Symbolically Literal. Part 1

I find that flying is a great time to write - appropriately distant - yet just connected enough.

I write all the time - parking ideas, fragments and 'nuggets' in a variety of oddly-named folders. 'Interesting But', 'Yes, Maybe', 'See how you feel', Don't Ever Fly Again', 'Idiot', 'No-One Will Read It Anyway' - you know the kind of thing. Mostly it's stuff that will never see the light of day. Like the following. - 

"In this - the 21st Century - we need the symbolic to take up its rightful place alongside the literal. Why do people so often just fall into one or other category?" 

I probably should have left it in the folder marked 'Doh!' - but the idea continues to pre-occupy me.

What was I thinking?

Well, I know this isn't a new thought - 

"The 'literally' blinding ambition for western civilization (so called) has outlasted its welcome. The single-minded pursuit of money, profit and growth. It has been an economic imperative. Tangible returns at all cost. Greed. Literally. Disgustingly so. Interest shown only in the facts and figures - only what can be counted. Where only the left side of the brain rules. We've lived in the domain of the accountant - worse – the financier for far too long."

Recently the world has woken up a little - needing a change from this condition. It has spoken up a bit. Not enough in many peoples opinion - but we now see at least some shoots of reason. Reasonable folk and on-line activists seeking additional sense, meaning and purpose beyond the literal. 

The banking crisis and the distrust of governments around the world has caused us to question everything. Thankfully. Beyond simple growth at all cost - slaves to shareholder return. These things are now increasingly recognised as a 'by product' of something else, something symbolising trust and belief – profit is an outcome not a strategy.

Literally - no longer good enough.

To know how something works (or is built) is not the whole picture. It may be literally correct but it misses its true meaning by a long shot. It lacks the symbolic virtue or grand design and purpose of itself. The people working in the financial systems lost sight of the vital and symbolic position that they had held. For many in government they also have lost the symbolic reasons that they exist. To see how things operate under the hood is necessary of course - but to appreciate its whole – the value, the importance and quality of it - that is now crucial. 

In business it is proven beyond doubt that a bigger ideal, a clear mission and a shared vision (all symbolic) hold the secrets required to win. Today we are rightly far more concerned about the 'whole' story. The bigger picture and context from which meaning can be taken. To isolate the literal (and value that alone) was convenient for the financiers and governments of the 20th Century. 

In the 21st, to measure just what is tangible – to value only that - has become certain death.

Fact is we humans love to go to the extremes don’t we. 

We oscillate like crazy and we jump on bandwagons. Don’t ask me why, that’s a whole other question. We waver constantly and we do so in extreme cycles and over centuries. If we observe earlier societies, Romans and Greeks, Mayans and Egyptians for example, we would recognize and value a bit more symbolism - they were some of the most creative societies on Earth. 

But we muddle along. 

We are mostly literal – and then – we are uneasily symbolic when it suits – wars mostly. It takes time for any real shifts. It's imperceptible but we can do it. Fashion and all that. However I can't seem to find a time in recent history when we might say we had a conscious balance.

Problem is we just aren't good at riding any two seemingly opposing themes at once – anything where there is a continuum there comes a point when there is a versus. Then we beat each other for being one or the other. We lack the ability to consume and manage both in equal or fair shares. This means we are somewhat binary when it comes to the shadow side of things, the opposing - the seemingly paradox. 

There should not be symbolism versus literality. They should co-exist. A hybrid.

To be continued…

Posted via email from Just Thinking!