Isn’t a lot of this search for the metaphorical meaning of religious statements just a product of wish-fullfillment on the part of the seeker? it seems to me that some people have decided that there can’t really be an invisible mind responsible for the creation of the Universe, or that a man -who is also God- cannot die, come back to life after three days, and thereby somehow redeem mankind. Call these people skeptics. It seems to me that a certain segment of the skeptics still desperately want religion to mean something- they like the Christmas carols, they like churches, the respect the history of the institutions perhaps- they can’t bear to disregard it all as rubbish. So they tell themselves that the solution is to ‘look deeper’. They won’t let go of the idea that religion is meaningful, and they won’t let go of the idea that the specific claims of religions must be false, and so in the face of this paradox, they take a third route (an incorrect one, if you ask me) and decide that religious people must mean something other than what they seem to mean by their religious utterances- or better yet, they tell themselves that the meaning of the utterances isn’t important at all, that what really matters is their purpose, or function in society.
I guess I still don’t understand why the proper evaluation of a statement like “God created the Universe” isn’t to simply ask the utterer what they meant, and accept that at face value. I’m not at all sure that there can be such a thing as meaning without intentionality, so the intention of the speaker must be the primary consideration, as far as I can tell.
The idea that “there are no metaphorical truths behind religious symbolic expression” seems extreme until you see it with the idea that “there are no master decoders who can tell use that they are and how we must live.”
That is not quite right. The first idea here still feels extreme. It seems more like there are far too many metaphoric truths behind religious symbolic expression for there to be any master-decoders. The power of the code is in its multiplicity. There is no singular decoding that is the correct one, not because the metaphor contains nothing encoded in it but because it contains many things encoded in it.
That brings back the example of a dead versus a living metaphor. Whatever lacks that multiplcity, the ambiguity, that uncertainty is dead.
But another idea from the article you pointed out keeps coming into my attention, what text is free from metaphor?
On the other hand, in any field of inquiry isn’t it the job of the the person in the position of authority to resolve uncertainty? So perhaps the only way to take away the authority of a text decoder is to decide, discover and/or claim that the text under scrutiny is not a code at all?
I don’t know.
Xander,
“It seems more like there are far too many metaphoric truths behind religious symbolic expression for there to be any master-decoders. The power of the code is in its multiplicity.”
I would agree with the latter, but not the former, in the sense that “Truth” – in the kind of deflationary thinking Davidson employs – strictly is only a property of propositions. If one is to say that there are an infinity of powers “behind” metaphorical meanings, then I would say yes. The “truths” behind metaphors are ever under negotiation. They cannot be false in a definitional sense. It is the appeal to the “true” interpretation of religious metaphors, in the propositional sense, that often creates the legality of Faiths.
I think that this is what Nietzsche meant, in part, when he provocatively said that Truth was a “moblile army of metaphors.”
Dunamis
Dunamis,
Let me try to formulate it.
[ Any metaphor is not decodable into any propositional statement different from the original text. ]
or maybe…
[ There are no encoded or otherwise hidden propositional statement inside of any metaphor, thereforce no propositional statement can be decoded from or revealed as having been hidden in metaphor that is different from the original text ]
What do you think?
Xander,
I think it is quite excellent. Or to be metaphorical, I think it’s a bomb.
Dunamis
Xanderman writes:
The trouble is that it assumes that we have the ability to understand the metaphor. Assuming a parable to be an extended metaphor, the parables of Jesus present us with a problem"
The idea suggests the horribly politically incorrect concept that our normal capacity for reason may not be able to understand the spiritual meaning of the parable. Its meaning is not part of our contemporary education. We lack the perspective from what is suggested as eyes to see and ears to hear.
So how can a person without the necessary eyes to see and ears to hear possibly comment on the possibility of inner meanings within this metphor? Assuming the reality of it, by definition it cannot be done. So all articles written by those lacking ears to hear and eyes to see, cannot be taken seriously concerning the inner meanings of this metaphor.
Xander,
“Assuming the reality of it, by definition it cannot be done. So all articles written by those lacking ears to hear and eyes to see, cannot be taken seriously concerning the inner meanings of this metaphor.”
Your innerly pre-confirmed Master-Decoder ring is in the mail. Use it to quote the proper articles. That way you can identity yourself as a member of the Uber-spiritual Elite, those with “eyes” and “ears”. All metaphors fall before its power.
Dunamis
B.
E.
S.
U.
R.
E.
T.
O.
D.
R.
I.
N.
K.
Y.
O.
U.
R.
O.
V.
A.
L.
T.
I.
N.
E.
“Be sure to drink your Ovaltine.” ?!?!? 
Dunamis
It is a tribute to the unsurpassed ingenuity of mankind that he, above all other animals, has two complimentary ways to destroy the relevance of metaphors and parables skillfully missing the point for the preservation of self esteem.
