Disneology #14: Man’s Perfectionist Nature=God’s Image?

ASSIGNMENT 16: RIDE THE “TOMORROWLAND TRANSIT AUTHORITY” IN THE MAGIC KINGDOM, AND PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE MODEL VIEW OF THE PERFECT COMMUNITY, AS YOU PASS THROUGH SPACE MOUNTAIN. THEN, VISIT DISNEY’S “PERFECT COMMUNITY”—CELEBRATION, FLORIDA, LOCATED DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE MAGIC KINGDOM AND DISNEY PROPERTY, ON WORLD DRIVE.

Is there such a thing as a “perfect” community, a perfect chair, a perfect house, a perfect wife or husband? Kenneth Burke concluded his definition of human with what he called a “wry codicil.” The fifth phrase is presented by Burke as a "final codicil [which] was still needed, thus making in all":

[The hu]Man is
the symbol-using . . . animal
inventor of the negative . . .
separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making
goaded by the spirit of hierarchy . . .
and rotten with perfection. (LSA 16)

PHRASE 5: “ROTTEN WITH PERFECTION.”
Is there such a thing as “perfect” anything? Plato thought so. In Plato’s philosophy, there was a heavenly family of perfect forms that pre-existed all less-than-perfect forms on earth. The very reason Plato presents his teacher Socrates asking “Socratic” questions is that he believed each human soul originally existed in a perfect world PRIOR to being born into human bodies. In their pre-existing state, these souls knew all perfect forms. When these souls were born, they went through a process of “forgetting” everything they originally knew. Therefore, the best way to find knowledge, for Plato and Socrates, is through a process of un-forgetting what we originally knew. Hence, Socrates asks questions. He expects his students to unforget/remember those things they knew before birth.

Aristotle disagreed with Plato, his teacher. He did not teach that a world of perfect forms existed in a heavenly realm; instead, his form of perfectionism related to a term he coined: entelechy. He taught, for example, that all living organisms have a perfect form toward which they grow. A kernel of corn begins very small, but grows to be a stalk eight feet tall, with tassels, leaves, and ears growing within the protection of the leaves. The ears have husks, silks, cobs, and new kernels of corn growing on the cobs. The production of these new kernels represents perfection. Then, the new kernels are planted and the entelechy process starts all over again.


Kenneth Burke liked Aristotle’s term entelechy, but he used it in a way different from the way Aristotle used it. Burke used the term entelechy to demonstrate that humans are always trying to chase perfection. Thus, Burke's definition of the human ends with the human's rotten obsession for chasing perfection. Perhaps the irony of ending his definition with a clause indicating the rottenness of the human preoccupation with perfection prompted Burke to call this a "wry codicil" (LSA 16). With the addition of this “perfection” codicil, Burke believes that he has perfected a definition of mankind.

For my part, my doctoral dissertation at Purdue University and my book, Implicit Rhetoric: Kenneth Burke’s Extension of Aristotle’s Concept of Entelechy, detail my research into this perfectionist tendency in humans.

Walt Disney’s perfectionist impulse is found in his desire to build an Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (EPCOT). This dream/concept of a perfect community is found in the “Tomorrowland Transit Authority” in the Magic Kingdom, in the model view of the perfect community, as you pass through Space Mountain. It was his original idea for EPCOT, but the later developers of EPCOT took that theme park in a different direction. Yet, Disney’s “perfect community” was actually built in a newly developed town on the southern perimeter of Walt Disney World property--Celebration, Florida.

Disney’s perfectionist impulse is also found in his stories. You will not be disappointed when you reach the end of a Walt Disney movie. He solves all of the problems raised in the movie, with a perfect solution.

ASSIGNMENT 17: WALK THROUGH CINDERELLA’S CASTLE IN THE MAGIC KINGDOM. NOTE THE SERIES OF FIVE SCENES MADE OF MOSAIC TILES ON THE LEFT AS YOU ENTER FROM MAIN STREET. THE FIRST SCENE DEPICTS A PROBLEM--CINDERELLA WORKING AMONG THE CINDERS. NOTE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE THREE MIDDLE SCENES. IN THE FINAL SCENE, CINDERELLA IS CARRIED AWAY BY HER PRINCE ON HIS WHITE HORSE. PERFECTION!

