The Cross

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Only Special To God

I am not sure Alex! But, I do recollect a story about him tearing down a temple!

I am sorry, but I think that would be considered sacrilege, and should not be shown out in public. If someone wants to see something like that in private, that is their business. But, I would prefer not to be subjected to someones idea of art that is in bad taste. How do you explain something like that to children and or teenagers?

I feel that the cross/crucifix should be revered, not be vitiated.

God Bless, brother
Ian

I am pretty sure that he'd 'turn the other cheek' lol it's just a photo... To lower one's self to anger and violence because of a photograph... Seems, petty.

[Only Special To God]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Scars, will disappear with time and proper care.

v/r

Q

You are correct in some aspects Q. It is just some go a little deeper than most, and some it feels like they will never heal. But, I am forever hopeful, and I always feel that God has gotten me this far, and I am anxious to see what he has in store for me next. As life does keep getting better and better as I go forward in life.

Thank you Q.
God Bless
Ian

[Only Special To God]

Originally Posted by Alex P

I am pretty sure that he'd 'turn the other cheek' lol it's just a photo... To lower one's self to anger and violence because of a photograph... Seems, petty.

We don't know what he would do. ***psst** (the turning of the other cheek, was when he was slapped in the face.)

You are correct in a way Alex, but I can not be the only one who would be upset by seeing something like that.

No violence, well maybe a little fire in the backyard BBQ grill.....starting with the picture! lol

Ian

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

It's not that there is something "wrong" with it but rather it reveals us for what we are. Our egotism and its imagined self importance has become so dominant that many no longer respect sacred symbols and their value for our being. The purpose of art is now to provoke dialogue. Calling it expression devalues its importance so we prefer to call it art and devalue art instead.

What a species we've become.

Symbols are like storage devices. Whatever you invest in a symbol you can retrieve and exchange later. Symbols have no inherent value of their own. Whatever shared value they have has been assigned to them by people who agree about the custom and currency of their exchange. Symbols may represent a shared value of sacredness, but they are not themselves sacred. Piss Christ is like a hall of mirrors in that it is a self-explanatory, sort of self-unzipping symbol of the nature of symbols. It is a symbolic critique of the nature of symbolism that self-unwraps for the observer without the need for language beyond it's title. And the protest it generates is valid street theater which becomes part of the performance art surrounding the object.

Chris

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Symbols are like storage devices. Whatever you invest in a symbol you can retrieve and exchange later. Symbols have no inherent value of their own. Whatever shared value they have has been assigned to them by people who agree about the custom and currency of their exchange. Symbols may represent a shared value of sacredness, but they are not themselves sacred. Piss Christ is like a hall of mirrors in that it is a self-explanatory, sort of self-unzipping symbol of the nature of symbols. It is a symbolic critique of the nature of symbolism that self-unwraps for the observer without the need for language beyond it's title. And the protest it generates is valid street theater which becomes part of the performance art surrounding the object.

Chris

Since I believe in an objective reality that is beyond the limitations of our subjective comprehension, it is natural for me to accept the idea of "archetypes" as suggested by Carl Jung for example.

Jungian archetypes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The archetypes form a dynamic substratum common to all humanity, upon the foundation of which each individual builds his own experience of life, developing a unique array of psychological characteristics. Thus, while archetypes themselves may be conceived as a relative few innate nebulous forms, from these may arise innumerable images, symbols and patterns of behavior. While the emerging images and forms are apprehended consciously, the archetypes which inform them are elementary structures which are unconscious and more difficult to apprehend. Being unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining behaviour, images, art, myths, etc. They are inherited potentials which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or manifest in behaviour on interaction with the outside world.

Archetypes are a connection between conscious reality and our subjective interpretations. Piss Christ is just a subjective interpretation arrived at by some person with a need to vent and acquire self importance rather than ponder the archetype itself. Our difference seems to be that you deny the conscious origin of the archetype, while I respect and value it as a connection to consciousness and the cross is just such an archetype.

For you, prostituting it is meaningless because its meaning is just our own creation while to me prostituting it just prevents the archetype from becoming that bridge between conscious reality and our unconscious reactive life. I believe I understand what you mean but must disagree with it since IMO archetypes are connected to objective meaning.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Only Special To God

I am not sure Alex! But, I do recollect a story about him tearing down a temple!

