The Love Of Jesus

[MultifariousBirdLady]

If I may just interrupt for a second.

 

The thought occurred to me a few minutes ago that one of our potential logjams here is that mysticism, even in it's Christian form, must be completely alien to Larry and End. Mysticism is severely lacking in Protestant Christianity outside the Quakers. Perhaps a change of tack is in order.

 

That's a good point. However, End did describe a very personal and life-changing experience with Christ.

The difference is in the interpretation. He appears to be taking it as proof positive for the entire worldview of that one religion. Many of the rest of us are taking it as one of many such experiences that we know of manifested through different religions.

[Guest end3]

I am making some assumptions of what God means to Rev, Abi, Larry, Keith, NBB, Deva, Oddbird and others. They know what God means to them, and with that, they know what they would be giving up, for me, that I may have my God without conflict.

 

It's a "shoe on the other foot" question. He feels he is being asked to give up his faith and deny his God in order to appease us.

 

To say "yes" is an invitation to convert.

To say "no" is to invite the criticism that "our theology" is in fact as flawed as we claim his is.

 

It's a very clever ploy. Well played End!

 

My only point of contention here is a rather practical one and the intent behind it we share. The point is the mentality that Christians are spiritually superior to non-Christians. As I said before it is not a manifestation of love/ compassion it is a manifestation of hatred and prejudice. It is a harmful mentality and that is all I'm concerned with.

 

I am curious as to these assumptions that you made. Please share these with me and I shall share what I really think on the matter.

 

I was trying to make a point. To me, God is Life and much, much more.

 

And the point, Jesus gave up His relationship to God that ALL humanity might know God in favor of "the law written on your heart".

 

When you say, "why should we" or "you are included along with any other form, but I am not giving mine up" or "no", then this is specifically not what Jesus did.

 

So you say your love is the same as Jesus Christ's? Not specifically nor in practice.

 

Is mine? Only by the fact that I play a tiny piece of the body that is Christ....in part, a part, a small glimpse. But none the less.......my grace, on small occasions, allows for that Love of Jesus to come through.....not often.

 

But my faith is, as was His, that doing this is Truly Loving your neighbor.

 

And which is Greater?

[MultifariousBirdLady]

End3, I have followed this thread pretty closely and I don't understand why it matters what other people think about God. Why should we need to "give it up"? As far as I am concerned you can have your God. Why can't we have ours and you have yours?

 

Deva,

I am wondering if he's presenting us with the same problem that occurred in ancient Greece during the spread of early Christianities (plural 'cuz there really were more than one).

Pagans could easily profess belief in more than one God, and syncretism was widespread. But Christians made converts reject all their previous associations with other Gods and accept only the Christian "God", whatever that meant in that particular Christian sect.

 

From my view, the point is moot. Such a request is not actually coming from the Divine, IMO, it's only coming from those guarding the human community's gates of the faith, so to speak.

[Deva]

 

Deva,

I am wondering if he's presenting us with the same problem that occurred in ancient Greece during the spread of early Christianities (plural 'cuz there really were more than one).

Pagans could easily profess belief in more than one God, and syncretism was widespread. But Christians made converts reject all their previous associations with other Gods and accept only the Christian "God", whatever that meant in that particular Christian sect.

 

From my view, the point is moot. Such a request is not actually coming from the Divine, IMO, it's only coming from those guarding the human community's gates of the faith, so to speak.

 

It could be, Multi. I am just sorry that End is not able to feel understood or welcome. I am not able to fix it for people who can't see a problem with an exclusive idea or symbol in such a world as we have where nature herself loves variety.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

But he doesn't have to deny his God, only accept that others can experience God too.

 

To do so directly contradicts certain interpretations of Christian doctrine... an interpretation which apparently End and Larry both share.

 

If this is what End is trying to get at, it seems to me that he believes that contradicting any aspect of this interpretation of Christian doctrine destroys his relationship with his God... completely and utterly.

