Symbolism

[shirgall]

Modern mass media makes fun of idiot savants that know so much, can figure out complicated systems, but don't "get" symbolism. Think "Big Bang Theory" or even "Iron Man".

 

However, symbolism is one of the major attack vectors to manipulating mass opinion. Resistance to symbolism is an *asset*.

 

I encounter this far too frequently with people who choose metaphors to understand complicated concepts, yet the metaphors are not apt or applicable. I always marvel at Stef managing to pick metaphors that actually have few problems in this regard.

 

Am I broken because I resist symbolism? I don't go the mass media route of not understanding it. I just reject it most of the time.

[thebeardslastcall]

There's a difference between not reacting because you're blind to the alleged threat and seeing the alleged threat as a paper tiger and choosing to ignore or 'resist' the notion of its danger.

You might say the idiot savant is thus broken in a useful way, while you're not broken, but can see the situation and assess it properly. You are using symbols in many ways you're just resisting the ones you see as corrupted probably. If this is the case that would be an asset in avoiding lies, while knowing that lies are being told. Why would you think you might be broken if you're asserting throughout your post the virtues of resisting symbolism? Are you afraid of some kind of mockery by the masses because you're pointing out the emperor has no clothes while everyone else is pretending he does? Do you have any specific examples to help clarify what concerns you and what you're specifically resisting (and why)?

[Kurtis]

Seems to me it's an intelligence thing.

 

Your example of the show "Big Bang Theory" is spot on.  The jokes are based off of the high intelligence people not "understanding" symbolism, whereas a funnier (or more watchable) show for me would be the reverse.

 

To the less intelligent, the manipulation in the media is not so blatantly obvious.  This almost seems to be by design, as the 12+ years of state education certainly do not create a very discernible audience.  And in case there is that odd person who has a mind capable of seeing truth and speaking out, everyone is nicely programmed to shout them down.  The intelligent are discredited before the conversation even begins.

 

Imagine a show like the Big Bang Theory where the smart people being portrayed as bumbling fools for not "getting" symbolism were instead, as you aptly mentioned, resisting symbolism.  That would change things drastically and be very counterproductive to the current media/societal narrative.  People might start thinking critically...

[dsayers]

Am I broken because I resist symbolism?

By broken, do you man "we'll drug you since you won't conform"?

 

Symbolism, like any short hand, suffers from being imprecise. It can mean different things to different people. How many people use the symbol "NAP" without having fleshed out the rationale that leads to that conclusion? If two people have a firm grasp and are in agreement of what a symbol means, then it can be a tool of efficiency in communication between them.

 

The problem here in the context of media is that ideas are being broadcast to untold numbers of people. In order to be understood uniformly, you'd need to communicate in the simplest, most precise fashion possible. However, communicating ideas isn't what the mainstream media is for. It's for REINFORCING ideas. Which symbols are fantastic for since this shortcut past precision is beneficial.

[shirgall]

Having thought a little more about it, I'm wondering if it is because I did math and programming from an early age, and as a result I always saw symbols as abstractions of real things, and that symbols were meant to be manipulated by the program to get desired results.

Do you have any specific examples to help clarify what concerns you and what you're specifically resisting (and why)?

 

An example is all the symbolism around the armed forces and their projection of power around the globe. Duty, honor, country, the flag (sometimes draped on returning coffins). I was especially concerned recently with the news from Turkey.

 

Another item that came to mind recently is I was having a discussion about "too big to fail" with my daughter, and how what really was underneath that was which large institutions supported the Fed and were therefore immune from destruction. That such institutions were described as "bedrock" and so on was another piece of symbolism without merit.

[Kurtis]

 

An example is all the symbolism around the armed forces and their projection of power around the globe. Duty, honor, country, the flag (sometimes draped on returning coffins). I was especially concerned recently with the news from Turkey.

 

 

I'm sorry, am a bit confused.  Are you concerned that you resist these symbols or that so many others do not?  (or some other option I'm not seeing?)

 

 

 

 

 

Am I broken because I resist symbolism?

 

I didn't think this was a serious question, because you had said previously that such resistance was an asset. I'm sure your daughter will be thankful that you are able to resist the propaganda symbols of the state.

[shirgall]

I was more interested in why resisting symbols is portrayed as a disability by the media. Of course, the media loves its symbols because they are easy to use.

 

Of course, I also remember that George Carlin said, "symbols are for the symbol-minded." It might have been a bigger influence than I thought.

[dsayers]

Of course, I also remember that George Carlin said, "symbols are for the symbol-minded." It might have been a bigger influence than I thought.

