Stephen Tyman on Thinking in Symbols

Retired professor of philosophy Stephen Tyman, senior channel for the Working Group and author of A Fool’s Phenomenology: Archeytpes of Spiritual Evolution, begins with a lecture on symbols as a extra-linguistic means of approaching concept complexes, exploring their function in channeling and the archetypal mind. Discussion then ensues amongst the group on applying these ideas to artificial intelligence.

Hi, Jeremy. I am relatively new to the law of one material and actually I have some questions and thoughts regarding symbology.
First, I am of the opinion that the Confederaion recommends tarot symbols as a useful tool with the same reason that they recommend meditation as a useful tool. That is, to avoid infringing upon others’ free will as much as possible(maybe directly and clearly imparting the knowledge of the functioning of various things will depolarize them rapidly) and to avoid standardizing other-selves’ experience.
That’s because I think symbology is vague compred to language and telepathy because one thousand people will have one thousand interpretations of the symbol complex and only as such can the experience be diversified and avoid being standardized. Just like in meditation, you are under the mercy of various impulses and possibities of making connections between things never made before. And maybe this is the positive(passive) way of serving the Creator by giving as different an experience as possible.
Meanwhile, I know symbology is something that is a thing-in-itself(or more precisely, a mechanism-in-itself), as in cattle mutilations. Maybe it is just a mechanism designed before time exists to give hints to the creation so that it will not completely go so far off the original plan, i.e. the blueprint, the archetype.
As someone who is so used to logical thinking, I just find symobology so unreliable. Anyway, I prefer someone giving me knowledge directly rather than letting me beat around the bush.

Did you watch the video? I think you’d find a lot to chew on in there that is specific to your areas of inquiry.

You might consider whether logic itself is not a kind of symbolic system. Like a grammar, it is a consistent system that seems to give us clarity and determinism, but it is not without paradoxes. In fact, how are we able to work with a value like pi, or infinity, in a formulaic or algebraic manner sans a symbol that stands in for the indeterminacy of those two values? The symbols help us work with what I might describe as the energies of those thoughts without having to reduce them to what, after all, are just more symbols. After all, I can type and think “one” but what is “one-ness” or “thirteen-ness”?

What I’m addressing is the qualitative nature of reality, something that Professor Tyman directly deals with in the above video. And logic is great as a means for working with qualities, but it cannot unravel the qualities themselves. It is one way we can, like you said, see connections. It is not the only way, and if we are to take the scientistic fundamentalist ontological approach that the only things that count as “real” are those that can be reduced to our preferred symbology, we will find ourselves in just as mysterious a condition as if we begin to work with the meanings and interpretations of things as qualities.

Another thought: logic is often preferred as a means because it seems objective, outside the purview of interpretation. That’s because it seems to be something outside ourselves. But we have reason to think that mistaken, do we not? The more we deal with qualitative interpretation and exploration, the more we see that the observer/observed dichotomy is illusory, and that interpretation has value as a way of investigating and mobilizing parts of ourselves that we otherwise must pretend do not exist, or pretend are not the self at all. Then we don’t hold symbology to any standard of resolution for the same reason that we don’t pretend our condition is resolvable in some ultimate sense.

1 Like

Are the words you use to say this not symbols as well? Your thoughts are all symbols, are they not?

That which appears objective is understood through one’s personal sensory apparatus, rending it not objective, but subjective. How can one escape this? Does it not subject us all to eternal separation, each one separately defining reality according to their individual sensory apparatus? Even if we look at the read out of measuring instruments, let’s say, the meaning or context of the meaning, is subjectively determined. Oh, my!

This describes life lived on the surface of things. More deeply within lie deeper means of knowing. Working with this challenge is one of the characteristics of third density.

Great topic, thank you for sharing.