This is topic So, seriously, what is intrinsically wrong with people using the word 'symbology'? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
FC, anyone? I don't get it. If people are using the word correctly, I don't understand why this would upset someone.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sigh* Because I think Dan Brown is a travesty of a writer, and I wish that "cromulent", for instance, were more popular in its place. Do you seriously not understand this?
I'm being snobbish about writing. Surely, surely, of all people, you can understand that.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
Plus Willem Dafoe will start teasing you to no end if you do say symbology.
[ July 26, 2006, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I want to be a distinguished professor of thoughtology.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Dang. I answered that, and the thread was deleted.
Squicky, no one is saying the word is made up. I specifically said that was not what we were saying. NOT made up. REAL word.
HOWEVER, it is a word popularized by a piece of crappy fiction.
The issue was not that the woman used a word that was incorrect. (again, note the use of the word NOT here, that you missed in the last thread... NOT incorrect). The issue is that the woman would never have used that word had she not been influenced by garbage writing, in particular garbage writing by a hack named Dan Brown.
So, to sum up. Symbology = real word. Use of symbology = influenced by bad pop culture. Dan Brown = hack.
Understand?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't have problem with Symbology. It's greek, through and through. It has a clear sense.
I grimace when I see "Sociology."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ben, But here's the thing, from the thread that kat deleted. Symbology is a legitimate word, but it doesn't mean the same thing as symbolism. So, using that way makes you look stupid.
kat started out with saying something like: "A co-worker of mine was telling me about her trip to the Jefferson building and talked about the symbology of the lobby.
<hear no evil, etc. smilely>
Thank you Dan Brown.<wry>"
I don't get what is wrong about the first part. kat didn't seem to know the definition of symbology - I believe her exact quote, when presented with the OED definition that fit that usage was "The OED is wrong.", which I figure is why she deleted it, but other people came in and agreed with her.
FC said something like "Dan Brown injected the word into the public consciousness. Without his writing, regular people wouldn't use it."
I don't see why this would be a problem, or true for that matter. I knew what symbology meant. It's entirely possible that the tour guide used the word as part of his talk.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Squicky, is this your way of telling us that you're a... *gasp* a symbologist? Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:kat didn't seem to know the definition of symbology - I believe her exact quote, when presented with the OED definition that fit that usage was "The OED is wrong."
I do this exact same thing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: The issue is that the woman would never have used that word had she not been influenced by garbage writing
I don't think that's true.
Were I in that situation, that's likely the word I would use, whether when acting as a tour guide or telling someone about my experience later.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, you have to get over this obsession. You pay more attention to me than I do. Which is quite an accomplishment.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's right Tom. I'm closing in on the horrifying mysteries contained in the painting of dogs playing poker that will expose the Westminster Dog Show people for the world-dominating colossus that they are. Be careful though, the last five people I told of my work to went on to develop an allergy to cats.
edited for spelling
[ July 26, 2006, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, seriously, you missed the point of the story, and you have also sucked all my fun out of telling it. I wish you would stop following me around desperate for a chance to comment on my words. It's icky.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, that would probably be a much better book.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The clues are all around us. Lassie and Rin-Tin-Tin. The inexplicable popularity of the "Air Bud" movies. They really shot Old Yeller to shut him up. And what the heck is Goofy anyway?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:So, seriously, what is intrinsically wrong with people using the word 'symbology'?
quote:The word “symbology” appears in several English dictionaries[1] and can mean:
1. the art of expression by symbols 2. the study of the interpretation of symbols 3. a system of symbols
However, in popular culture there is some ambiguity as to the meaning of this word.
The Da Vinci Code
Symbology is the fictional academic discipline pursued by the hero of Dan Brown's novels, The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. The hero, Robert Langdon, is supposed to be a professor of "symbology" at Harvard.
Karen L. King, Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard, called "symbology" a nonexistent field, and noted that the closest field, semiology, is unrepresented at Harvard[2]
Boondock Saints
In the film Boondock Saints, the urbane FBI agent Paul Smecker, played by Willem Dafoe, chastises a police detective he is working with for using the word symbology. The implication is that he is irked by the officer's statement because he sees symbology as a malapropism for the word symbolism. The dialogue is as follows:
Police detective: "So, What's the symbology there?"
Smecker: "Symbology?...Now that Duffy has relinquished his king bonehead crown, I see we have an heir to the throne. I'm sure the word you were looking for was symbolism. What is the symbolism there?"