 

If I'm not understanding this correctly, End, please correct me.

 

Seems a rather precarious relationship to me if that's the case.

 

And I remember that feeling. Not pleasant.

[Rev R]

Yeah...I wanna know too, but the bible will be used instead of the heart to answer.

We shall see.

 

I can understand that, but is it being exclusive to want others to be inclusive? I'm going to use what Neon said one time, "Isn't that like calling a person that hates racism a bigot?"

It comes down to intent and how that intent manifests into speech and deed. A genuine heart of compassion can manifest in the desire to convert as easily as the desire to fight for equality can turn to poison. We have to make sure to stay vigilant in regards to our own mind.

 

My answer to Neon's quote would be "can one fight hate with hate?"

 

You got it Rodney!

and just to clarify...it goes for the lot of ye!

[Antlerman]

I just want to add a personal note how beautiful I think each and every one of you are. This is a truly beautiful discussion we are all finding value from within to pursue. And if that in itself doesn't speak something more than any of our thoughts combined, I don't know what else can.

 

Carry on.....

[Deva]

Hey Rodney,

 

Thinking on it, my desire to "fix" it isn't something that End would want. That is part of the problem. I suppose I ought to have said "see" it. I really don't want to fix End or anyone else.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

And the point, Jesus gave up His relationship to God that ALL humanity might know God in favor of "the law written on your heart".

 

Hi End,

 

I don't think your question to us really makes a good example here.

 

If what you say is true, Jesus was God (how can he give up his relationship to himself?) and since he was omniscient he would know that -- if he could in fact give up this relationship -- it would only be for a little while before it was restored. Plus he would know the purported result.

 

...Unlike us non-omniscient mere mortals being asked to give up our relationship just to make you happy somehow.

 

If you had asked, "Would you give up your life and/or your relationship to save X number of people" or "so that everybody could know the absolute truth about God," that's a pretty different question.

 

And really, this entire line if inquiry is a change in the original question anyway.

 

Because even if we say no to this, it doesn't address the question that was originally asked on this thread, which was, to my understanding, whether the experience Christians have of "the Love of Jesus" is anything like, or even the same as, the experiences of people in other religions. That's what I thought we were talking about.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

So you say your love is the same as Jesus Christ's? Not specifically nor in practice.

 

Is mine? Only by the fact that I play a tiny piece of the body that is Christ....in part, a part, a small glimpse. But none the less.......my grace, on small occasions, allows for that Love of Jesus to come through.....not often.

 

But my faith is, as was His, that doing this is Truly Loving your neighbor.

 

And which is Greater?

 

OK, so... this really is a change of topic.

 

It seems to me that what you are asking is, "Where else is love like Jesus' love found?" This self-sacrificing love, which it appears you are implying isn't found elsewhere. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

Also, do you understand why I think this is a change of topic?

[Guest end3]

Sin is a transgression to the Creation, the Source....all that is.

 

By not allowing me to access God by what is written on MY HEART, you are transgressing the Created....sin if you will.

 

Can you allow for my heart, for me each day, through Grace? No, as you have already stated.

 

Christ DID allow this to happen by giving up his relationship to His God, giving up His Life so that I may have Life, God.

 

If only in the fact, whether right or wrong, then your love for me is DIFFERENT than Jesus's Love for me.

 

So how is it that you claim that it is the same when you just stated that you will not practice such. They cannot be the same.

 

Is this your love for me, for Larry?

 

Do you act responsibly to me every day and apologize for trangressing what is on my heart each day?

[Guest end3]

Where is Grace found....the the Creation...yes.

 

But by y'alls definition, the creation is only manifestation of God.

 

So Grace is within God? And also Perfect Grace? Perfect Grace would be God? Where did you get Grace from?

 

You don't have perfect Grace for me, nor do I for you. Jesus had perfect Grace.

