To claim that human reality and behavior is essentially symbolic has become a trite way of saying a little about a lot. Humankind on earth has long trafficked in symbols, the rise of human civilization can be understood as the synergistic culture-historical patterning and developmental processes of elaborate symbolization, symbolisms and symbolic chains have been the warp and weft of the rich, unfolding tapestry of human culture history, and individual symbolic processes have been the primary mechanism of the psycho-social integration of social reality and the principle means of mediating the boundaries and relationships of the organism with the environment. Symbolization has been the basic "evolutionary" process at the heart of the basic human transformations of the world and in the world, and it is by the elucidation of the basic process of human civilization that we can better understand from where we have come, how and why we are what we are, our basic relationship to a larger natural context, and where we are headed in our transformation of the world. Symbols come to incorporate human experience and we come to embody symbolisms in our being, belief and behavior. Our experience, both psychologically, phenomenologically, and collectively, becomes expressed symbolically in terms we are familiar with, linguistically encoded, visually materialized.

Human symbolic activity provides the relational context and culture-historical background against which we can configure our understanding about human language. Symbolization works systematically in a way very similar to how linguistic aactivity becomes structured and situated in social context, and though language is a particular and especially interesting mode of communication, it is also a kind of symbolization, intrinsically, that is part of a larger contextual, culture-historical background itself articulated in terms of symbolization and symbolic complexes. It is both specialized and generalized, simultaneously, and this perspective forms the foundation for symbolic linguistics. Linguistic activity, in either an analytical sense or holistically, cannot be understood apart from its symbolic context, which is synthetic, and it is primarily through language in everyday settings in the world that we can better understand this larger symbolic context.

Symbols are anything and everything that comes within the purview of human reality. All symbols by definition have both some 'formal' or 'nomic' significance and some 'functional' or 'intentional' use. Even the most basic of hand tools, or tools that make tools that make other tools, or parts of tools, have a symbolic value, as "machines" that are both formal and function in latent content, implication and pragmatic function. This symbolic value, composite, multifaceted, variable, is both in spite of and alongside of the history of the tool as a thing in the world. Similarly, all ideas, however abstract, remote, or apparently pure and "a priori," nevertheless have some measure of symbolic use value and symbolic purposefulness that relates it to a larger constellation of ideas, values, meanings and associated behaviors.

Symbols have fuzzy, soft edges, and form harder, more resilient "cores." It is the fuzziness and stickiness of the boundaries of symbols that renders them easily adhesive to other symbols. It is their malleability and plasticity which makes them so good to reshape in the hands of the human imagination, fashionable and conformable to whatever framework or mold we find it convenient to fit them to. Symbols thus tend to cohere together to form symbolic chains, clusters, complexes and larger organismic structures, and which sometimes coalesce into crystal-like formations that gain some measure of historical stability as self-organizational systems.

It is the fuzziness of symbols that allows them to be easily "transacted"--to be broken off from larger symbol groupings and associated with other groupings in a modular manner. It is also the fuzziness of the edges that makes particular symbols relatively difficult to "isolate" as separate, clearly definable entities with their own distinct boundaries. Symbols are especially difficult to explicitly define or delimit within larger relational contexts, in which they are naturally embedded, but it is in such frameworks that we develop a form of gestalt pattern recognition by which we easily understand and comprehend symbolisms, context bound, in a focal manner.

Symbols are analogous to the "molecules" of human cultural reality--they can be arranged and rearranged in particular conglomerations and configurations, to confer different "properties" of basic cultural materials. They can be broken down into their elemental "atoms"--the basic paradigmatic, periodic table of universal human elements, or perhaps what Rodney Needham has referred to as basic symbolic archetypes--unilateral figures, incorporating dimensions of reversal, symmetry/asymmetry, of dialectical antinomies such as space/time, is/isn't, up/down, right/left, etc., that may in turn be "deconstructed" into "primary factors" of human experience such as tactile physical contrasts like hard and soft or warm and cold, basic color representations and sensations, symbolic use of basic numbers, certain sounds such as percussion, basic phonetic articulations, basic geometric shapes and naturalistic forms like animals, trees, etc., and perhaps certain basic emotions or feelings, gestures like laughing or crying, and psycho-physiological patterns of response like aggression, impulse, sexual attraction, social affiliation, etc.