Apparently, the film is pointing out a popular usage problem with the word symbology, which has not yet been recognized by dictionary editors. [Emphasis added.]
It just had to be said.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Oh, yeah, The DaVinci Code. That was a fun read.
So really, y'all (or Katharina) are just annoyed by hearing a word that reminds you of a bad writer? Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Out of curiosity, would this thread have been created if the original had been started by anybody other than kat?
Who wants to argue that it would have?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Of course it would have. Of course, most other people wouldn't have deleted the thread, so I guess it probably wouldn't have actually.
There was still an active conversation going on. As FC said
quote:Dang. I answered that, and the thread was deleted.
I never got to see that response and I was interested in it. So I posted this thread.
Also, unless things have changed around here, deleting threads that other people have contributed to isn't generally accepted without negative comment. As far as I recall, that's considered pretty bad manners. So, it served that purpose as well.
Do you have a problem with either of these two things, Icky?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I agree it isn't good manners. I have deleted a thread once that I remember, and it was because I got heated and posted some information that was confidential, and then it got quoted so I couldn't just edit my post, there were other posts involved.
Kat has deleted a thread once when I was in the middle of replying, and then you get that error message - very annoying. I do think that unless it's completely unavoidable for a reason like the one I had (and I did apologize to the other posters in a separate thread) a thread that is active shouldn't be deleted. It seems to me like starting a conversation with a group of people then not only walking out of the room without finishing, but forcing everyone else to leave too. But then again, that is just how I look at it, and if kat looks at threads as something she created and considers them disposable, then perhaps she doesn't think it rude.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jon Boy, I agree that people using the word symbology incorrectly is somewhat annoying. In this case, it looked like people were objecting to it being used at all.
However, it looks like the problem is that, in their mind, it is inextricably linked with Dan Brown and they don't like Dan Brown.
It seems kinda silly to me, but different strokes.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
It doesn't seem silly to me to dislike a word that has been popularized by a piece of hack writing, especially when the usage is questionable—and even more so when the hack writer didn't even really use it correctly. As it stated in the link I posted, "symbology" really should be "semiology," and even then, Robert Langdon was apparently more of an art historian than a semiologist. So that just makes it use (and misuse) even more annoying.
But, like you said, different strokes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jon Boy, I'm not disagreeing about Dan Brown not using it correctly.
But when you're talking about the symbols contained in something like art in a lobby, I think symbology is one of the best words to use. Semiotics doesn't fit as well because it carries the idea of academic study.
Why do you think the use here would be questionable? What word do you think would be a better fit?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Oh, I don't like it when threads get deleted.
I just wonder at your vehemence over this issue, in this and the original thread.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What vehemence?
edit: You know what. Don't bother. I don't care.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Jon Boy, I'm not disagreeing about Dan Brown not using it correctly.
But when you're talking about the symbols contained in something like art in a lobby, I think symbology is one of the best words to use. Semiotics doesn't fit as well because it carries the idea of academic study.
Why do you think the use here would be questionable?
Because "symbology" seems to connote "field of study," even if the denotative definition significantly overlaps that of "symbolism."
Also, in this example it seems likely that the speaker was using it just because they'd read it in The Da Vinci Code and thought it sounded good. Of course, that's an attribution of motive that I can't really back up. However, that link points out that there seems to be a usage problem when "symbology" is used where "symbolism" would normally be preferred.
quote: What word do you think would be a better fit?
"Symbolism."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I want to be a distinguished professor of thoughtology.
I will be a student of tautology.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: What vehemence?
edit: You know what. Don't bother. I don't care.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jon Boy, It doesn't really overlap with symbolism. It's the art, use, or study of symbolism.
Maybe I have a significantly different background than other people, but I'm used to symbology being used in this way. If someone were talking about the symbolism of the lobby, to me, that would imply that the lobby itself was symbolic of something, rather than it contained many pieces of art, architechture, or some other aspects that were themselves symbolic. Am I alone in seeing it that way?
Also, considering that the 'symbology' quote came from a movie that came out in 1999 and The DaVinci Code came out in 2003, I don't think this putative problem originated with the book.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"So, seriously, what is intrinsically wrong with people using the word 'symbology'?"
With such symbologicalizationalism I will not up with fish. -- Salvador Churchill
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Also, considering that the 'symbology' quote came from a movie that came out in 1999 and The DaVinci Code came out in 2003, I don't think this putative problem originated with the book.
