"It is our fall from a simplicity and fullness of life directly experienced, from the sensuous moment of knowing, which leaves a gap that the symbolic can never bridge. This is what is always being covered over by layers of cultural consolations, civilized detouring that never recovers lost wholeness. In a very deep sense, only what is repressed is symbolized, because only what is repressed needs to be symbolized. The magnitude of symbolization testifies to how much has been repressed; buried, but possibly still recoverable." - John Zerzan
Symbolism acts as an important process in conceptualizing the world around us, but an excessive level of only the symbolic represses our ability to exist in a world of substance. Although the pursuit of self-awareness has largely been made difficult and often illegal by most governments, it is nevertheless one of the most crucial aspects in self-actualization. If only what is repressed is symbolized, then organic existence is only located in a very small sphere of periphery. Existing merely on a plane of symbolism works at further repressing our ability to experience directly the fullness of life in exchange for an illusion.....I say as I write a blog entry on a website subsistent on an obsession with virtual identity in a cyberspace realm devoid of any real or essential materiality.
5 comments:
I disagree with your last sentence there. The Internet is a part of reality just as much as any other tool or symbol. Just because we use metaphors and terminology like "virtual" to understand it doesn't mean it is devoid of any materiality at all. It is a product of and shaped by the economic, social and cultural forces of the "real" world. It is not any more or less real than any other medium. Because it is a new and powerful medium, however, it makes us more aware of its great symbolic power.
Howver, I definitely relate to and agree with the main thrust of this post. About 6 months ago, I made love for the first time. It was a moment of pure being. When it was over, I scribbled down "love is deep, buried under layers of life" so that I would not forget that feeling after my thoughts and concerns came back to me and obscured the essence of being.
I suggest the trouble is when people don't know what they mean by the symbols they use. Or don't know what those symbols mean to others.
Words, kisses, holding hands. All meaning something other than it is, stands proxy for the real thing.
The symbolic bridge might never replicate the 'sensuous moment of knowing' but that moment is isolated. Alone. Unless you can use symbols to share it.
This is where I usually get caught up in the thought that perhaps life isn't to be shared, that we are not meant to travel with others, but rather be entwined in others, but seeking each our own reality, sharing only those moments which effect us all.
Look at me. Ramble-or.
Better get back to work.
I suggest the trouble is when people don't know what they mean by the symbols they use. Or don't know what those symbols mean to others.
Words, kisses, holding hands. All meaning something other than it is, stands proxy for the real thing.
The symbolic bridge might never replicate the 'sensuous moment of knowing' but that moment is isolated. Alone. Unless you can use symbols to share it.
This is where I usually get caught up in the thought that perhaps life isn't to be shared, that we are not meant to travel with others, but rather be entwined in others, but seeking each our own reality, sharing only those moments which effect us all.
Look at me. Ramble-or.
Better get back to work.
What I meant was that a material entity, something tangible that we can touch and feel, cyberspace is without. It can be shaped by socio-cultural forces and economics, but it is a different sense of reality than that which we have come to know as 'real'. I suppose this again brings to light the difficulties associated with definition, as 'real' is now also made problematic.
I suppose my point strongly coincides with your idea, Sungwon, that there are a great many things that obscure the essence of being.
Well, cyberspace is not a material entity the way thought-expressed-in-print (printspace?) is. Cyberspace is an abstraction that is given meaning by our interpretation of it. It's material housing consists of physical computers networked together. In the same way, literature and other texts-as-information are also abstractions that are given symbolic meaning by our interpretation of them. A book and the printing press technology that went into it is just a process of pulping trees, pressing ink upon them and distributing them. But that's not how we see books. We see books as houses of thoughts. Cyberspace is the same. It also houses thoughts. We are just amazed that we can house thoughts in this new way, so we think it's beyond real. But it is no more unreal than any other such media technology. If we call cyberspace unreal, we may as well call language or thought unreal. They are all expressions of a raw reality of experience...
Hmm, I think I've come full circle. This is close to what you were saying, isn't it?
Post a Comment