• UngeGosh
    9
    Hello everyone!

    I have an idea for an essay and would love some inspiration from you guys.

    Everything is always evolving and in recent years technological and societal changes are reflected in a narrative of rapid transformation. Nowadays we expect that much in everyday life will change in the foreseeable future. Examples are jobs, politics, technology, relationships etc..

    At the same time I think humans long for stability and that we want to recognize what's around us. Some things in our experience of the world seem to be stable and in our views eternal.

    My questions are: what do you see as eternal? What do you relate to stability? And what are marks of these concepts in our society? It can be stories, events, objects...

    Examples that I've found:
    -sunrise and sunset
    - time
    - God (in some societies)
    - the concept of eternity
  • javra
    2.5k
    Much of this will be contestable, so I’m up to hearing of alternative slants.

    Eternity is limitless time. Infinity (i.e., “without end”) is tmk nowadays commonly interpreted more spatially, as in limitless space--I'm guessing due to its mathematical applications, with maths not consisting of time. Both can be abstracted to address particulars—e.g., an eternal universal such as that of “the Good” that stands in contrast to transient physical givens; e.g., a line whose length is infinite in contrast to its width. Likewise both can be abstracted to address everything as generality—e.g., space-time as being itself limitless.

    Irrespective of the veracity to these abstractions—some of which often enough contradict when compared—their common denominator is the concept of limitlessness.

    I currently know of only two possible symbols for limitlessness: the lemniscate (i.e., ∞, which can be interpreted to be a perfect circle twisted in upon itself) and the ouroboros (an imaginary animal consisting only of a head (mind) and the tale (body) which grows due to the actions of the mind—often represented as a snake or a worm—that can only subsist by means of taking into itself its own tail. It’s commonly stated to represent the endless cycle of life and death at a cosmic level—hence, limitlessness of cosmic being. Roughly speaking, it can also be interpreted in terms of karma, akin to: you, we, or else everything will need to take into itself tomorrow those effects that are produced today).

    However, the lemniscate—though a symbol for that which is limitless (without end)—is again nowadays commonly interpreted more spatially than temporally (though technically it just stipulates “without limits”). On the other hand, the symbolic implications of the ouroboros—while they more readily connote the limitlessness of time—are often lost on us modern folk, with its more precise meanings seeming to be anybody’s guess (my own liberties in previously describing its symbolic meaning fully included).

    I’ve no ideal of how stability can be represented via a precise symbol—but am aware of cultures that use the symbol of a rock for this purpose; e.g., the philosopher’s stone as, possibly, symbol for Sophia (wisdom), this among alchemists; or our own cultural saying of “steady as a rock”.
  • UngeGosh
    9
    I agree, the lemniscate seems to be everywhere in our present society, whereas the ouroboros has lost its meaning. If I where to look at it without conscious interpretation, I would just see it as a mythological expression from the past.

    I think the rock is such a symbol that I'm looking for. It seems to me that things that we know stand the test of time can represent the concept of stability.

    Interesting that you brought up the philosopher's stone. Isn't "the truth" also a concept that most of us see as something eternal?
  • A Seagull
    615
    The Lion and the Unicorn. The lion for stability and the unicorn for eternity.
  • DiegoT
    318
    Stability is sometimes represented with a square. The square, or number four, means stability because it is a point of dinamic equilibrium between opposite forces. Like the pillars Boaz and Hachim in the Solomon´s temple myth.
  • javra
    2.5k
    Isn't "the truth" also a concept that most of us see as something eternal?UngeGosh

    Sure. One could argue that the truth is a) always uncreated (we don’t, for example, create the truths we perceive—such as in, “look, a tree is over there”; we merely report them in an honest way to the best of our abilities … or else remain conformant to them by not creating fabrications regarding, in this case, what was perceived) … as well as b) ubiquitous (even our occasional deceptions, which are fabrications that we of ourselves create (in this case, as willfully given lies), are dependent upon some common agreement upon that which is true—such as the truth that trees as real givens on planet earth—so whether we’re addressing truths or deceptions, it’s all dependent upon a necessary preexistence of truth). In line with this type of reasoning, given that truth is both uncreated and ubiquitous, one can then fairly easily conclude that truth itself is eternal.

    But then when it comes to symbolic representations of “the truth”, these to my knowledge can vary greatly between cultures. Being a Westerner, “light” comes to mind; from an even more Abrahamic slant, also the dove as symbol for the holy ghost. Though of an utterly different nature, the yin-yang relation in Eastern cultures, I currently believe, could maybe also serve as a symbol for truth. Thing is, if all symbols are of our creation, and if truth is metaphysically uncreated, no symbol would adequately represent the truth itself as a metaphysical given.

    Eh, my best current musings on the subject.
  • DiegoT
    318
    very interesting approach to truth as being Eternal. It makes a lot of sense.