While I believe Dunamis is correct in being wary of the creation of a whole host of experts claiming the ability to interpret deeper meaning and destroying it, it seems to me the height of egotism to assume that no qualitative psychological reality exists beyond the comprehension of literal understanding and certain people are initially more open to it than others.
“it seems to me the height of egotism to assume that no qualitative psychological reality exists beyond the comprehension of literal understanding and certain people are initially more open to it than others.”
No not the height, just a tick below the height of your claim to know it, senor Master Decoder, quotationalist of those with “eyes” and “ears”. Strange how those with “eyes” and "ears’ are those are those that agree with you, and those that don’t agree are both deaf and blind. What was that you were saying about the height of egotism? But of course, you are officially “wretched”…oh Uber-Spiritualist how do you handle such perilous extremes? Brushing up against the cusp of Heaven with your egoless soul, crashing down below all species with your wretchedness. A great man indeed!!!
Dunamis
Dunamis, what have I claimed to know? I’ve experienced my own inner contradiction and what Paul means by the “wretched man.” Maybe this is not you but it is me.
Common sense also tells me that the expression: “the fact that wars appear necessary is proof of our stupidity” does seem quite reasonable. If it is, then it means that our species is subject to the illusions that Plato was referring to and in this sense, blind and deaf.
This is not something to get melodramatic about. There is no claim on my part to be this “Uber-Spiritualist” but only the recognition that there is more to human understanding than what the literal mind is capable of.
Now that’s a neat trick for me since I believe a soul exists in us as a seed, a potential. Not so easy to ponder with Gabriel under those circumstances. However, you do have a point as far as being below all species from not having the ability that Socrates noted which the rest of organic life apparently has which is not to live in contradiction to its own essence:
You have claimed to have “eyes” and to have “ears” for the Truth, eyes and ears that the writers (and readers) of other articles do not possess. Implicit in your claim is that those numerous people that do not agree with your rather simplified conception Plato’s Cave, and endless ramblings about the Great Beast, are deaf and blind to not only your Truth, but a Truth that you and Jesus share together – how cozy it is in the VIP room of the Spiritual Elite it must be. That you do not understand the arrogance of this claim does not surprise me. The aggrandizement of your eyes and ears and dis-compassionate perspective on others compromises your oft’ repeated message – at least to my earless ears and eyeless eyes. Oh, that I might be gnosis-drenched like you.
Dunamis
Dunamis
I’ve just verified this morning that combining the question of the cave with that of compassion can help people to reach a definite conclusion.
I asked people on the street: “excuse me but do you realize you’re in a cave.” They responded: “Do you realize that you’re nuts.” I than asked: “If this is true would it be better to begin with compassion?” They responded: “Now I know you’re nuts.” Obviously then, analysis beginning with the consideration of the implications of the cave and leading to questions of compassion begins with the possibility of being nuts to its affirmation and conclusion that the party in question is nuts.
This of course suggests the possibility that there is truth in it and that the question of compassion can only be truly considered in regards to the human condition itself once one has inwardly verified this condition of the fetters the cave analogy alludes to.
Having come to see what I believe to be the good sense of the cave analogy, is a long way from having ears to hear and eyes to see. I’m just smelling the coffee.
The idea that many are blind and deaf to the significance of the cave analogy in the context of human “being,” as expressed by Socrates, depicts the limitations of literal knowledge.
Why not ridicule Socrates first? He understood this better than I do.
Nick,
“Why not ridicule Socrates first? He understood this better than I do.”
The painful thing is that you seem to have very little understanding of Plato. You seldom reference Plato to explain Plato, but reference Jesus and Ms. Wiel to explain texts quite far from the source. What it appears like is that you have captured a few quotes and analogies off of websites and linked them together. It would be nice if it actually seemed like you have read Plato, or had an understanding of what the Cave meant to the man who wrote it, in the context of his writings. The problem isn’t that I understand things better than Socrates, its that I and anyone who has studied Plato’s body of writings, in all liklihood, understand Plato’s version of Socrates better than you.
Dunamis
I did post a link to the entire cave analogy.
For some reason you insist on putting the desire and capacity to appreciate the psychology of the human condition of everyone on the same level. Everything I’ve read suggests the opposite. Recognition of this difference isn’t eltism but just humility in the face of something greater than my ego.
Previously you pointed out my using Simone Weil as an intellectual source. Clearly she does not take your position. Regardless if you understand better than me, are you also claiming that your intellect allows you to understand Plato’s version of Socrates better than the intellect of Simone Weil who I agree with?
It would help if YOU actually seemed like YOU actually have READ Plato. Not, “I have read someone who has read Plato”. When YOU quote or reference Plato, without the context of the body of his writings, it seems meaningless. When Ms. Wiel does it simply is boring. Because you seem to have not read Plato, you really can’t assess Ms. Wiel’s appropriation of him can you? I’m sure though that you can innerly confirm that Ms. Wiel is correct in her interpretation of Plato without having read him.