 

And again specific to Christianity.....Jesus' Grace is not your grace because yours it is not perfect. I can testify by you not allowing for my beliefs as my heart tells me.

 

 

 

Again, REGARDLESS of whether you think Christianity is correct or incorrect, it is different than what each professed today.

 

If Jesus is true, then the rest is true. If the rest is true, then I can only access the Love of Jesus Christ through the Truth that is Jesus.

[oddbird1963]

 

I was trying to make a point. To me, God is Life and much, much more.

 

And the point, Jesus gave up His relationship to God that ALL humanity might know God in favor of "the law written on your heart".

 

When you say, "why should we" or "you are included along with any other form, but I am not giving mine up" or "no", then this is specifically not what Jesus did.

 

So you say your love is the same as Jesus Christ's? Not specifically nor in practice.

 

Is mine? Only by the fact that I play a tiny piece of the body that is Christ....in part, a part, a small glimpse. But none the less.......my grace, on small occasions, allows for that Love of Jesus to come through.....not often.

 

But my faith is, as was His, that doing this is Truly Loving your neighbor.

 

And which is Greater?

 

Thanks for clarifying the point you were trying to make, End3.

 

So it seems that you are now saying that the narrative from which Christians derive their active symbols is superior, therefore the experience you have based on that symbol-set is superior?

 

Am I being accurate here, End3?

[Guest end3]

I was trying to make a point. To me, God is Life and much, much more.

 

Serious question, End:

 

When you ask questions, is it mostly to make a point or lead the other in a direction? I sometimes thought that you've asked out of genuine curiosity for your own consideration, focused on grow your own understanding...but now I am starting to feel the interrogative is primarily a device for you to educate the other. Am I speaking truth?

 

Phanta

 

I was leading today on purpose. Sometimes I enquire for my own growth. I have learned muchly during my stint at Ex-C. Some really cool poeple here.

[Guest end3]

 

I was trying to make a point. To me, God is Life and much, much more.

 

And the point, Jesus gave up His relationship to God that ALL humanity might know God in favor of "the law written on your heart".

 

When you say, "why should we" or "you are included along with any other form, but I am not giving mine up" or "no", then this is specifically not what Jesus did.

 

So you say your love is the same as Jesus Christ's? Not specifically nor in practice.

 

Is mine? Only by the fact that I play a tiny piece of the body that is Christ....in part, a part, a small glimpse. But none the less.......my grace, on small occasions, allows for that Love of Jesus to come through.....not often.

 

But my faith is, as was His, that doing this is Truly Loving your neighbor.

 

And which is Greater?

 

Thanks for clarifying the point you were trying to make, End3.

 

So it seems that you are now saying that the narrative from which Christians derive their active symbols is superior, therefore the experience you have based on that symbol-set is superior?

 

Am I being accurate here, End3?

 

 

The symbol set, the natural set, the experiential set, the heart set......

[Rev R]

End,

 

Just so we are clear this will be the first and last time I speak of such things concerning myself.

 

I practice Zen as you may or may not know. I came to it from shamanism and occultism as a practice that was in agreement to what I had discovered to be the nature of reality through direct experience. These experiences were not as emotionally moving as Keith or Not Blinded have described but were intense none the less. As your experience filled you with a deeper faith, mine left me with a near constant awareness of a formless, ineffable essence that, for lack of a better word, flows through all things- but it is no thing. One cannot have a relationship with it to give up. One cannot grasp it, but it is always there...ALWAYS. "I" cannot be separated from "it". "It" cannot be worshiped or served, yet "it" is destroyed when I speak of it. Would I give it up to save all beings? There is nothing to give up. There is ultimately no Rodney to give up anything.

 

If I could rip out my eyes so the whole world could see what I see even for a second I would.

 

That is my experience. Now you don't have to assume anything perhaps with the exception that I am completely mad.

[Antlerman]

 

If I could rip out my eyes so the whole world could see what I see even for a second I would.