Yes, but the movie was mocking the use of the word, and the book embraced it. Plus, the book used the word far more often and had a wider audience.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Icky's right.
Mr. Squicky, I will never notice you. Stop begging for my attention. It's fifth grade, and it's pathetic.
I deleted the original thread because sometimes the only way to remove a stalker is to get out of their way. It's awful and I resent it, but I'd rather delete the thread than endure more of Squicky picking at me in a desperate bid for validation.
Is that what you need? My approval? Fine.
"Yes, you are smrt, smrt person. And you smell nice."
Can you leave me alone now?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Blech - never mind. I take back the statement in quotes. I feel like I need a shower now. *shiver*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Princess, the only one talking about you is you.
Since you seem to have trouble with definitions: drama queen.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But you just can't help yoursel from obsessing...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
FC, If we lived in an alternate universe where Dan Brown didn't write The DaVinci Code and instead was a plumber, would you have a problem with someone using the word 'symbology'?
My understanding here is that the whole thing with 'symbology' is that people don't like Dan Brown, but I'm just checking to see if taking him out of the picture changes things.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:FC, If we lived in an alternate universe where Dan Brown didn't write The DaVinci Code and instead was a plumber, would you have a problem with someone using the word 'symbology'?
If we lived in that world, only a minute portion of its population would ever use the word. Similarly, if we lived in a world without Tolkien, someone could call something "my precious" and still mean "my thing of value" - without that person being labeled as a Tolkien fan. It's just that such phrasology would be used far less often.
Also, if we lived in that world and if it was used meaning "the study or use of symbols" - rather than "the meaning behind these symbols" - I likely wouldn't have a problem with it.
As it is, "symbology" has become a meme spread far and wide that lends some sort of high academic value to finding hidden secretive meaning behind icons used in paintings. Before Dan Brown, the "symbology" meme was rarely seen, and it either had the dictionary definition of any other "-ology" or some reference to its incorrectly being used for "symbolism" in Boondock Saints.
Its greater widespread use is linked directly to a hack, and so every time I hear it, I am reminded of said hack. Just as every time I hear the word "futile" (pronounced with a hard "i") I think of Star Trek.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
This is a pretty is a pretty intense argument, but I'll input my opinion anyways. I've never read The DaVinci Code, so I'm not familiar with Dan Brown or his hackiness. My problem with symbology is that it is often used incorrectly, as the reference to the Boon Dock Saints indicates.
Regardless of who made up what profession for the character in their novel, incorrect usage of words is annoying, and I have often thought that eliminating the word 'symbology' all together would prevent far more people from using it incorrectly than people from using it correctly.
Doubtless this would cause all sorts of problems in whatever field of study MrSquicky works in, but that is a consequence that I, personally, would not regret, so long as it facilitates the intelligent speaking of morons everywhere.
Also, I find it amusing that my spellcheck is insisting the 'symbology' is not, in fact, a word.
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
quote:As it is, "symbology" has become a meme spread far and wide
Not THAT wide. I've never heard the word before. My first reaction to the previous thread was thinking that the person just got the word wrong, and so I was wondering what the big deal was. I sometimes say weird combos of two words when I'm speaking, so mistaking "symbology" for "symbolism" seems like a normal thing to me (i.e., I could imagine myself saying it in a similar circumstance, even without knowing it's a real word and being entirely unfamiliar with Dan Brown's works, other than he wrote this book called The DaVinci Code).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
And now, the meme has spread to you. I apologize for propogating it further.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Jon Boy, It doesn't really overlap with symbolism. It's the art, use, or study of symbolism.
Aren't you the one who appealed to the OED? 'Cause here's what it says: "The science or study of symbols; loosely, the use of symbols, or symbols collectively; symbolism." The definition of symbolism includes this: "the systematic use of symbols; hence, symbols collectively or generally." Sounds like a lot of overlap to me.
quote:Maybe I have a significantly different background than other people, but I'm used to symbology being used in this way. If someone were talking about the symbolism of the lobby, to me, that would imply that the lobby itself was symbolic of something, rather than it contained many pieces of art, architechture, or some other aspects that were themselves symbolic. Am I alone in seeing it that way?
Maybe not alone, but I certainly don't see it that way. I think the obvious meaning of "symbolism of the lobby" is "use of symbols in the lobby," not "the lobby as a symbol."
quote:Also, considering that the 'symbology' quote came from a movie that came out in 1999 and The DaVinci Code came out in 2003, I don't think this putative problem originated with the book.