What you have quoted of Ms. Wiel does not make her interesting enough for me to delve into and study her sources and reference. I am familiar with the origin of this kind of thinking, the primary source texts of Neo-Platonism from the first few centuries AD, and I am familiar with the expansion of these texts into Spirtualism, which has its most dramatic core in the work of the Bailey and Blavatsky the schools of Theosophy which initiated much of this appropriation – and rather richly so. To read something as derivative as Wiel, or your clipped reference to Socrates and Jesus, simply doesn’t seem fruitful.
Dunamis
Dunamis
There have always been those more comfortable with the exoteric, outer, or secular meanings of the essence of religion within philosophy and those like myself with an interest in the esoteric or inner meanings. A person could make the argument that the cave analogy is secular and political through their readings but I don’t believe so regardless of political climates of the times. This is not a matter of how much is read but how it is understood.
The same thing goes on now with Christianity. For example, it has become fashionable to assert that its origin is nothing more than an Orthodox Jewish sect on the level of Secular Humanism thereby secularizing Christianity. These ideas will always be regardless of how much is read because it is how it is understood.
I can see why because you don’t understand her purpose When she was with the Communist Party her intellect was revered.
The point here is that she outgrew Communism from the experience of putting herself into the position of the oppressed and not just philosophizing about it which her keen mind was quite capable of.
This often appears boring. It is much more exciting to philosophize about the essential realities of life rather than attempting to openly experience life in the raw. She was able to recognize the effects of cave life from the direct experience of what is lost from the blind acceptance of it.
Being open to the experience of life is not arguing about right and wrong but simply to see and experience what is there. It appears boring because there is nothing to fight about but just the willingness to experience what is there with the whole of oneself rather than restrict oneself to philosophizing and arguing about it.
She invites you to consciously experience rather than argue and for many, because we cannot do it, this is boring. It’s more exciting to argue.
Her sources are life’s experiences. Though she graduated with a degree in philosophy and taught it, it was life that was her real teacher. Most books about her now are just collections of her letters and notes most of which were not really meant for publication. So the source is to look inside.
The idea of re-birth is before Plato’s time and flourished during ancient Egypt. Of course Theosophy delved into these things and some of its occult practices were even known under the table by certain people in Christianity as being quite normal. Blavatsky herself was relieved to learn that there were certain people associated with Christianity that understood a bit deeper. Here is an excerpt from a letter by the sister of Helena Blavatsky:
You may not think it fruitful and this is your opinion. However, I believe that the essential question as to whether Man is capable of a change in his being allowing for a quality of perspective that transcends the limitations of our corrupt egotism in pursuit of “meaning” that we deny ourselves is potentially very fruitful. Where philosophizing as it is now often practiced advocates reducing meaning to our level of self importance, esoteric Christianity seeks to elevate our being beyond self importance in order to receive the essential experience of “meaning.” This is living philosophy.
To some this can be boring but to others, it can be an eye opener.
I think it hilarious that you demand that Plato was an esotericist, despite the historical and self-expressed (in a huge body of writings) likelihood that he was not. Your desire to turn a brief analogy (a paragraph) from his philosophy into a secret doctrinal fact of earth-shattering significance, to be interpreted not by his writings (hundreds and hundreds of pages) but by Jesus and “Egyptians”, is beyond the pale.
Dunamis
Dunamis, there is no demand and there is no secret doctrine. The only thing secret is certain techniques when one is involved with inner work because if they only serve to strengthen egotism, they cause far more harm than good. Common sense is rejected because it is both insulting and frightening to the ego.
The exoteric outlook concerns itself with what one does for the sake of functioning. The psychology associated with it desires to help one become a better functioning machine in service to societie’s standards.
The esoteric outlook concerns itself with primarily what a person IS for the sake of impartial understanding. From this perspective, a person balances the needs of others with their own in the context of wisdom unimportant for the exoteric perspective.
Consider these quotations from Socrates. Do they imply an exoteric or esoteric perspective to you?
What knowledge do you think he is referring to? Is it the results of the literal mind furthering egotistic self importance or is it a higher quality of knowledge associated with wisdom beyond the limitations of self importance and its justification through the literal mind?
If wisdom was his concern at the expense of his egotism, then his interests were esoteric.
Then there is the affirmation of the “Great Beast” himself expressed in the indictment of Socrates:
The beast is in full glory. He even brings the kids into it.
The beast personifies the exoteric good while Socrates takes the role of the esoteric perspective of it in the context of wisdom. If this appears hilarious than ho, ho, ho, to you to.
Jees Nick. So many bloody words. Don’t you ever try to explain something from your OWN perspective?
A