Are you referring to flipping over tables? This is how mythology expands yes?

[Dream]

This statement is no longer true: "Being unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining behaviour, images, art, myths, etc." The geometric archetypes rule intelligent behavior from the least to the greatest. Geometric appreciation is the underlying principle that drives all intelligence we've seen on earth so far. That is, time-dependent variances in sensation are basic triggers for neural activity. That's why when you hear a song you like, then just like a drug your brain will probably want to experience it again.

Geometric appreciation appears to be the underlying principle by which our facilities are activated and without which excitation for complex behavior ceases. This is really what Nick_A's words express to me when he says "The archetypes form a dynamic substratum common to all humanity, upon the foundation of which each individual builds his own experience of life, developing a unique array of psychological characteristics." Geometry lights up the mind, accounts for our appreciation of tonality and harmony in music and our strong reaction to certain ratios in figures - such as the golden mean. It is probably why babies die when they are not touched, why music is so attractive, how feng-shui works, and how people are sexy.

Now if you take any figure and focus upon it intently you will begin to appreciate many aspect of it that you didn't before as your mind attempts to 'Zen' itself to the object -- meaning you will strain to find neural excitation in it. Focus your mind on a circle, square, hexagon, person's face, or any other figure. Do it for long enough and you will discover relationships in it you hadn't noticed in it before. Don't do it for too long, because there is a limit to your mental energy. You may begin to hallucinate relationships that aren't there. Similarly, a favorite song can eventually become tiresome.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Since I believe in an objective reality that is beyond the limitations of our subjective comprehension, it is natural for me to accept the idea of "archetypes" as suggested by Carl Jung for example.

Jungian archetypes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The archetypes form a dynamic substratum common to all humanity, upon the foundation of which each individual builds his own experience of life, developing a unique array of psychological characteristics. Thus, while archetypes themselves may be conceived as a relative few innate nebulous forms, from these may arise innumerable images, symbols and patterns of behavior. While the emerging images and forms are apprehended consciously, the archetypes which inform them are elementary structures which are unconscious and more difficult to apprehend. Being unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining behaviour, images, art, myths, etc. They are inherited potentials which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or manifest in behaviour on interaction with the outside world.

Archetypes are a connection between conscious reality and our subjective interpretations. Piss Christ is just a subjective interpretation arrived at by some person with a need to vent and acquire self importance rather than ponder the archetype itself. Our difference seems to be that you deny the conscious origin of the archetype, while I respect and value it as a connection to consciousness and the cross is just such an archetype.

For you, prostituting it is meaningless because its meaning is just our own creation while to me prostituting it just prevents the archetype from becoming that bridge between conscious reality and our unconscious reactive life. I believe I understand what you mean but must disagree with it since IMO archetypes are connected to objective meaning.

I'm hip to archetypes and symbols, I just don't venerate them. If I look up from the keyboard, on the book cubby right in front of my face with my reference books is Jung's Man And His Symbols. I don't disagree with what you're saying, I just wanted to take a different tack to show why Piss Christ is legitimate art. I figured I'm the only one who will do it.

Chris

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I'm hip to archetypes and symbols, I just don't venerate them. If I look up from the keyboard, on the book cubby right in front of my face with my reference books is Jung's Man And His Symbols. I don't disagree with what you're saying, I just wanted to take a different tack to show why Piss Christ is legitimate art. I figured I'm the only one who will do it.

Chris

You call Piss Christ legitimate art. Naturally this raises the question of your definition of art and specifically "legitimate art." If everyome makes up their own definition then it has no meaning and anything is legitimate art. So what is your definition?

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

You call Piss Christ legitimate art. Naturally this raises the question of your definition of art and specifically "legitimate art." If everyome makes up their own definition then it has no meaning and anything is legitimate art. So what is your definition?

No.

Chris

[17th Angel]

nevermind.

[Thomas]

The Meaning of Symbol

Hi Kim –

St Irenaeus, the first systematic theologian after the Apostles, spoke of "rectifying that disobedience which had occurred by reason of a tree, through that obedience which was upon the tree (of the cross)" (Adv. Haers. V, 16, 3).

