reply to post by WWu777
Symbolism is very interesting but (I haven't see them all yet), from the first 38m of the videos of Michael Tsarion (that I had never heard about till
now). To me it becomes evident that a) he is into mysticism b)he is only expressing (he may have beliefs/understanding more vast that what he is
saying) a very limited angle about the meaning of symbols, in other words he speaks only about a very restricted spectrum of the subject.
I do not dismiss mysticism, it is the root of all knowledge and so it is knowledge in itself, valid to me as any other type of hypothesis, it permits
to provide an answer to the unanswerable in a way that permits one to transcend the small problem and create a richer image (even if, to me, in all
things mystical, there is no magic at all only lack of understanding), that can be correct even if incomplete. It helps us fudge the understanding of
Symbols are as old as man, from the outline of a human hand painted on the walls of a caver to monuments such as the pyramids. But symbols by
definition, require an informed observer someone that a)understand the idea of the creator (when there was one) b)can extract useful information from
it. There is no power on symbols the power created on that understand the symbolism. Symbols can have a large number of interpretations, but then we
get to where Michael Tsarion to me fails (or at least does not make it clear), that it is the culture (and society) that established the meaning of
the symbols. Therefore what he is stating when he clearly attacks the collective (society is a collective), is that he is defending an anarchic view
(no problem with that I like anarchism) but he does not provide an alternative functional social structure.
Monkey sees monkey does, symbols and gestures are often just that repetition, the number of original ideas is always dwindling, we reuse, mix and
elaborate on what was there before, symbols are no different...
I agree with him in all the stuff he says except the "mystic" interpretations he does.
He even states clearly that beyond individual self awareness to the issues he presents there is no benefit to it or any concept that could reshape the
structure of society as is, to the point of hypothesizing a state of symbiosis (mutual benefit) between the masters and slaves. (Revolutions happen
when that symbiosis is broken)
Human societies have always been hierarchical, and there is an intrinsic benefit in having a leader (this is also observed in nature). People should
be individualized and welcomed in their diversity but symbols and other sort of structural aggregates (culture) need to exist if not only to permit us
to understand each-other and collaborate for mutual benefit.
In summary I liked the content, share some of the ideas (none of them are new or original, he makes that clear, providing useful refs) but dislike the
base "message" (his base interpretation) as non-constructive and at times contradictory. I do not see as viable path (in relation to uplifting the
human condition) the simple deconstruction society and focus on the self, individual. I strongly believe that the good of the many outweigh the good
of the few (even if I agree that there are not many chances in implementing that view in today's society, the ephemeral public good). The problem
resides not in collectivism but in the goals of the collective.
 seen a bit more... besides real references here and there, its all a mix bag of speculation, imagination, opinion with a large bit personal
view but none too creative or original... interesting, but can be confusing to the uniformed...
edit on 4-8-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no