Like language, symbols can be reduced down to the compositon of basic signs that are concrete and metonymical in function. Signs may be themselves symbols, or at least symbolic manifestations or materializations, but the particular arrangement of signs, like the particular arrangement of phonemes and morphemes in a word or sentence, configure to produce a derivative, symbolic significance, context bound, that is holistically greater than the some of its parts, part of a larger symbolic system, synergistic, and the significance of which is "lifted" from the particular, concretized significations carried in an atomistic and analytic manner by particular individual signs or even strings of signs. Signs are iconographic in function and purely mechanical in structural organization, but symbols become metaphorical in reference/inference and analogical in structural relation.

Like language, symbolisms carry "duality of structure." Symbols also have a signification function in that they "stand" for something else that is abstract and immediately displaced from the immediate context of its signs. In terms of the psychological analysis of symbolism, this structural function is referred to as "representation" and is the most important aspect of human symbolic behavior--the basis for the foundation of human culture and comprehension of the world. All symbols are both signified and substantive in experience, and significant and ideational or "contextual" in referring to something else besides its own signification.

Symbols have a "mediative" or integrative function in ordering human experience. Human experience is symbolically integrated. We analytically separate out its dimensions of "syntagmatic and paradigmatic" and of diachronic and synchronic structure after the fact of its integrated experience through our combined channels and modalities of sensory awareness and pattern comprehension. We do not experience the world in a "non-symbolic" or "proto-symbolic" manner. This constitutes the basis for the anthropological relativity of all human knowledge and behavior--human behavior and understanding is symbolically constructed, and filtered through the mechanisms of symbolization. This constrains, shapes and to a certain extent limits what we know and how we can know it. But at the same time, it offers us a mechanism for transcending these limitations to achieve a sense of symbolic integration that, however imperfect, has at least the appearance of being complete, whole, and comprehensive.

Symbols are used in one of two classificatory schemas--analogical and homological. Analogical schemas correspond to synchronic and paradigmatic classes, while homological schemes refer to the particlar arrangements in which signs are regularly put, and the constraints governing such arrangement. Another way of referring to this is in terms of referential or contextual/relational structure and inferential or intentional structure. The former relates, the latter differentiates and tends to isolate. The former unites elements within a single sense of order or a general configuration or symbolic domain of experience, while the latter interrelates different symbolic domains of experience expressed in terms of particular, isolatable elements distinguished from each domain. The former structure is typological and hence tends to stereotype, the latter structure is taxonomical and tends towards individuality.

Homological schemas require the utilization of symbols as active parts, as mechanisms, in a process of production. Hence, constraints governing homological schemas are greater and more restrictive than those governing analogical schemas that are by definition more open and less constrained in either a formal or functional manner. We recognize homological schemas in the form of taxonomies of knowledge systems that name things and set things into schematic frameworks of relationship, contrast and similarities derived through properties of inheritance.

The two systems are "coordinate" in human reality. They are convergent in the on-going symbolic construction of the experiential fabric of human reality. It is to be speculated whether such symbolic coordination is not due to the lateralization of brain function in the integration of spatial and temporal dimensions of experience.

*****

We may speculate that there are many orders and kinds of symbolism, distinguished according to their form and function. We may even speculate that there are certain "meta-rules" for the organization of these different classes, orders and kinds of symbolism in a systematic manner. We may refer for instance to linguistic symbolisms, technological symbolisms, to somatic symbolisms, relational symbolisms, psychological symbolisms, social symbolisms, etc, depending upon our reference framework.