 

That is my experience. Now you don't have to assume anything perhaps with the exception that I am completely mad.

I would second that.

 

Yes, I would die to save the world.

 

End... it has grieved me that you think I deny you what you have experienced. I do not.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

By not allowing me to access God by what is written on MY HEART, you are transgressing the Created....sin if you will.

 

Can you allow for my heart, for me each day, through Grace? No, as you have already stated.

...

 

Do you act responsibly to me every day and apologize for trangressing what is on my heart each day?

 

End, I'm afraid I'm not understanding you here. Would you be willing to try to explain it a different way?

[MultifariousBirdLady]

So Grace is within God? And also Perfect Grace? Perfect Grace would be God? Where did you get Grace from?

 

You don't have perfect Grace for me, nor do I for you. Jesus had perfect Grace.

 

And again specific to Christianity.....Jesus' Grace is not your grace because yours it is not perfect. I can testify by you not allowing for my beliefs as my heart tells me.

 

Hi End,

 

OK, so none of us humans have perfect Grace. I don't have any argument with that.

I doubt, however, that the historical Jesus had perfect grace, either. I don't equate the historical Jesus with the Christ I experienced in Christianity.

That's just my belief, I'm not saying you have to believe that, too.

 

But... my previous argument, about the similarities of the experience of Grace in different religious contexts, stands. That's all I'm saying.

[oddbird1963]

End,

 

Just so we are clear this will be the first and last time I speak of such things concerning myself.

 

I practice Zen as you may or may not know. I came to it from shamanism and occultism as a practice that was in agreement to what I had discovered to be the nature of reality through direct experience. These experiences were not as emotionally moving as Keith or Not Blinded have described but were intense none the less. As your experience filled you with a deeper faith, mine left me with a near constant awareness of a formless, ineffable essence that, for lack of a better word, flows through all things- but it is no thing. One cannot have a relationship with it to give up. One cannot grasp it, but it is always there...ALWAYS. "I" cannot be separated from "it". "It" cannot be worshiped or served, yet "it" is destroyed when I speak of it. Would I give it up to save all beings? There is nothing to give up. There is ultimately no Rodney to give up anything.

 

If I could rip out my eyes so the whole world could see what I see even for a second I would.

 

That is my experience. Now you don't have to assume anything perhaps with the exception that I am completely mad.

 

Rev R,

 

I am so glad you spoke about yourself. This gives me some insight into Zen. Thanks!

[Rev R]

Glad it could help OB.

[Abiyoyo]

End3, I have followed this thread pretty closely and I don't understand why it matters what other people think about God. Why should we need to "give it up"? As far as I am concerned you can have your God. Why can't we have ours and you have yours?

 

Deva,

I am wondering if he's presenting us with the same problem that occurred in ancient Greece during the spread of early Christianities (plural 'cuz there really were more than one).

Pagans could easily profess belief in more than one God, and syncretism was widespread. But Christians made converts reject all their previous associations with other Gods and accept only the Christian "God", whatever that meant in that particular Christian sect.

 

From my view, the point is moot. Such a request is not actually coming from the Divine, IMO, it's only coming from those guarding the human community's gates of the faith, so to speak.

 

I agree, and I have been reading through this thread to gather that I think the answer within the question is, To give up Christ, is to give up God, to give up the cause, to give up the works, and the Way; yet, if to accept Christ, would be to gain all. I see this line of questioning from End3 exactly as you say above, and it is true, this is the logic that applied back in Roman days. The only difference is we live in a different time, but the substance of the mentality of the action is still there, just less invasive and destructive.

 

It all comes down to what End3 said earlier, to be or not to be, that is the question. I guess this is where End and I would disagree. I believe Jesus was very divine, the true messenger of God, and the spirit upon him during his ministry was the same spirit that formed the world we live in; BUT, I do not believe that Christ is the only way of communion with God, yet I do believe it is true that if you believed in any form of a God that created all things, of all things, etc, and looking at all the facts of Christ, history, other writings about Christ, etc; one who would not consider Christ to at least be a prophet from God, or doing God's work in general, doesn't either fully know God, nor believe in God.