No, but I think it's safe to say that the book helped spread the problem to millions of people who had never heard the word symbology before. I'm pretty sure that my first encounter of it was in connection with the book.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How would you denote it if the lobby itself was symbolic then?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Do you really think more people read The DaVinci Code then saw Boondock Saints? I'm not saying they haven't, it's just not the conclusion that I would jump to.
If it were me talking about the lobby, I would have said "symbolism in the lobby" if talking about symbols in the lobby, or "symbolism of the lobbby" if the lobby itself was the symbol.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Do you really think more people read The DaVinci Code then saw Boondock Saints? I'm not saying they haven't, it's just not the conclusion that I would jump to.
More people have read or seen The Davinci Code (or read articles about it that included the word symbology) than have even heard of Boondock Saints.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Oh, Okay. You say this rather unequivocally. I assume you know this to be a fact?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Based on gross sales alone.
The Boondock Saints was only ever in extreme limited release (only ever shown in 5 theaters), and from all websites I can find it grossed around $30,000 total in theaters before it went to video. Granted it's made more since then, but it is still a small run, small gross picture with mild popularity.
The Davinci Code made $740 million in worldwide theatrical release, and has more than 60 million copies of the book in print. There are countless derivative books about it, plus thousands of articles written in magazines, newspapers and online. It is a juggernaut of popularity, and when you pair it with Angels and Demons (also using the word), it grows even more popular.
So, I'm pretty unequivocal when I say that more people have read, seen or heard the word symbology from Dan Brown's works than have even heard of Boondock Saints.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Alrighty. You win. I guess the group of people I run with aren't mainstream enough to give me an unbiased outlook on what is and is not popular.
Or...
Nuh uh! I'm right and your wrong and there ain't no way your gonna convince me otherwise! Scallywag!
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Of course, The Boondock Saints is an infinitely better movie and story than Dan Brown could ever hope to write, and should have made more money and attained more popularity.
Unforunately, the public generally likes crap.
Just wanted to add that. You know, Dan Brown being a hack, and all.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
The Boondock Saints wasn't given an opportunity to make money basically because the director made an ass out of himself. Resulting in him being blacklisted from studios and distribution companies. It wasn't like the public snubbed it. Look at it's success on DVD and video. That's really the only way it's ever been available.
[ July 27, 2006, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It follows much the same story as Firefly, in that regard (other than who is to be blamed for its lack of initial commercial success).
I consider myself to be "up" on movies, and I only heard of it last year when a friend lent me the DVD. At least I *heard* of Firelfy when it was out (never watched it) before becoming a fan last year (mainly because of recommendations on this site and PVPonline.com).
Unfortunately, the public often doesn't embrace movies of quality, choosing instead commercial garbage.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: How would you denote it if the lobby itself was symbolic then?
Do you really think this is what kat's coworker was trying to express—that the room itself was symbolic of something, and not that it contained things that were symbolic?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I used the word 'symbologizing' in my critique of the DaVinci code.
It may have been the wrong way to use the word ("If this sort of rampant, dishonest, fictitious symbologizing makes your teeth shake, DO NOT READ THE DAVINCI CODE! On peril of your molars.") but I don't care much. Or much care.
I muchly don't care overly.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Do you really think this is what kat's coworker was trying to express—that the room itself was symbolic of something, and not that it contained things that were symbolic?
No, in part because she used the correct word to denote the second part. But I don't see how that's relevant.
We're talking about the usage of words in a general context. In this specific case, there would probably be little ambiguity, but there are plenty of cases where there would be. In the deleted thread, I brought up the difference between symbolism amd symbology of a dollar bill.
It's entirely possible that the lobby of this building was intended to have be symbolic in itself as well as contain objects that were symbolic. Your suggested usage gives no way to discriminate between these.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: In this specific case, there would probably be little ambiguity, but there are plenty of cases where there would be.
:nods:
Yes. There would be.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It's entirely possible that the lobby of this building was intended to have be symbolic in itself as well as contain objects that were symbolic.
If only we had someone who knew the lobby in question and could answer that question and therefore interpret the sentence. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's symbolic of the womb, the sacred life-vessel that gives the divine feminine its power, and mysticism. The fact that the building is white is also a clue, as white is the symbol of purity, innocence, peace, and harmony, which all women have.