A key feature of symbols is that they must occupy time and space--though they are contextually bound and relative, they are nevertheless discrete. Symbolisms can be merged or amalgamated, but two separate or distinct symbolisms cannot occupy the same place at the same time, without one displacing, limiting or altering the other. Symbols can be said to have a certain "mass" that can be described as the minimal threshold of their integrative value, before they are altered or displaced from a significant context or configuration. Symbol systems exhibit a kind of cumulative momentum or historical movement that confers upon their trajectory a certain fundamental stability and predictability of direction of change.

A particularly interesting order of symbolism is the "emblem." The emblem is ultimately a kind of totemic symbolism that in its own expressive elaboration can come to "stand for itself" and thus create its own context that is both inferentially and referentially independent of any other order or relation of experience. It is something like a proverb or an idiomatic expression in a language that carries its own framework as a single unit of meaning.

An emblem is defined as "a visible symbol of a thing, idea, class of people, etc.; object or representation that stands for or suggests something else." Originally, emblem was any kind of in-lay or mosaic work or embossed relief on tiles. Tiles so embossed formed units that could be arranged, transported and reconfigured in alternative arrangements, the emblematic unit retaining its sense of individual wholeness. Emblems came to be elaborated as allegorical pictures with a motto and verse, suggesting some moral message or truthful "conceit."

An emblem became a kind of symbolism, or symbolic representation, that contained three essential elements--a "Motto," an "Icon" and some explanatory verses or the "Epigram." The symbolic value of the emblem emerges from the interaction of these three elements, such that "the three parts mutually elucidate each other, and in doing so, convey the meaning of the whole emblem. In the construction of the emblem, the three parts are integral to one another. They do not occur in isolation or separately from one another, but within the same symbolic "frame" of reference.

Emblems serve two basic functions--representation and interpretation. "A res picta, an object from nature, art or mythology, becomes a res significans, expressing a general truth or insight. It is important to realize that all three parts of the emblem can share in the double function of representation and interpretation." (Karl Holtgen; Aspects of the Emblem, 1986: page 24)

There are different kinds of emblems. "Devises" were a particular class of emblems that become its own literary pictorial genre. Emblems themselves were said to come from the seals, crests and signs on shields that ancient soldiers carried into war with them. Such emblems often had a rebus reading, were talismans with magical properties, had "propaganda" or persuasive power over people, and were used to reinforce alliances and relations of dependency. In this regard, such emblems have had an important place among populations that were illiterate or semi-literate, making dissemination of their value widely available. It is no coincidence that emblems are today typically found on different forms of money or currency, and play an important part in the function of money in exchange and recognition. Even today, in many Chinese temples, such emblems can be found on painted tiles bearing scenes of Buddhist Gods, telling a story with a Confucian moral attached. These epitomize the "conflation" of the three teachings that is so characteristic of traditional Chinese "religionism" that is thought of as inherently syncretic and synthetic in orientation.

Today there are many derivative forms that are emblematic. Official badges and seals are survivals of a by-gone era of heraldic emblems, crests and shields. Tattoos are often emblematic in design and purpose. Cartoon strips combining words and pictures into a kind of story-line, often with predictable characters, are an extension of emblems and emblematic function on a very basic level, as are many illustrations in children's literature--for instance, in Beatrice Potter or Lewis Carroll. Even illustrations in much adult literature is emblematic or derivative of emblems in that the pictures and their captions are held to be representative of something important within a text, and within the larger world, and if one peruses old illustrations of old books before the age of photography especially, one finds them used in a clearly emblematic manner. Military or other decorative uniforms are emblematic, as are the kinds of medals and medallions that are usually associated with such uniforms. All forms of money, coins, bills and stamps, are emblematic in form and function, as are many advertisements, company logos and signs. Posters are similar kinds of emblematic devises.

