Since our reading of Locke, I've been thinking a good deal about how archetypal symbols and words relate to each other. Locke describes mixed mode words as "assemblages of ideas put together at the pleasure of the mind" and even refers to those collections of things as "archetypes or forms" (818).This also reminds me of Burke, who suggests that the name of a character such as Madame Bovary can become a referent for a collection of typical attributes and behaviors we as a society are already familiar with. My question here is if an archetype (for example, the Byronic hero or, as I've used before, the Sacred King) is essentially the same thing as a mixed mode word.
Richards and Ogden refer to language in terms of symbols. They define symbolism as "the study of the part played in human affairs by language and symbols of all kinds, and especially of their influence on Thought" (1274).Like Locke says words and knowledge are nearly indivisible, Richards and Ogden identify thought and symbols as interrelated. They say, "between a thought and a symbol causal relation hold. When we speak, the symbolism we employ is caused partly by the reference we are making and partly by social and psychological factors-- the purpose for which we are making the reference, the proposed effect of our symbols on other persons, and our own attitude" (1274).
Richards and Ogden, when they use the word symbol, are for the most part talking about words. But what if I was trying to communicate the idea of (to be Freudian about it) a phallus, and so I used the symbol of a serpent? But then, the serpent can also be a symbol of healing or Hermetic magic (think Hermes Trismegistus). So I would need another image, like a lock and key. Or a rocket ship. And the attempt to convey phallus through symbolic representations of it is in my opinion infinitely simpler than conveying the nature of an archetype like the Byronic Hero. Richards and Ogden say that the word symbol refers to "words, arrangements, of words, images, gestures, and such representations as drawings or mimetic sounds" (1280), which makes it seem like one really needs many symbols to convey most ideas, and the symbol is (Platonically) an inadequate representation, which I don't really believe at all.
I guess it would help if I knew what I was saying, but I'm really just thinking out loud here. I suppose it's ironic that I don't know how to articulate this issue that's been bothering me. :)
1 comment:
I do think you raise a few good points here, so no worries about the thinking out loud. I did want to offer a different interpretation of the "symbol" in reference to Richards and Ogden. I think one of the key aspects of their propositions is "It is not always new words that are needed, but a means of controlling them as symbols” (Richards, 1278). I think this directly relates to your issue of the representation of an idea. I don't think it is necessarily essential, at least theoretically, to say that multiple symbols are necessary to convey the essence of a single idea, but rather that the symbols must hold a great enough control to understand the essence of the ideas being presented.
If we think in practical terms, people are not often confused by conversation. It is true that a text can be misinterpreted, but a good writer should know enough about the state of his symbols to convey the ideas therein the way he set out to do. This is, I think, a common experience of the creative writing class. With each revision, what is said becomes more clear, more exact. This has little to do with the solidity or certainty of any given symbol and much more to do with the control of those symbols through tone, setting and the many other aspects that go into making a story.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.