Who gets to decide what a bear signifies in the spiritual sense? And how do we know?

Freud, in The Interpretation Of Dreams, goes into great detail to explain two types of symbols, those which appear to be universal (like phallic symbols) and those which are learned through our culture (wood was feminine for Freud, but would be masculine today) and its use of language. Then, of course, there are symbols which are meaningful only to the individual.

So, why is a bear ignorance, in the spiritual sense? What if two religious high muckity-mucks disagree on what a bear means? Or do they always agree?

I am very curious to see where this little bit of information came from, and how reliable it is.

I believe it was Rene Descartes who first mentioned the Bear=ignorance relationship. He was at home, writing up some philosophy, and the kids were running around the house, screaming at the top of their lungs. "Shut up!" yelled Decartes, "I can bearly hear myself think". Well, that did it. His mind had formed the association with "bearly" and "can't think", and it stuck (he always was a terrible speller, especially in English). Of course, others, including Thomas Hobbes have argued that the horse is the symbol of ignorance, due to the fact that they wear blinders. But most modern dream analysts put Decartes before the horse.

If it were not for the suspicion that you would enjoy it, I would urge Iacchus to give you a sound spanking for that post.

But then again that might be too em-bear-assing. Unless you didn't know better of course.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

This is what's called correspondences and it's based upon the inherent values which different cultures associate with different things, so in that respect it will likely vary. It all depends on what that culture holds in the highest esteem. And yet we shouldn't discount these things entirely, because each has certain universal characteristics to them, which might explain why they tend to cross cultural lines. And indeed, these are the very things which myths and dreams are made of and, in fact becomes the key, to understanding different mythologies and religions. So basically what we're speaking of here is the language of symbolism which, is what is meant by something having a spiritual significance.

As for the bear signifying ignorance, this is borrowed from Revelation 13:2, regarding the Beast out of the Sea (which has its own corresondence) with the feet of a bear which, Swedenborg says signifies ignorance (i.e., derived from doctrine). While there's one other reference to bears in the Bible that I'm aware of, where the young children mocked the prophet Elisha, and the two she bears came out of the woods and rent 42 of them. ~ 2 Kings 2:23-24 ... Now there's an interesting number, as it's also the number of months the Beast out of the Sea opens its mouth in blasphemy against God. Can you see the correlation between blashphemy and ignorance?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Actually, no, I don't see a connection between blasphemy and ignorance. Blasphemy is intentional, done in full awareness of what one is mocking.But if they were truly universal, we would not see cultures without them. It seems a more parsimonious explanation for the similarities is simply the expansion of culture from one, to a few pockets, to the world.

Eliade, in the sacred and the profane, makes arguments for some universal symbols which are quite different from, say, Jung's (although there is overlap at points). His search for "axis mundi" (axis of the world) symbols struck me as forced--the bishop's staff, the cross, the shaman's medicine pipe, all are seen as symbolic axes of the earth. Some seemed (to me) to fit, others seemed to me that he had decided that such things existed and he looked until he found something which fit, whether it held the same position in that culture or not. By the way, speaking of symbols, the exact same things Eliade called axis mundi were things Freud called phallic symbols. Now, one could make the argument that there is a "universal truth" connecting the two ideas, but to me this is a huge stretch, and says more about a desire to make the theory fit than the actual fitness of the theory. (Mind you, there may very well be men who think their own phallus is the center of the world, but I doubt they are speaking archetypally)

I worry when folks speak of universal cultural anything, because in my experience they start from their own back yard and look for how others are like themselves. When you look to confirm something rather than to disconfirm it, it is all too easy to find lots of "evidence" that is not truly evidence, but merely "consistent with". As examples outside of symbology, take a look at the "psychologies" of Freud, Jung, and Erikson. The same problems, essentially the same cases, were seen as "evidence" of sexual motivation, collective unconscious, or inferiority complexes. Freud looked for sex and found it. Jung looked for archetypes and found them. Erikson looked for inferiority and found it. None looked to disprove their own theories...too bad, because they may have found that they were unfalsifiable and thus not scientific. If they wanted to stay in the realm of myth, good for them.

"Forgive them Father for they know not [even in their deliberateness] what they do."

Well the nature of it seems to be universal, much as it's necessary to have some form of language to communicate. It's nearly inescapable.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Context, Iacchus. Your quote does not address an instance of blasphemy, at least as my dictionary defines it. For blasphemy, the quote might well be "forgive them father, even though they know full well what they are doing." Which, by the way, seems a lot more forgiving. It is easy to forgive someone for something they did not know was wrong, harder to forgive an intentional act.If we look for it. For instance, you mentioned Star Wars and jungian archetypy here, I think. You can also see the same archetypes in Harry Potter--the orphan, the hero, the shadow, the friendly monster...so many parallels. If one is looking for parallels. But I have also seen an analysis of Harry Potter as a story about being gay! A whole parallel society, with secrets that are hidden from "normal" people...and when you look for that type of symbol, it works too! I am certain you could do a freudian analysis of HP also, and find sexual desire everywhere.

Until people try to disconfirm these notions, I think it is all too easy to find what you are looking for because you are looking for it.

Sorry, but are you saying it wasn't an intentional act which, is exactly what I mean by deliberateness, when they hung Jesus up on a cross? Also, it is possible to do something deliberately without realizing the full extent of what it is you're doing.

It's possible. So what? The human psyche is full of patterns and symbolism. And one, if not the best way to explore them, is through myth.

I for one if, you ever get a chance to read my story, was not looking for God when I found Him, albeit that isn't entirely true, it's just that I was ill-prepared to accept what I found (I was having a lot identity issues at the time), and it took me another 14 years to reconcile myself to it.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Remember that Jesus himself was accused of blasphemy, by definition. Arguably, those nailing him up there thought they were simply punishing a criminal like the others crucified with him. Their actions would not be deliberate blasphemy. So, yes, I am saying that their intent was not to blaspheme. His last words back up my contention.Funny, my point was that, because our expectations determine our findings, this would be among the worst ways to explore human experience. We would not know truth from error even if we accidentally stumbled across it![quote]