Emblematic symbolisms can express several forms and functions. They can be "authoritative" or confer a sense of identity or legitimacy. They can be "enacted" and be "performative" such as the signing of a declaration of war, or an armistice, or a speech that accomplishes the same thing, or the breaking of a bottle over the stern of a ship during its christening ceremony with a new name, and a prayer, or the cutting of a ribbon of a new architectural building or monument, the unveiling of a statue, or a ground breaking ceremony, or the breaking of a ribbon at a finish line. By ritual and ceremonial extension, we can speak of the action of emblems during certain rites of passage such as birthdays, marriages, graduations, funerals, coming of age ceremonies, promotions, etc.

*****

A particular kind of emblem is the flag. The flag was originally a totem, which is also a special kind of emblem in traditional cultural context. The totemic function of the flag is to embody and sacralize the collective identity of a group or the social order. They are thus "collective representations" with clear territorial, political and social implications. Early totems were frequently spirit familiars derived directly from the natural order, and were most often identifying animals or other living thing--the "dog clan" or the bear clan or the snake people. Related to this is the notion of the sacrament, the tabooing of certain kinds of food, or the taking of a holy sacrament. In this case, such an emblem becomes symbolically what it stands for--for instance, the wafer represent the blood and body of Christ. Burning the American flag can be seen as an epitome of the expression of the basic freedom of expression that the flag represents, while simultaneously representing the desecration of the very culture historical order within which such freedom of expression is safe-guarded.

The culture historical study of flag history and symbolism is referred to as "vexillogy." Early flags were "vexilloids"--usually a geometric figure or an animal totem on top of a pole. The Romans legions had their fasci, which emblem the Nazi's of Germany later adopted. Later "vexillums" were made of cloth, and became the banners and streamers ancient and medieval armies carried into battle.

Flags may be understood in reference to their symbolic context combining four kinds of symbolism--active, verbal, concrete and graphic. Ritual contexts of the presentation and handling of flags on ceremonial occasions, for the prescribed display of the flag under special circumstances, provide a kind of symbolic "grammar" for the ritual use of such symbolism.

Flags are more than just decorative or representational devices. They are symbolic and communicative, constituting factors affecting the world directly as they manipulate and are manipulated by groups of people.

In general, the more widespread a particular symbolism, the more abstract and simplified its basic form. Local flags and emblems almost always tend to be more complex and explicit than those similar symbols for nations and states. Flags have certain recurrent symbolisms--a geometric sun or star, an eagle, Garuda, phoenix or dragon, or griffin, a lion or bear or some other animal, certain basic distinctive colors, certain geometric designs--a cross, circle, a wheel or Mandalas, or a crescent. Bars and stripes have come to represent topographical elements of flags, trees, ships, floral arrangements, and basic tools, and certain basic logos or inscriptions.

Many rules of custom and etiquette govern the ritual use of different kinds of flags. Ritual surrounds and reinforces the sacredness of a flag. The usage and manipulation of flags is always by ceremonial ritual--raising the flag, flying it, folding it, its use in parades, at half-mast, etc.

Flags are displayed in relation to each other in certain ways again governed by ritual protocol. Larger order flags must always be flown above lower ranking flags. Flags at international events are flown side-by-side with one another as a demonstration of equality. At the Olympics, it is not insignificant that the gold medal winner stands highest above the second and third place winners, respectively, as the flags are flown above in a similar manner. In battle, the sign of victory is the hoisting of the flag over the highest point of the enemy's position, and the greatest defeat of a unit is the loss of its colors or standards in battle to an enemy.

The history of flags can be seen as through their alteration and change through time. For instance the adding of stars for each state of the Union, the rearrangement of the pattern of these stars on the American Flag. The Civil War brought with it the Rebel flag with crossed stars and strips. Eras of peace or alliance are sometimes signified and represented by composite flags that are made by sewing together the individual flags of participating nations into a single large square.

*****

It has been the individual distinctive symbolic elements and their designs and "stimulus generalization" that has been the substance of human civilization as a pan-cultural historical process of development. Basic symbolic elements become carried or transmitted between people, reconstructed, elaborated, modified and made to fit within new culture historical contexts.

