts\u2019] and Read the full article…<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2277,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/335.jpg?fit=963%2C567&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9Fdiq-AI","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2276"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2276"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2276\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2288,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2276\/revisions\/2288"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2277"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}