+++

The very ambiguity of the term 'symbol' is a key to its understanding — the term is most commonly defined in the context of a greater hermeneutic — and so the term will take on different meanings according to its deployment in context.

The origin of the term is from the Greek sumbalon which literally means “thrown together.”

When two people were making a business deal, they would break the sumbolon in half, and each person would get a piece. Upon completion of the deal, before the final money traded hands, the two pieces were brought back together to confirm that the original parties were in fact whom they said they were or were their representatives.

So this broken token became the word for symbol: two pieces of reality, 'I' and 'thou', 'self' and 'other', 'man' and 'God' — the visible and the invisible, brought together in unity.

In the very early church, the horrors of crucifixion was known to most Christians, probably having known of someone who had been killed this way, or some other equally brutal method. It is not surprising to learn that the earliest extant visual image of the crucifixion is around 420, a good 100 years after the practice was discontinued. When Christians first began using the symbol, it was not the literal, brutally crucified Christ but the victorious Christ as King.

The cross no longer symbolized the shame and utter annihilation the Romans intended. For them it was Christ’s victory over sin and death that was the important thing to symbolize, not how horribly He suffered.

Now, two millennia removed, in the hands of the world the symbol has become ubiquitous and innocuous, representing neither suffering nor life ... in fact representing nothing at all ... modernity wears symbols to highlight the self, not the object symbolised ... another case of the inversion of traditional wisdom.

+++

Christian metaphysics draws a distinction between 'sign' and 'symbol' — the former represents (literally re-presents) something which stands in the place of something else. The function of the sign is to direct one to the object, or indicate the the object is here. Thus a sign is never what it signifies — and this is the crucial distinction.

A symbol not only signifies something (ie directs towards it), it also immanently connected to it, or put another way, the thing symbolised is present and or accessible in and through the symbol.

This may sound pure fantasy to modern ears, but we live in an age where the literal and empirical takes precedence over all. What I have just said regarding symbols is the common stock of every spiritual tradition of the planet ... indeed it is fundamental to magic (which works by the law of correspondence) and magic — in itself — is a sub-spiritual practice.

The veneration of the Sacred Name for example, is a clear example of a symbol (without it, prayer becomes nothing more than talking to oneself). The contemplation of an ikon is another.

Contemplation of a symbol therefore opens the possibility of connecting to the essence of the thing symbolised. The symbol then becomes 'real', indeed more real than the world! The Cross is the portal to Eternal Life.

+++

Path of One has written of the Celtic Cross ... I should like to mention another, the carving of a 'rose' at axis of the vertical and the horizontal ... this aspect of the symbol traces its origin to the Sacred Heart, the blood poured forth ...

+++

Thomas

[Dondi]

The Cross to me is not so important as the person which hung upon it. Crucifixion is a Roman institution. It was merely the tool in which the Savior committed His Life to us. Had Christ been slained with a sword I suppose we would be hanging a Gladius around our necks instead of a cross.

Really, the empty tomb ought to be our symbol of victory, but I guess that's hard to make into an ornament out of it. But if I had to chose a cross, it wouldn't be a crucifix (no offense to our Catholic brethren). An empty cross reminds me that He is risen, He is no more hanging onto death.

But if I had to choose a c

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Dondi

The Cross to me is not so important as the person which hung upon it.

I like that bit.... In my opinon what is important is how he lived, not how he died :P

[earl]

Originally Posted by Dondi

The Cross to me is not so important as the person which hung upon it. Crucifixion is a Roman institution. It was merely the tool in which the Savior committed His Life to us. Had Christ been slained with a sword I suppose we would be hanging a Gladius around our necks instead of a cross.

Really, the empty tomb ought to be our symbol of victory, but I guess that's hard to make into an ornament out of it. But if I had to chose a cross, it wouldn't be a crucifix (no offense to our Catholic brethren). An empty cross reminds me that He is risen, He is no more hanging onto death.

But if I had to choose a c

Dondi, that has acutally always been my view as well. For me, the crucifix seems to focus on the pre-death moments of absolute suffering, as opposed to the fullness of the life Jesus was preaching and displaying. Of course, many religious traditions centrally discuss the common existential condition of suffering. So I supppose depicting suffering certainly has its place in spiritual tradiitons. Just never understood why so many Christian traditions want to feature it so exclusively. Earl