Symbolic Pedagogy

Symbolic Pedagogy Corbin (1960) outlines the intention of his Avicenna and the Visionary Recital in a manner that provides a useful entry point into discussion of symbolic education. The goal of this text is to “…elucidate the structure and inner progression that make Avicenna's mystical recitals an organic and consistent whole… in which the thinker recaptures his spiritual autobiography in the form of symbols…” (Corbin 1960, p. xi) The question, then, is why an individual’s spiritual biography is to be recaptured through symbols. What is the nature of a symbol, and what is it about this nature that allows us to comprehend the spiritual dimension of self? We should probably begin with the hermetic dictum—‘as above, so below’. (Scott 1993) The same forms structure all levels of reality. Taking up the example of natural symbolism, the forms from which the order of nature emanates are the same forms that structure the evolution of psychology and of the soul. Natural symbols, then, contain the essence of the forms that structure all levels of being (at least when reality is not deprived of its intimacy with the Nothing-Infinite Eternal…). The flight of the bird rises from the same form as the ascension of the soul. In this sense we might argue that a land-based pedagogy is a symbolic pedagogy in that we learn from the land in of the way that it acts as a symbol for the Nothing-Infinite Eternal Forms that structure all levels of creation. The question of artificial symbols, distinguished from natural symbols in that form and symbol are mediated by historically produced subjectivity, is far more complicated. “...comprehending an author, especially a philosopher who succeeds in forming his own symbols, comprehending him (com-prehendere) in the full sense of the word, implies understanding eo ipso how and why his thought has actually been experienced in the spiritual milieus where he was recognized. For all this makes up an organic whole, of which the philosopher's thought is the seed and his experience the substance; all this makes up a structure of which that thought and experience are the explanation. The usual procedure in this day is to pile up references to the texts that preceded the philosopher chronologically, in an at—tempt to ‘explain’ him. I confess to a certain skepticism in regard to this kind of causal explanation. I have not here sought what might explain the philosopher Avicenna, but what the Avicennan experience itself explains to us.” (Corbin 1960, pp. xi-xii) I must confess to a lack of surety concerning the question of whether artificial symbols are necessary. Is there any reason for creating artificial symbols when natural symbols are available to us? Might a Modernist urban context, where the order of nature has in many ways been destroyed, beget the need for artificial symbols? I think, for example, of Tupac’s symbol—‘the rose that grew from concrete.’ (Tupac 2000) “You try to plant somethin in the conrete, y'knowhatImean? If it GROW, and the and the rose petal got all kind of Scratches and marks, you not gon' say, ‘Damn, look at All the scratches and marks on the rose that grew from concrete’ You gon' be like, ‘Damn! A rose grew from the concrete?!’ Same thing with me, y'knahmean? I grew out of all of this Instead of sayin, ‘Damn, he did this, he did this,’ Just be like, ‘DAMN! He grew out of that? He came out of that?’ That's what they should say, y'knowhatImean? All the trouble to survive and make good out of the dirty, nasty Y'knowhahatImean unbelievable lifestyle they gave me I'm just tryin to make somethin… You see you wouldn't ask why the rose that grew from the concrete Had damaged petals. On the contrary, we would all celebrate its Tenacity. We would all love it's will to reach the sun Well, we are the roses - this is the concrete - and these are My damaged petals. Don't ask me why, thank God nigga, ask me how!” (Tupac 2008; Genius.com 2018) Such a symbol could only be conceived by a historical subject whose subjectivity has been produced by life in the concrete jungles of Colonial Modernity. Maybe, then, we can say that artificial symbols like Tupac’s symbol of ‘the rose that grew from concrete’ are only necessary in the context of the Artificial Worldview and the historical subjectivities (deprived of intimacy with the transcendental subjectivity, with the goodly order of human nature) manufactured therein. Artificial Symbols may be necessary for liberation from the Artificial Worldview and the historical subjectivities manufactured therein as they have the ability to capture (and thus to teach us about) the essence of the form of the privation of form. Beyond such Emancipatory Artificial Symbols, it seems likely that Artificial Forms are not just unnecessary—they must be destroyed as they facilitate our education into (subjugation to) the Artificial Worldview. Artificial Symbols are typified by mediation of the relationship between form and symbol by subjectivity. As such, we can surely say that Artificial Symbols produced by the Artificial Worldview and its historically manufactured subjectivities ought to be rejected as they rise from the deprived forms (i.e. forms with no basis in the Nothing-Infinite Eternal) that are accepted as real by the Artificial Worldview (for example the form of ‘good and evil’, which is to say the assumption that good and evil hold a dualistic relationship akin to masculine and feminine, black and white, yin and yang, etc.). Artificial Symbols of ‘good and evil’ like ‘white and black’ are products of the privation of the Nothing-Infinite Eternal that leads to the false assumption that good and evil hold a binary, dualistic relationship (in truth there is no good and evil binary, only good and privation of the good). Again, the only acceptable Artificial Symbols are Emancipatory Artificial Symbols that symbolize the form of the privation of form (i.e. ‘the rose that grew from concrete’) that is caused by all other Artificial Symbols. This discussion Natural and Artificial Symbols and of Emancipatory Artificial Symbols necessitates that we distinguish between Natural (Eternal) Form and Artificial Form. Natural Forms are emanations of the Nothing-Infinite Eternal. Artificial Forms are rooted in the privation of the Nothing-Infinite Eternal. The form of the privation of form is the perfect example of an Artificial Form—it is the form of the privation of the NothingInfinite Eternal from which Artificial Forms and Symbols rise. What is the origin of the Artificial Symbol? What would lead an individual to Artificial rather than Natural Symbolism? These questions are seemingly synonymous with the question of how the Artificial Worldview (the loss of human nature) came to be (see the essay ‘So What’s the Problem?’ in my essay collection Nomadic Exploration of Critical Pedagogy [Barnesmoore 2018]). Luke R. Barnesmoore UBC Urban Studies Lab Department of Geography University of British Columbia [email protected] Bibliography: Barnesmoore 2018, Nomadic Exploration of Critical Pedagogy, Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Corbin 1960, Avicenna and the Visionary Recital, Willard Trask (trans.), New York: Pantheon. Scott 1993, Hermetica: The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings which Contain Religious or Philosophic Teachings Ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus, Boston: Shambhala. Tupac 2000, “The Rose that Grew from Concrete”, The Rose that Grew from Concrete, Amaru & Interscope. Tupac 2000, “The Rose https://genius.com/232045 that Grew from Concrete”, Genius.com, Warrior 1989, “Canaanites, cowboys and Indians: Deliverance, conquest and liberation theology today”, Christianity and Crisis, 49, pp. 261-265.