 

I say that in summary, if anyone believes their is a god, then I would assume, they would accept the teachings of Jesus. As far as I know, many here DO accept that the teachings of Jesus were humane, wise, ethical, morally geared, etc.

[Franko47]

 

 

 

I say that in summary, if anyone believes their is a god, then I would assume, they would accept the teachings of Jesus. As far as I know, many here DO accept that the teachings of Jesus were humane, wise, ethical, morally geared, etc.

 

 

And you'd be right. I still think that Sermon on the Mount totally rocks.

 

 

The question is, does that make Jesus in fact, God ? And much of what Jesus taught can be found in the reflections of human philosophers from all over the ancient world. But that aside, if everyone acted like Jesus did, with extreme tolerance, mercy, and especially generosity, then I'd say humanity would be in far greater shape than it has ever even hoped to be in.

 

My main objection to modern organized Christianity is that it doesn't have a thing to do with acting like Jesus, or following his example. (Except when convenient to do so). It's all about theology, doctrines, systems, dogma, clerical stuff, wierd history, and even politics from internal to national.

[zandurian]

And the point, Jesus gave up His relationship to God that ALL humanity might know God in favor of "the law written on your heart".

 

When you say, "why should we" or "you are included along with any other form, but I am not giving mine up" or "no", then this is specifically not what Jesus did.

 

So you say your love is the same as Jesus Christ's? Not specifically nor in practice.

 

Is mine? Only by the fact that I play a tiny piece of the body that is Christ....in part, a part, a small glimpse. But none the less.......my grace, on small occasions, allows for that Love of Jesus to come through.....not often.

 

But my faith is, as was His, that doing this is Truly Loving your neighbor.

 

And which is Greater?

 

End3,

I'm not sure you understand the connection between Jesus and Adam. Do you understand that it was Adam who gave up a conscious relationship with God by purposely eating of the polaristic fruit as it was ordained for him to do?

 

The whole garden story is an obvious OBVIOUS setup, right?

 

Do you understand that everything written from that point forward is engulfed in darkness?

 

Just curious at this point.

 

I believe there is a reason why all this (Christianity) resonates with you so much - but I'm not sure you understand why.

[Antlerman]

I believe Jesus was very divine, the true messenger of God, and the spirit upon him during his ministry was the same spirit that formed the world we live in; BUT, I do not believe that Christ is the only way of communion with God, yet I do believe it is true that if you believed in any form of a God that created all things, of all things, etc, and looking at all the facts of Christ, history, other writings about Christ, etc; one who would not consider Christ to at least be a prophet from God, or doing God's work in general, doesn't either fully know God, nor believe in God.

 

I say that in summary, if anyone believes their is a god, then I would assume, they would accept the teachings of Jesus. As far as I know, many here DO accept that the teachings of Jesus were humane, wise, ethical, morally geared, etc.

What I hear back from Larry and End, is that you must accept that Jesus is God - in the sense that God is a person and Jesus is that person. And its here I see a failure of seeing past a personal understanding, a belief, to the point of withholding an acknowledgment, or worse a blinding of themselves to seeing its Presence in others. At that point, what is otherwise a positive for them, becomes a pathology, a detriment. If the fruit is division, then that line of connection to the Source has become misplaced. It is a fine line between symbol and idolatry, and we all walk it. But it is the fruits of the spirit that become our personal indicators.

 

Jesus as God as a Person, is a theological interpretation. Period. It is nothing Jesus directly stated, but is an interpretation of various sayings. It is a mental interpretation used to symbolically embody, represent, express, a spiritual perception. I feel that understanding can be extended to any who become One with God, but I don't exclude people from their relationship with the Divine based on their agreement with that belief I have.