Everything's about the womb.
I know. 'Cuz I read the DaVinci Code.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If only we had someone who knew the lobby in question and could answer that question and therefore interpret the sentence.
That's completely irrelevant to what we're discussing, as I pointed out above. Proper usage of words is definied by the general case, not the specific.
A phrase of the form "the symbolism of <X>" is inherently ambiguous in the general case if you hold both meanings.
---
I feel I need to quote you for something as simple as this because you have a tendency to delete things without warning.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Couldn't resist, could you?
And you're wrong. Except for ScottR's brilliant interpretation, the lobby itself is meant to symolize nothing.
Sometimes a lobby is just a lobby.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Sometimes a lobby is just a lobby.
You don't realize it, but you just killed a Merovignian. Every time someone says "An X is just an X," one of Christ's heirs dies.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Sometimes a lobby is just a lobby.
Again, this specific instance is completely irrelevant to the point about definitions we're discussing.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Do you really think this is what kat's coworker was trying to express—that the room itself was symbolic of something, and not that it contained things that were symbolic?
No, in part because she used the correct word to denote the second part. But I don't see how that's relevant.
We're talking about the usage of words in a general context.
Really? You could've fooled me, I guess, because I thought it was pretty obvious that this entire thread was just a response to katharina's anecdote about her coworker's usage.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What's irrelevant is Dan Brown's insistence that because Christ was married and had a kid, he could not be the Son of God, and the whole of Christianity is a sham.
All of it. Because all Christians hate sex and sexuality, especially male Christians. And albino male Roman catholic christians hate sex more than anyone, to the point that they prefer barbed belts strapped to their thighs instead of underpants.
What underpants have to do with sex, I'm not sure. But you see my point, don't you?
******
Actually, seriously-- this is something that comes up a lot in these types of books. Wild leaps of logic that conclusively prove, without a doubt, that Jesus was not resurrected, Christian faith in Christ is a sham, and the early church ate babies as regularly as modern Mormons.
Snow Crash did it, too-- "Jesus taught against the grain! He was a rebel, poised to overtake the reign of the language virus carriers! Therefore, he wasn't the Son of God, and everything all Christian churches have done since is a lie, meant to perpetuate the virus Jesus sought to destroy!"
It doesn't make sense here, and it didn't make sense in the book.
Pfagh.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Jon Boy, It [symbology] doesn't really overlap with symbolism. It's the art, use, or study of symbolism.
It doesn't overlap symbolism, only symbolism is needed in any definition of symbology? Torturous hair-splitting IMO.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Really? You could've fooled me, I guess, because I thought it was pretty obvious that this entire thread was just a response to katharina's anecdote about her coworker's usage.
Right now, we're discussing how you would, at any point in time, denote that something contained objects that were symbolic versus something that was symbolic in and of itself.
You've said that you would use symbolism for both. I'm pointing out that this inevitibly leads to ambiguity.
The definition of words doesn't rely on an isolated, sepcific case.
---
Morbo, Letters (or some analog) are needed for any definition of writing. Would you say that there is overlap between the definition of 'letter' and 'writing'? Symbology is the art or use of symbolism is much the same way that writing is the art or use of letters (and words).
Symbology and symbolism denote different and distinct things. Thus, there is no overlap and, to tie it back to what I was saying above, no ambiguity when they are used correctly.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Actually, seriously-- this is something that comes up a lot in these types of books. Wild leaps of logic that conclusively prove, without a doubt, that Jesus was not resurrected, Christian faith in Christ is a sham, and the early church ate babies as regularly as modern Mormons.
This wasn't in The DaVinci Code, but it is often brought up by Christian detractors of the book. Where do you get this idea from?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Right now, we're discussing how you would, at any point in time, denote that something contained objects that were symbolic versus something that was symbolic in and of itself.
You've said that you would use symbolism for both. I'm pointing out that this inevitibly leads to ambiguity.
Show me an example where context and common sense would fail to prevent ambiguity.
quote: Symbology and symbolism denote different and distinct things.
I think you missed the part where I showed that this is not the case.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Show me an example where context and common sense would fail to prevent ambiguity.
Symbolism/symbology of the dollar bill. Symbolism/symbology of a lobby that was designed to be symbolic.
quote:I think you missed the part where I showed that this is not the case.
I must have. You showed a dictionary definition that included minority defintions where there could be overlap.