    Javra writes: "Thing is, if all symbols are of our creation, and if truth is metaphysically uncreated, no symbol would adequately represent the truth itself as a metaphysical given". Well, while conventional signs (traffic signs, letters...) are very much determined by humans, symbols in their specific meaning as elements studied by Symbology are not exactly our creation. They always contain a strong natural element, because they are talking to our subconscious and not our conscious selves. For example, totalitarian ideologies (nazism, fascism, socialism, comunism...) tend to use RED a lot in their symbols, and this is no coincidence: red is a colour that makes us think of blood, fighting, transgression, passion. You can not pretend to make a revolution dressed in pink or like a fancy macaw, and that´s why LGTB movements are more annoying than really dangerous. Antifa on the contrary, got it right: red for passion and violence, and black for power and rebellion. Red and Black, in its essence, means Chaos and rejection of Light. Peaceful movements tend to use White: white is light, because it contains all colours; and purity, becouse clean linen is white, and all pure, white pieces of cloth are nothing but a reminder of snow coming from the heavenly level and covering the Earth with perfectly drinkable water, something that ancient cavemen got to see quite often. Only peoples that never left hot regions miss that connection, because they don´t usually see snow; and so white becomes the colour of death, or of a person who looks foreign; and the impressions of the vibration are then turn to black (symbolic inversion). So my point is if that even if you don´t know about symbology the corresponding natural vibration, condensed in colour, shape, sound...in symbols are still felt by your body-mind very strongly, and that makes symbols a natural thing and not just cultural.
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    5k
    What do you view as symbols for eternity and stability?
    @Hanover 's looks. :up:
  • javra
    2.5k


    I can at least in part concede, and agree. From my vantage: When we do devise symbols, we don’t do so from and in relation to nothing but, instead, in relation to the structures of our world—be these physical or metaphysical. Colors can at times serve as a good example of such symbols. On the side: I once gathered from anthropology that languages in which there’s distinction between only two hews always discern between white/light and black/dark; those with three hews always add on the color red; those with only four always add on either blue or green. Going by this alone (though its only a vague memory), our relation to colors is far more complex than merely that which we choose to be.

    In my defense, though, I was aiming at pithiness. Here granting some degree of metaphysical speculation, and in a manner of speaking, I was ignoring the middlemen of all those conceivable universals that to any degree do hold limitations, are hence not limitless, and, thereby, which hold any type of discernable form (form in a Platonic sense of the term—though I’m not addressing this from the vantage of Platonism). Any particular color can serve as example of a limited universal. however, so far, I interpret givens such as that of “the Good” and “truth” to hold metaphysically formless presence—this thought they converge with form … either in the affirmative or as negations, in the latter case thereby resulting in the bad and in falsity, respectively (Hence, with both the bad and falsity being contingent upon the existential presence of the good and truth, respectively—such that while the latter are metaphysically eternal the former are not).

    So, given this frame of mind: To represent that which is metaphysically formless is to assign it form—thereby not capturing the formless given which is being addressed, but at best only pointing toward it.

    Edit: my dyslexic self edited some mishaps.
  • javra
    2.5k
    Hanover 's looks. :up:ArguingWAristotleTiff

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :wink: :razz:
  • Hanover
    12.8k
    No one has ever actually seen me, either on this board or anywhere. I'm a Ninjew. I just made that up. I know it sounds like that's one I've been saving for just the right time, but, no, it's a Hanoriginal. I'm on fire. Fire I tell you.
  • UngeGosh
    9

    I agree, the question isn't if the symbol for truth is "true" in itself. Rather if truth, if being symbolized also means the eternal?
  • UngeGosh
    9


    Isn't change in itself considered to be an eternal concept? How is this represented in symbols?
  • DiegoT
    318
    "So, given this frame of mind: To represent that which is metaphysically formless is to assign it form—thereby not capturing the formless given which is being addressed, but at best only pointing toward it".

    Yes Havra, "pointing toward it" is the point. No symbol is the actual real thing in itself; but a symbol must partake of the reality it manifests for us. Like epiphanies, that are symbols of the Divine. For instance, formless emptiness is represented in cosmic wheels as an empty centre. It is "this nothing in the middle" that allows the wheel to spin and become a wheel, as the Tao te ching explained. So this axis is not universal Vacuum, but it is that vacuum in the representation, by virtue of what it shares, or partakes of, the Cosmic Emptiness: being the centre and source with no inner limitations.

    Likewise, a circle is not Infinity, but it is infinity in the limited geometric context where is presented. If the painting is the whole universe, then the ouroboros is the rhythm of eternal motion; it doesn´t just represents it, it really is in the given context.
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    The dharma wheel (dharmachakra):

    File:USAF_Religion_Pin_3.svg
  • Tzeentch
    3.7k
    In Taoist philosophy the feminine is seen as a symbol for everlasting.

    "The Valley Spirit never dies.
    It is named the Mysterious Female.
    And the doorway of the Mysterious Female
    Is the base from which Heaven and Earth sprang.
    It is there within us all the while;
    Draw upon it as you will, it never runs dry."
    - Lao Tzu, Tao Te Jing, Ch. 6.
  • All sight
    333
    It's just a jump to the left...

  • DiegoT
    318
    yes, but bear in mind that "Feminine" in Taoist and similar traditions in the West is not synonym with "womanly", but a way to refer to a trascendent cosmic principle, ultimaly unknowable. Women and Men, when they can escape gender politics indoctrination and breed-like-hell religions, tend to become the human incarnation of these principles; but Yin is not woman, woman is Yin. Likewise, religious iconography is not full of penises, but male penises are a human embodiment of the cosmic or spiritual principle of the Phallus.
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    5k
    Likewise, religious iconography is not full of penises, but male penises are a human embodiment of the cosmic or spiritual principle of the Phallus.DiegoT

    And we are in the lounge...
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.