 

Can we hear "God" in "Jesus"? Certainly. And I also hear "God" in many others. But mentally, academically, I must acknowledge the limits of knowledge and information we have in those texts about him. In my views, I don't feel it's justifiable to mythologize the Bible to be some perfect, accurate, God-delivered record of actual history and chronicling of actual events and words. So as I read what "Jesus" says in there, I do hear inspiration and Wisdom and Spirit, but I also recognize all the other bits attributed to him as well that don't quite rise to that level. I say "Jesus" in quotes, because I believe, based on academic research, that much of it is attribution to a founding figure, so "Jesus" can also be representative of the various communities of individuals under his name. Nonetheless, even so, what is expressed contains that Essence, that Essence that is throughout the world, and "from God", so to speak.

 

 

 

Now I'm going to post something here that's a bit of an academic diversion for the sake of reference to point back to in this thread to how in part I understand how language, and signs, and symbols, and myths work for us a humans, and why I come towards the conclusion that it is imperative we not hold these 'understandings' of mind so tightly we crush the Living Spirit that is in all and through all, in us and through us, by holding our beliefs as the Truth Itself, rather that expressions of phenomenal experience. Yes, I fully believe and accept that these symbolic expressions contain that true, and for all intents and purposes 'are that truth' to us. And this where I see End3 at, and why he interprets our not using the same language as him, seeing the same symbols manifest its power as it did for him, as either our rejection of God, or a denial of the validity of his experience.

 

So to this essay I found yesterday that I feel provides a nice vehicle for summarizing a lot of the various sciences of symbolic uses of language, the field of semiotics. I'll highlight various parts that I feel capture a lot of my thoughts that I bring with me into these discussions, and this one in particular all the way from page one. From here:

Before one ventures to embark upon a discussion concerning the essence and quintessence of semiology as first formulated by Saussure (thus I interpret the semantics of this essay question - or, using Chomskyan nomenclature, its deep structure) it is imperative to provide the reader with a framework concerning the raw material wherefrom this theory has sprung. And this theory would be very unlikely to have come into light without the necessary pre-existence of an advanced semiotic system - language. The reason for the above being twofold: firstly, because language is the major (and most sophisticated) semiotic system to undergo scrutiny; and, secondly, because the theory itself has been mediated via language. And if language is an interpretation of the world then semiology is an interpretation of the interpretation of the world. (At this point we could draw a useful analogy with Platonic Ideas, and the human representations, twice removed from the essence...) Or, it could even constitute a criticism of the interpretation of the world; indeed, aren't all interpretations highly critical acts? Thus, as it is inferred from the foregoing arguments, one has to start by talking about language.

 

Language is perhaps the most anthropomorphic and anthropocentric of all the great human ficta (inventions). It is the prerequisite myth for the existence of any other myths.

A work of fiction that has acquired proposterously alethiological dimensions so that humans have put it in the mouth of their paramount fictum: God. Perhaps, this devious manipulation of causality may constitute rank blasphemy for logical beings, on condition that the concept of blasphemy could don, for the sake of this argument, a secularized, non-theological guise. But why all this ado about language? And why all these -apparently- irrelevancies about God and the universe and everything?

Because in a deeper level one can see that the metaphor of the language as a signifier to the signified of existence could achieve remarkably literal dimensions

.

 

At this point let us get into the particulars of Saussurian semiotics so that we can later recapture the threads of my incomplete argument with more assurance and vehemence.

 

Saussure analyzed the term of the linguistic sign into a bi-partite, interdependent entity: that of the signifier and the signified. The meaning of the sign depended on the identification of a particular signifier with a particular signified. Signified standing for the abstract concept (or the thing-in-itself or the Platonic Idea to lapse into philosophical jargon) and signifier the word or image acoustique that refers to the signified. This oversimplification, however, being extremely problematic at this early stage of exposition, as it doesn't demonstrate the enormous complexity and unpredictability of such correlations.