Elemental designs of symbols become simplified and "stream-lined" over time as they become reproduced and reworked and continuously modified to fit new environmental arrangements. New elements are created to replace old elements that better "fit" into new environmental contexts. The design, selection and displacement of elements is determined by both their forma and function. They may work better than previous elements or their overall design may be more "in harmony" with the prevalent context into which they are currently fit.

In general, there has been an overall tendency for new elements to be selected for which allows greater directional patterning of development, toward increased "intensification" and control of the symbolic power that underlies the development of human civilization. A particular element of culture may work where previous elements may no longer fit. It is not enough for elements to be merely different in a random fashion, but they must change in a more integrative, intensive direction depending upon prevalent foci of elaborative interest. History then becomes a great repository and store-house of symbolisms, once pase', retrofitted, reactivated, then moth-balled for some later date when the emblematic associations may once again become meaningful and possibly even useful in some functional manner.

In this regard, we can see the advantages that a culture would have that had the bow and arrow over those without, who had feathers on the ends of their arrows as opposed to those without, who had a conception of zero, or the use of the wheel, or of metallurgy or gun-powder, or a conception of a single God, or literacy, or a Republican assembly, or a court system with codified laws, or social stratification, or bureaucracy, over those lacking these things. Whatever their form and function, such elements were primarily symbolic in allowing the integration and intensification of culture-historical patterning, a process we refer to as civilization. Once invented, devised or "discovered," such symbolisms were readily transmittable to other groupings, especially when there is no alternate form to compete for cultural space. The borrowing of complex symbol systems often also results in the modification, adaptation and improvement of such systems, as can be demonstrated clearly in the history of writing and the transfer of syllabaries from one group to another. The silk-worm and the secretes of making fine porcelain were well-kept strategic interests of a xenophobic China, but its eventual leakage and transformational consequences upon the Western World were inevitable.

Any given "element" of civilization can be identified by its "paradigmatic proto-typicality" in subsuming a range of possible alternative "profiles" or instantiations. A paradigmatic even "horizon" within which change is constrained. No single element is purely technological or purely social or purely symbolic. Each element has symbolic, social and technological aspects and consequences in its realization. A tool or a weapon is never just a device for mechanical manipulation, but also always carries certain symbolic and social values. The conception of a God is never purely disembodied or abstract, that it does not somehow become "trans-substantiated" through symbolic material forms and social ritual process.

Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations are temporal-spatial dimensions of the on-going instantiation of the historical patterning of human reality. They dialectically precondition one another such that syntagmatic order or recursive homological structure determines the selection of paradigmatic, analogical alternatives, and syntagmatic ordering is determined by the selection of available, over-arching, paradigmatic categories.

The only a priori rule governing these arrangements are that they "make sense" given the contextual environment of relations in which they occur. The environment itself is changing and developing in certain directions and their occasionally arises an appropriate arrangement of circumstances preconditioning or making possible the invention, reception or innovation of new elements to fill in the "gaps" created by the changing contexts. In this way, there occurs independent simultaneous inventions or changes when contextual conditions become "ripe" for their creation to take place.

New elements, with new forms and new functions, create new horizons of possible patterning, and lead to alteration in the "systemic" structure of the whole context. In the endeavor to devise completely new forms and functions, humankind has been notoriously short-sighted. For a long time it was believed to be physically impossible for people to fly, until the Wright brothers demonstrated otherwise. Since then, less than a hundred years of of many Millennia, humankind has taken the basic discovery and fact of human flight and transformed the entire world of its civilization, such that now we have walked upon the moon and regularly fly around the globe as an everyday, taken for granted facet of contemporary society. Humankind has been much better innovators than original inventors, much better at elaboration than the creation of entirely new elements. And this process of symbolic elaboration and continuous functional adaptation continues today in an on-going manner.

09/21/06