However, the concepts that I'm saying they stand for do not overlap. The words are not used in such a way that this potential overlap exists.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Show me an example where context and common sense would fail to prevent ambiguity.
Symbolism/symbology of the dollar bill. Symbolism/symbology of a lobby that was designed to be symbolic.
You failed to provide any kind of context here.
quote:
quote:I think you missed the part where I showed that this is not the case.
I must have. You showed a dictionary definition that included minority defintions where there could be overlap.
No, I gave you a definition where the words not only overlap but are synonymous.
quote:However, the concepts that I'm saying they stand for do not overlap. The words are not used in such a way that this potential overlap exists.
So now you're saying that the OED is wrong, huh? And anyway, the example from kat's coworker shows that "symbology" is used in such a way that this overlap exists.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sorry, I thought it was extremely obvious.
A dollar bill contains many elements that are symbolic. However, it is a formal symbol for value and is often used in various contexts to symbolize many things.
A lobby can be designed to be symbolic in itself. Imagine for example, someone were emulating elements of Egyptian pyramid building. It also can contain works of art and such that are symbolic.
The OED definition isn't wrong, but it lacks context. It's a minority definition and overly general.
And the whole point of this is that, in kat's co-worker's sentence, symbology is the correct word and symbolism is not, because the concept she was trying to express is properly denoted by 'symbology' but not by 'symbolism'. So the example actually shows the opposite of what you are claiming it does.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Squick:
Well, I wasn't reffering to the DaVinci Code specifically. You'll note that I use the phrase 'these types of books,' indicating a generalization about modern fiction novels that purport to reveal hidden secrets of Christianity. Since the DaVinci Cod matches the other two criteria, I think it fits.
Don't you?
Now, while the DaVinci code does not specifically call the Resurrection into question it does question the traditional view of Christ as the savior, and purports to reveal the dark, dark secrets of early Christians that the patriarchy doesn't want you to know.
Langdon says, early on in the book, that ancient (pre-Constantine) Christians wrote about Jesus as a man, as a great prophet, but NOT as savior.
I think this is in the chapter where Langdon and Sofie are riding through the Garden of Earthly Delights-- but I may be wrong.
Brown/Landon contradicts himself in the same chapter, not two minutes after making this assertion, by using a 'lost scripture' that specifically calls Christ "Savior--" this is the scripture where the disciples are talking about how Christ loved Mary Magdalene.
I wasn't coming at this topic in my role as Christian Apologist, but as an intelligent human being, who doesn't care for Brown's wrestling with logic.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Except it wasn't, which I know because I know the lobby in question and the tour in question, and you don't.
So you invented a (false) scenario and are breathlessly defending it.
Very, very sad.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, I have no recollection of Dan Brown denying Jesus as the Savior. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I can't recall it. Only read the book once and quickly too.
Doesn't he bring up the bit about MM being the first person Jesus showed himself to after the Resurrection?
kat, I realize how awful it must be for you to have me stalking you. You just can't get away for me and even have to delete threads in your strong desire to avoid me. And the way I always try to bring the conversations back to you while there are other discussions going on is just monstrous.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: This wasn't in The DaVinci Code, but it is often brought up by Christian detractors of the book. Where do you get this idea from?
quote:I have no recollection of Dan Brown denying Jesus as the Savior. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I can't recall it. Only read the book once and quickly too.
Clever.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
err...what?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What underpants have to do with sex, I'm not sure.
Oh, dear. Scott, has no one ever had That Talk with you?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Every time someone says "An X is just an X," one of Christ's heirs dies.
I thought it was a kitten.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think you can puzzle my meaning out, Squicky.
quote:has no one ever had That Talk with you?
Underpants are the root of all evil. I know, I know...
You might even say that underpants are behind all wickedness.
EDIT: Due to a massive cover-up, the Underpants Cabal has yet to be exposed.
[ July 28, 2006, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ok, I'll give it a try. The one that comes immediately to mind is pretty stupid though.
I claimed something didn't happen in the book.
At a later point, I said that I didn't recall something else happening in the book and mentioned that I read it once and fast.
Somehow, you think that invalidates my earlier statement?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mostly wrong. This is fun though. Keep at it, champ.
I'll give you a hint though-- it doesn't have to do with you being stupid.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Nah, I'm done. Never cared much for guessing games, sport.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
All right. You come back after your nap's done, and we'll use the nerf ball instead.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I do this exact same thing.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)