 

Two principles were related to the existence and function of signs: the first one being their arbitrary nature and the second one being their linearity. Of these two I will further pursue the former by simply dismissing the latter as the explicit statement of language's implicit dependence to temporality in order to unfold.

Thus, I believe, that the arbitrary nature of the sign is the key concept in semiotics which has repercussions on a wide ideological spectrum. Simply explained, what unites the word with its meaning is based on purely arbitrary grounds. Thus, there is no reason why a dog should be named thus, there is nothing intrinsic in the nature of 'doggedness' that necessitates a lexico-phonetic representation of this kind. ( an exception to this being onomatopoeic words - words that seem to imitate the sounds they refer to - like 'whack, fizz, crackle; and interjections which are closely related to onomatopoeia).

 

However, even when this widely accepted arbitrariness is concerned there seem to arise dissident voices to this, on the one hand logical proposition, but on the other unverifiable. Foster, in her reconctruction of Primordial Language, criticizes Saussure's claim that the linguistic sign was unmotivated and arbitrary because there is no detectable relationship between sound and meaning. On the contrary, she maintains, 'even after this relationship became obscured, the patterning and interrelationship of features, both of sound and meaning, continue to be so firm that we can hardly consider today's sign to be arbitrary '

 

At a prima faecie examination we realise that the difference between signifier and signified is a very pragmatic one. And this can be amply demonstrated with a very simple example. Let us suppose that a very famous comedian is dissapointed by the fact that whilst the whole audience is roaring with laughter a single individual remains silent. When the comedian picks on that specific individual asking him why he doesn't laugh, it transpires that he is foreign. He had access to the signifiers of the language (he could physically hear the words) but had limited or no access to the signifieds (he could not translate the 'sound images' into meaningful concepts).

 

A very interesting medical condition which characteristically exemplifies the dual functioning of signifier/signified is called nominal aphasia, a primary symtom thereof being the inability to recognize words and speak the right word. The individual afflicted by this condition mentally possesses all the correct signifiers as well as all the correct signifieds. The problem appearing at the crucial stage at which the linguistically standardised signifier has to be identified with the appropriate signified. Thus, the concept of the idiolect can be taken a step further, perhaps, reaching a potential semantic extreme of idioglossia. Or should we use Saussure's term and say that we are witnessing an extremely idiosyncratic case of usage of language in its mode of 'parole'?

 

Saussure's theory of the sign has given rise to many other criticisms. Lacan's is one of the most famous is he seemingly reappropriates Saussure's theory giving it a different dimension. The initial difference is on the level of primary exposition. Lacan uses the schema S/s in which capital S stands for the signifier and lower case s for the signified. The other differences are the following:

 

-in the position each element occupies in the schema: whereas the signifier is at the base of the schema in Saussure, Lacan places it at the apex in order to symbolize the abiding of the signified under the signifier.

 

-in the suppression of the arrows thought to represent the mutual pressuposition of the two sides of the sign.

 

-the only feature surviving in Lacan is the bar between the two components. But whereas it is simply posited in Saussure, Lacan proposed to interpret it as a barrier resisting signification, and it is central to his theory of the signifier.

 

Jacobson went as far as to conceive the bond between signifier/signified as partially motivated, basing his contention on the fact that intricate phonological connections between grammatical concepts and phonological expressions may cast doubt on the arbitrary nature of the sign.

 

Earlier on I talked about language as being a signifier to the signified of existence. This statement is in an urgent need for disambiguation. What do I mean by 'signified of existence'? Is it by any means the transcendental signified - God? Or, is it simply the material state of things as they have come to be without any unnecessary metaphysical interferences? Would it be right to say that 'signified of existence' can be replaced with the equally vague term of 'meaning'?

