Common Themes

 

Symbol Atrophy and Symbol Metastasis:
Technically ‘symbol atrophy’ is the usage of a symbol (actions, words or deeds) past its efficacy, a once adequate or accurate symbol that is no longer adequate or accurate because the desired and intended meaning has changed from the current symbol and meaning. Thus the act of placing a small paper heart in a homemade lunch might have once been an adequate and accurate love symbol, but when a person finds the action more chore than meaningfully loving, the symbol has atrophied and no longer means precisely what it once did. (This is also a wonderful example of why symbols are constantly changing and in constant need of negotiation in a relationship.) It is important to note that despite a certain level of symbol inadequacy and inaccuracy, often partially atrophied symbols can retain some measure of functionality, even adequate functionality, for long periods of time.

‘Symbol Metastasis’, however, is the collapsing of desired intended meaning with its symbol even when out of context. Such movement of meaning to the symbol itself is a sort of objectification and fetishization of the symbol. Thus if the same person later feels the sharp electric jolt of passionate love while cutting out hearts for a political fundraiser, the symbol is metastasized. Usually adequate functionality is lost more quickly with a metastasized symbol than an atrophied symbol.

(Humorously enough, when I write I’ll occasionally confuse the two, often using ‘symbol metastasis’ when I mean ‘symbol atrophy’ – and is why the above link currently only tags ‘symbol atrophy’. I intend to remedy this soon-ish.)

Of interest, I think it’s often the case that intimate relationships do not have a solidly functional level of clear and transparent love symbols (being symbols both adequate and accurate for both individuals). Thus when either party tries to add any sort of uxory or kink to a relationship the confusion of more complexity not only often results in further inadequacy or inaccuracy in their communication, but also further symbol atrophy and metastasis. And as metaphorical ‘framework blindspots’ atrophy and metastasis are much more difficult problems recognize let alone solve than inadequacy and inaccuracy.

Symbol Adequacy and Symbol Accuracy:
These two are closely related as both involve the concept of ‘good enough’. If a symbol were akin to an orienteering sign, accuracy deals with a symbol’s definitional ‘heading’ and direction on the compass, but adequacy deals with a symbol’s degree or ‘distance’ travel. Together they form a ‘functionality vector’, e.g. plain heart shaped paper in a homemade lunch may be an accurate direction for a functional love symbol, but some sort of decoration denoting effort and passion might be needful for a functionally adequate love symbol as well. 

The truly fascinating thing about adequacy and accuracy is how we use them; in conjunction with our mental framework they form an interior symbol compass, by which we can sense when a symbol ‘feels right’, when it is ‘good enough’ for the expression we want. (For an example see the poem-symbol The Endless Battle.)  I believe this ‘feels right’ interior compass sensation is caused by the new symbol’s fitted-ness, functionality and coherence with the general structure and other symbols of our interior mental framework, rather like puzzle pieces of symbol and meaning.

When lower level adequacy and accuracy form a merely ’good enough’ symbol for a specific circumstance, such a symbol is also prone to have more temporary efficacy, a more ephemeral meaning, and a more mundane significance because “sometimes a [symbol] is just a label, just a temporary net designed to catch just enough meaning and haul it across the void between persons.

On the other hand, a higher number of (important) interior symbols accurately and adequately fitted and a higher overall degree of fitted-ness results in a higher intensity of ‘feels right’ compass sensation, and results in longer term meaning because it resonates with coherence throughout a person’s existential experience in the biological meaning matrix – in fact, an effortless, sudden and extremely high level fitted-ness can be a numinous experience.

But if such large scale effortless synaptic fitted-ness is rare, neither do we normally need to ‘listen’ to our interior compass as we most often take its ‘adequacy and accuracy reading’ automatically, unconsciously. It’s only when we are aiming for a symbol with a higher level coherence with our framework –a coherence that doesn’t come easily–that we subsequently ‘read’ our compass with more attention, more intently scan our interior for points and directions of fitted-ness, and it is then we notice the orienting process of our compass. 

And I think one of the most noticeable features of this ‘existential orienteering’ is it’s easier to determine one or two things that are inadequate or inaccurate symbols long before determining what symbol will be accurate and adequate. Of course when we are lost it’s always easier to pick one (1) wrong compass direction when there are only a few right directions. The key is figuring why those first wrong directions are wrong, something again done almost automatically but if we had conscious thought about the process:

If I use this symbol to point that direction then I’ll have a meaning too much like this other symbol direction combination which already has this other specific framework meaning. A better more accurate symbol than this would have (more or less) of (x) aspect, an aspect that according to my reading of my framework lies more closely upon symbol direction heading (y).

We ever increasingly pick a slightly better, slightly ’more right’ direction until we achieve a symbol functionality equal to our purpose, a symbol functionality arrived at via previous interior symbol definitions and based upon coherence with previous interior symbols’ definitions.

We use our compass sense of framework fitted-ness, we use the knowledge we’ve discerned about what are not accurate symbol directions, and we use why they aren’t accurate, in a process of discovery that wades through the ambiguity of unknown territory to arrive at a metaphoric extension of our interior framework that represents accurate knowledge. It is a subjective self knowledge at the least yet through the process of mapping reality (with somewhat less certainty) such an extension of our interior framework may represent objective knowledge as well.

Thus, in an intimate relationship:

 …by the constant orientation of the interior compass upon love, and not simply upon the symbols of love, that a lover’s loyalty is maintained.
~ OH, The Maintenance of Loyalty

The center and soul of our relationship cannot be summed by any one word or phrase; it is a nexus between us, a matrix of our combined gravities, a complexity of love we can know only by its direction on our individual interior compass rose.
~OH, Active and Passive Pleasure

And thus for the individual:

And when we don’t listen to our self knowledge, our interior compass, things usually end badly.
~OH, Intuitive, Instinctive, Gradual Change

Love Symbols:

Love Symbol Negotiation:

 

Erotic Truth:

Numinous Relationship Experience:

For you is for me (includes Sublimation):

 

Puzzle Piece Meaning (including Meaning From Fitted-ness, Play and Flow):

Biological Meaning Matrix:

 

Compact and Differentiated:

Interior Experience:

Interior Constructs:

Coherence:

Mapping Reality:

Postmoderninsm:

 

Different Is Not Bad:

What works works: