3 ms·
'Symbolism' is a terrible word to describe something like this. Symbols are convention and can change. This is the opposite - an innate cross-sensory connection
by twelvechairs 5y ago
'Symbolism' is a terrible word to describe something like this. Symbols are convention and can change. This is the opposite - an innate cross-sensory connection that will not change.
- hyperpape 5y agoDoes a lion symbolize something fierce? The Book of Isaiah notwithstanding, I doubt that symbol will change.
- twelvechairs 5y agoA lion IS something fierce. But only its use in western history make it a symbol of that. There's plenty of other fierce creatures (e.g. an orca, a crocadile, a poisonous frog) that wouldn't conjure the same symbolism.
- hyperpape 5y agoIt’s structurally the same. You can choose a lion, a wolf, a shark, etc, but it is not arbitrary that you choose some such animal to symbolize ferocity, and not a rabbit. There’s some bias to associate sounds with particular images or concepts, but we have different languages because we don’t choose the same words. If anything, the consistency of symbolism is much greater than inter-linguistic consistency of how words sound.
- twelvechairs 5y agoI don't understand what point you are trying to make. You seem to have made exactly mine. Symbolism is a choice. The Bouba/Kiki thing is not.
- beaconstudios 5y agothey're arguing that symbols are not arbitrary, which is true but I think they inferred that you were making that argument as opposed to the softer "symbols are conventional" one that you did make. Convention does not necessarily imply arbitrariness. If symbols were arbitrary then maybe a rabbit could symbolise ferocity, but they are instead more like metaphors that need to tie into something concrete.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hyperpape 5y agoThanks, this is really helpful. I did in fact think that the use of convention implied more arbitrariness. The convention that we drive on the right can be reversed. But I suppose there can be conventions which are partially constrained by some underlying phenomenon.
- chrismorgan 5y ago> The Book of Isaiah notwithstanding For those unfamiliar with the Bible: hyperpape is referring to Isaiah 11:6–7, 65:25, prophecies of the time when God assumes more direct kingship over the earth, featuring herbivorous, peaceful lions. Notwithstanding this, Isaiah does feature lions as fierce beasts in more places: 15:9, 21:8, 30:6, 31:4, 35:9, 38:13.
- User23 5y agoCharles Sanders Peirce attempted to address this problem with his semiotic[1]. Sadly he never reached a conclusive result, but I find his work in this area to be extremely enlightening and also quite novel even today. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/
- dr_dshiv 5y agoAgreed. The presymbolic term people might be looking for is "resonance." Read early JJ Gibson (who introduced affordances). He talks about this dichotomy.