Does meaning reside in the world to be 'expressed' or 'reflected' in language? Or is it actually produced by language or, more accurately, by the reader or viewer who reproduces it? This final contention reflects Saussure's theory, pushed to the extremes by the post-sructuralists. Thus, meaning does not reside in the world at all. The symbol has effaced what it attempts to represent

. As Lacan says 'the symbol manifests itself first as the murder of the thing '.

 

Thus, from a post-structuralist perspective, the writer's quest for transcendence, or 'ultimate meaning' is always impeded by the arbitrariness of language, by the unstable relationship between signifier/signified. One of the aims of deconstruction is to show how the written text strives to eradicate or conceal the gap between language and the reality it purports to embody. In the work of Larkin, inter alias, one can see the text openly declaring the absence of any final act of any referent or transcendental signification. It confronts its readers with the concept of absolute zero. The explanation for this is to be found in Larkin's deep and abiding agnosticism. Post-structuralism recognizes that the quest for 'full meaning' in language was originally postulated on a belief in the presence of God as the final guartantor of that meaning.('In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God' - Bible).

 

And as, in the ideological wasteland of our post-theistic era, the lack of the transcendental signified has never been so pungent, we are confronted with the inability to positively assign any sort of absolute meaning to any signified whatsoever. One can say that. at least, we can face reality with more honesty, as we don't have to invent anachronistic signifiers that represent metachronistic signifieds

. And, to revert the dictum that, 'no one has yet seen a signified without a signifier ', I shall say that many have claimed to have 'seen' a signifier without a signified. According to Derridean scripture (expressed with typically obscure profundity, or profound obscurity- one is never quite sure which), writing (the totality of signifiers?) is ' the name of the gesture that effaces the presence of a thing and yet keeps it legible '. What I think is meant here by Derrida is that

by means of our signifiers we can only have a limited insight into the nature of reality because these signifiers are our construction, inevitably reflecting the imperfections of our critical and analytical faculties

.

 

What could constitute a logical impasse in the normal duality of signifier/signified is a specific extra-linguistic system of signification that possesses images acoustiques as well. Music is a system consisting of musical symbols (signifiers) that are used in a similar way that words are used (for example the common existence of the fundamental principle of linearity), but the meaning of it (signified) seems to be obscure and opaque. However, not few were those to suggest that music has a higher value of signification than language.

Schopenhauer, for example, claimed that music, by virtue of not portraying something that exists in the world (unlike all other arts), but something that doesn't exist in the world, identifies itself with the will which is the key concept in his theory. The will for him is the blind force responsible for more or less everything, in other words, an alternative synonym, an atheistic reinterpretation, of God. Implied in this syllogism is that music is the transcendental signifier and signified. In this case, we have a tautological relation between the two, normally, antithetical and complementary concepts of S/s. But perhaps this observation should be included in a text that deals with the pathological aspects of the symptomatology of the non-linguistic sign.

 

In a final analysis, the essential point about the theory of the sign is the disproportion between the strong interest shown by non-linguists and the rerservations of the linguists themselves. Linguists consider the sign a linguistic impasse, its sole function being to relate the two orders of meaning and sound. Their only concern is that such a role is performed, whatever the modalities. Conversely, for non-linguists, the very notion of the sign connotes language which is integral to the structuralist project. And this is why in the beginning of my essay I reflected on the importance of language as a framework for a further comprehension of the function of sign-theory. It is inevitably the only line of argument that, apart from encompassing strictly linguistic material, places Saussure's theory in a wider socio-cultural context. Thus it proves to be a more humanist approach as it relates not only to a linguistic reality but, also, to a social reality. To study humans, is essentially to study the way in which human experience is organised. Thus, when we speak of the human tendency to organize things into systems, we place ourselves in a Saussurian line of thought.

 

As I said, it's a little technical, but I wanted this here for a point of reference. Plus for any else who are interested in this understanding like I am. There is validity to the various schools of thought expressed here. I have seen myself thinking like Schopenhauer before that music overcomes that structure, and my thoughts now are pretty much what I've been expressing thoughout this thread.