posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Again, this specific instance is completely irrelevant to the point about definitions we're discussing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
