What things mean "Symbol"?

I have started reading the book "The Forgotten Language" by Erich Fromm, where he discusses dreams, symbols, and interpretation. Several projects I have taken on also seem informed by symbolic interpretation. So it seems fitting today to talk a little about symbols. I love symbols and discussions of symbols. They come up in my conversations a great deal, so even in choosing to talk about symbols, I find myself struggling with choices. But what seems to pull to me most today, is a discussion using symbols to interpret the bible.

In a past post I mentioned some of the popular symbols of the bible, mountains, roads, valleys, etc. I want to examine another story in the bible according to symbolic language (like I did the one verse related to John the Baptist earlier). The bible begins with the story of the creation that results in a garden. Throughout most of the bible, gardens often show up as a metaphor for the soul.

For example, in Job 8:16 - "He is like a well-watered plant in the sunshine, spreading its shoots over the garden" where here we have a person how receives much (well lwatered), but has no depth and his roots go around rocks, and he withers because he has no depth to his soul.

or in Isaiah 1:30 - "You will be like an oak with fading leaves, like a garden without water." again, suggesting that without nurishment and water (revelation? spirit?) the soul dries up and is only useful as firewood... (a dire hint... lol).

So if we use that metaphor in the book of Genesis, a new understanding emerges. If we see the creation, not as the creation of the universe, but as the creation of an individual soul; then the Garden represents that individuals psyche.

It is possible to carry the metaphor of creation much further, perhaps too far, by noting that all of the elements of the creation can be related to the creation of a new child. My quick associations:

1. Let there be light - the moment of conception
2. Separate waters - the formation of the fetus
3. Dry land - the formation of bones
4. Vegetation - the creation of systems in the body (nervous, circulatory, lymph)
5. Lights - establishment of rhythms of the body -
a. Sun - daily cycles - eating, sleeping
b. Moon - monthly cycles - moods, ovulation
c. Stars - age cycles - child, teen, adult, parent, grandparent, age
6. Animals - suggestion of movement, muscles, beginnings of life
7. Adam - the moment of quickening, life, awareness

Taken all together, the suggestion then is that the Garden of Eden represents a child in an innocent state. and all the players in the garden are simply different aspects of an individual soul. Adam represents awareness; Eve represents desires (she is desirable); and the snake represents our ego. Notice that it is the snake that pushes Adam and Eve to be like the gods (parents), to know good and evil. To me, God in the story represents our own intuition, higher consciousness, our soul, our connection to that higher power. The gods are the false gods promised by the snake and equated to God - and, ironically, they are our parents, society, and those that assume a god-like dominance over our own ability to choose what is best for us. Granted as a child, we may not always know, but the ability to learn and know is slowly eroded by those that would protect us and keep us safe.

So in the Garden there are two trees, the "Tree of Life" and the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." Eventually, our ego (the snake) persuades us through our desire (eve) to be like our parents (gods) to accept the fruit (results) of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This tree requires a little explanation.

In the beginning, while Adam was still in the garden, God asks Adam to name the animals (Genesis 2, the other version of creation where Adam comes first). In this version, Adam simply observes and names the animals accordingly, there is no judgment apparent in the names. Just things like "Long Tooth" or "Eats Berries" (ok, you may have to go back to the original language to see this). But by taking of the fruit of good and evil, Adam (you) learn to judge things as "good" or "evil" - and here is the key. This is all about fear. You learn that if a thing is evil, you fear it; but if a thing is good, you fear it will be taken away. This is the meaning of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." That it is the tree of fear.

So the whole (metaphysical) meaning of this story is that when a child is born, when you were born, you were taught, as all of us were taught, to fear. to be afraid of a burning stove, losing a loved one, not having enough. And this fear is in opposition to life. Most people believe that the opposite of life is death, but it is not. The opposite of life is Fear.

Update: Agnostics vs Athiest

I saw a statement from Penn Says (of Penn and Teller) yesterday who brought out a very powerful argument in the debate of Agnostic vs Athiest; and leads me to update my own thoughts (see my first blog). He suggests the only useful question is not, "Is there a God?" or "Can I know if there is a God?", but rather, "Do you believe in God?" He suggests that the differences I posted about an Athiest or an Agnostic melt away under that question. And as I listened to him, I had to agree that belief introduces yet another level; and it is one that removes much of the mystical thinking from the previous two questions. In a nut shell, he suggests that most Agnostics become Athiest when they answer that question... that in not knowing, or in not being sure, they would tend to side with an Athiest in most moral decisions. He differentiates by asking the question, "If God (however you define God) communicated to you (again, however you would define such divine communication) to kill your own child, would you do it?" His suggestion is that if you answer "no" you are an Athiest; and if you answer "yes" then stay away from him. lol.

I like it as a great update to the difficult, mystical questions. It pulls it back from definition (and a dependence on the copula "is") into action. I do believe, strongly, that it is still possible to be Agnostic and spiritual; and that being Agnostic does not mean you abandon a belief in diety - but I do think that belief becomes tempered. I know I would strongly question divine communication asking me to kill my child. I would suspect my own personal psychosis long before I would believe that to be a true or divinely inspired command. (I think my son is probably relieved to hear that... lol). Still, I do believe that the universe is basically nurturing. That there is some purpose to life, our abilities to communicate, philosophize, connect, love, etc. I certainly don't believe in a God that commands one tribe to kill another (for example Numbers 31) including all male children, and all women that have already been "polluted" by sexual intercourse. That just sounds like a bunch of horny, but powerful old men to me (which has pretty much been the case through most of our human history).

So, is there any thing I would alter about my previous post? Not too much, except I would lessen it's overall importance. I'm not so sure that the distinction between Agnostic and Athiest is all that important. I find that for myself, the distinction that becomes more important is what action does your particular form of spirituality create, and does it create action that serves for something greater (humanly, publicly recognizable as good). I fear that even this comes too close to trying to define good and evil, which I believe is the root of most theological disagreements. no easy answers... more later.