To navigate life we traffic in symbols, spending an inordinate
percentage of our time dealing with symbols in lieu of that which they
represent, yet equating a symbol of something with the thing itself.
When something is symbolic of something, it's
intended
to be taken only symbolically. At least that's the general idea.
That's the way symbols are s'posed to work. But upon
closer inspection, it becomes clear that more often, we take symbols
literally, not symbolically. We're prone to forget that they're
only symbols and not that which they represent. We
confuse the menu with the
steak.
And look: you can't eat the menu.
Another such example is
money
- specifically,
paper money.
Paper money
is a symbol for exchange, trade, and wealth. Having a pile of just
any paper isn't going to make you wealthy. It's having a
pile of paper printed by the BEP (Bureau of
Engraving and Printing) with an image of George
Washington on the front, that's a symbol of exchange, trade, and wealth
ie a symbol of one dollar of gold bullion. But do we relate to printed
paper money like it's a symbol of wealth? No. How we
relate to it is literally as wealth. And yet you can't melt down
that symbolic paper and make a pendant out of it. We traffic in symbols
as if they're the real thing. And
paper money,
when we take it literally, has less reach and power than when we take
it symbolically. It isn't the pile of paper which makes you wealthy.
It's what it represents / what it symbolizes / what it's symbolic of
that makes you wealthy.
Paper money
works much better (ie it has more reach and power) when we take it
symbolically and not literally. If we didn't differentiate between the
two, life as we know it would stop working.
Christmas
is yet another such example. Whether you take
Christmas
literally or symbolically, is fine with me. I'm not attached to either.
In fact I'm willing to try it on as one and then the other (or both) to
see which has more value.
Christmas
taken literally, is the physical birth of Christ. And as such, it's in
very short supply, yes? Look: it's only celebrated once a year (not
very often), and by slightly less than a third of the people on the
planet (not very many). I ask myself: isn't Christ symbolic of the
spirit of being which underlies all humanity? Isn't celebrating the
birth of Christ a possibility for everyone every day (not just for
some, and not just for one day each year) or even every hour for that
matter? It seems that if taken literally,
Christmas
has less reach and power than if taken symbolically. Unlike
money
which we take symbolically (and
money
is literally just pieces of recycled paper), we take
Christmas
literally. Maybe it would work better if we took
Christmas
symbolically. Maybe
Christmas
would have more reach and power if we took it symbolically and not
literally - in the way we take
money
symbolically not literally. And look: I'm not attached to
Christmas
being symbolic and not literal. But I'm willing it try it on that way.
I assert symbols are more powerful when we take them symbolically
rather than when we take them literally - in other words when we deal
with what they represent, and not when we deal with them as if they're
the real things themselves. I've included this comment as a cautionary
note ie it's my reminder to differentiate between when symbols are
powerful and when they aren't. It's also a reminder when we create
symbols to navigate life, then forget they're only symbols which we
then relate to as if they are what they represent. Unfortunately life
doesn't work quite as well until we break ourselves of that habit.
So Q#1: What are you living out of habit that's merely
symbolic of being human, yet not really being human?
Q#2: Will you break yourself of that habit?