He also said "I was a Catholic... until I reached the age of reason." Hearing this was the first real dissent I had heard with regards to my own religious programming, which precipitated my eventual acceptance that there is no deity.

 

I was once given a Carlin quote a day desktop calendar as a xmas gift. One day's quote said something like "Religion; The last resort of a man who has no arguments" or something to that effect. It annoyed me dad to such an extent that years later, when Carlin died, he had a smug sense of satisfaction, and said something like "I guess now he gets to find out he was wrong."

 

Carlin was a smart man even if he got a lot of stuff wrong too. It's because of the intelligence in the 2nd half of his comedy career that soured me to low-brow comedy (including much of his earlier work, ironically).

[Kurtis]

I was more interested in why resisting symbols is portrayed as a disability by the media.

 

 

 

Ahh yes, well that would make sense. Makes it easy to discredit the resisters.

[thebeardslastcall]

I was more interested in why resisting symbols is portrayed as a disability by the media. Of course, the media loves its symbols because they are easy to use.

They're trying to rule people and you're resisting and denying that rule, of course they're going to gun you down. It's treason to deny or work to undermine the power of the state to rule. Rulers want unchallenged rule and influence over their herd. From their perspective you are broken in the sense that you aren't working for them anymore. You're an annoying kink in their machine disrupting smooth flow. People that want to be free however hate that machine and see breaking it as a good thing. Broken is only a problem if the thing being broken is a good thing, but if it's a bad thing then breaking it is a good thing. Breaking the bad without also breaking the good is the challenge and distinction that can be difficult to make. Symbolism isn't so much the problem, as you've admitted you only reject some symbolism, because it's more the corruption of symbols that causes so many problems. They need you to first accept a symbol to make corrupting it of any use to them.

 

The better distinction is realizing when a symbol has been corrupted and when it's appropriately used and assessed. Symbols are just a shorthand for something greater, but if we lose the attachment, accepting the symbol, without understanding what the symbol really means, then that is when symbolism turns dangerous and is open to corruption by the media. That is really what they want, blind symbolism, which turns a symbol for some idea or quality into a symbol for someone's rule, like the state. They want you to follow the state flag, the rulers, not following what the government was originally alleged to have stood for, but merely to follow their rule, however divergent it may be from the original idea that the flag was made to represent. That's why symbols are dangerous, because it's hard to maintain them without corruption. Symbolism turns so frequently into tribalism, statism, and dogma.

 

 

I was once given a Carlin quote a day desktop calendar as a xmas gift. One day's quote said something like "Religion; The last resort of a man who has no arguments" or something to that effect. It annoyed me dad to such an extent that years later, when Carlin died, he had a smug sense of satisfaction, and said something like "I guess now he gets to find out he was wrong."

 

Religious people say stuff like that a lot, but it's a lie. Carlin didn't get to find out he was wrong after he died and neither will your dad after he's dead. Neither atheist nor theist gets to find out and learn if they were right or wrong after they're dead. They're gone and their time for learning is over. He acted smugly, as many do, completely in ignorance of what a ridiculous statement they are making. They're just saying they believe they are right, without any further evidence for their case, as if the possibility (in their mind) confirms the their blind belief. It's a very arrogant thing to say and the commonality of such thoughts and statements shows how arrogant people tend to be. You can only be proven right or wrong if you are right or wrong, but you can't be proven right if you're wrong or wrong if you're right and most people haven't a clue. If I'm right about death then people never get to confirm it when they die, which is interesting I think, in comparison to the counter notion whereby they've setup a situation whereby they imagine they can both prove others wrong and themselves right. Another reason why people like to believe in such things, because they can give themselves a pat on the back for that extra layer of 'win', the common satisfaction people get not just when they've won, but when their perceived or claimed enemy or opponent realizes they've lost. I know I've had that sort of feeling before, the satisfaction from 'complete victory', where your opponent surrenders. That's a natural thing to try to achieve in many ways, which is why we get a reward feeling for achieving it, because it's in line with survival, but people's over-developed egos will extend that into the otherworldly to give themselves a false ego boost, which is in the same basic realm as overconfidence or overestimating yourself which is extremely prevalent for adaptive reasons.

[dsayers]

I hear you. It's absolutely horrifying when you think about it. He is so dependent on win-lose interactions that he chalks a person's death up as a "win" for him because Carlin disagreed with him about something he has no proof of. That was the man whom I was exposed to during my formative years. It's infuriating considering I lost over 3 decades of my life due to this destructive behavior.