Humans, says Burke, are rotten with perfection. We believe there is a perfect way of speaking a language, so we “correct” each other when our speech displays “imperfections.” We believe there really is a perfect wife, a perfect husband, a perfect child, a perfect church, a perfect mother, and (theologically) a perfect father: God. It is with this perfect father/God in mind that Kenneth Burke introduces his term Logology. Burke, being an agnostic, is not ready to embrace full-fledged Theology, but he certainly recognizes that implicit in the human discussion of Theology is the ability to conceive of and talk about perfection. Logology is the study of words. This study of words includes words for the perfect, the supernatural, the theological. What is the term omniscient, as applied to God, if not a conception of someone who has perfect knowledge? The term omnipotent, if not a conception of someone who has perfect power? The term omnipresent, if not a conception of someone who has perfect capacity to be present (everywhere)? The term eternal, if not a conception of someone who has perfect longevity? The term immortal, if not a conception of someone who has perfect living-capacity?

How is it that, among animals, only humans show signs of conceiving of this perfection? Humans can not only conceive of a perfectly “good” being, but also of a perfectly “evil” being. What other animal shows signs of believing in a perfect devil? Other animals may be aware of their own predators and fear them, but do they ever perfect this notion into a concept of ultimate, perfect evil?

ASSIGNMENT 18: VIEW FANTASMIC IN THE EVENING AT DISNEY’S HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS. YOU WILL EXPERIENCE MICKEY MOUSE’S DREAM OF “LIGHT VS. DARKNESS.” MAKE A LIST OF DISNEY’S VILLAINS PORTRAYED IN THIS PRESENTATION. DO THEY COME CLOSE TO THE CONCEPT OF PERFECT EVIL?

Genesis 3:5 observes this nature in man—his ability to know both good and evil—and suggests that this ability makes man like God. The serpent says to Eve: “God knows that whenever you eat of [the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil], your eyes will be opened and you will, like gods, be knowing good and evil.” This Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was, according to Genesis 2:9, in the center of the Garden of Eden, alongside the Tree of Life. (Disney’s Animal Kingdom has a Tree of Life, but no Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.) True. It would be in character for the serpent of Genesis to distort the truth, but there certainly is evidence (even in the name of the Tree) that the ability to conceive of good and evil is godlike. The ability to conceive of a perfect being is one more argument that man is in God’s image.

At what point, then, did could we say that man began to exist “in God’s image”? If you accept the view of the serpent in Genesis, it may not have ultimately occurred until Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. (Incidentally, according to Genesis, it was not until after this event that humans made clothing from fig leaves.) If you want to trace the origin of man to human symbol-use (as in Burke’s first phrase), you would do well to look at the earliest cave drawings. If you want to trace the fossil record to the date at which humans began to make tools (as in Burke’s third phrase), it is called the Stone Age.

It may strike the reader as strange that Burke's philosophy has no need of a definitive position on human origins. Burke answers such a question this way: “Certain . . . decisions might be immaterial to a given philosophy. For instance, though specialists might quarrel as to just exactly where human culture began and exactly how it spread, many such decisions would be quite irrelevant to a philosophy of language which takes as its starting point a definition of [hu]man as [s/]he is, everywhere all over the world, regardless of how [s/]he came to be that way” ("Poetics and Communication," in Perspectives in Education, Religion, and the Arts).

I leave it up to you to develop your own views of exactly when humans began to exist in God’s image, but it seems clear to me that the fossil remains of pre-humans from millions of years ago that exhibited no signs of symbol-use, morality, tool-making, symbolic hierarchies, or concepts of perfection were NOT in the image of God. The oldest known written languages date back some 6000 to 10,000 years. This whole matter of not knowing must be frustrating to a being who is “rotten with perfection”—a being who desires perfect information concerning his own origins; a being who is not God, but who is in the image of God. If we were not perfectionists, why would we be frustrated about this?

Disneology #13: Man’s Symbolic Hierarchies=God’s Image?

ASSIGNMENT 15: VISIT THE GORILLAS IN “PANGANI FOREST” IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. WHICH GORILLA DO YOU BELIEVE IS AT THE TOP OF THE GORILLA HIERARCHY IN THAT COLLECTION OF GORILLAS? NOW, VISIT “THE HALL OF PRESIDENTS” IN THE MAGIC KINGDOM. CLEARLY, PRESIDENTS ARE THE TOP OF THE HIERARCHY IN THE U.S., BUT DO YOU DETECT ANY HIERARCHY AMONG THE VARIOUS PRESIDENTS (A TOP OF THE TOP), ACCORDING TO THE DISNEY PRESENTATION?

Recall that we are still considering Kenneth Burke’s definition of human:

“Man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) . . . animal, inventor of (and moralized by) the negative . . . separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by a sense of order) . . . and rotten with perfection.” (LSA 16)

We have considered three phrases and are now ready for PHRASE 4: GOADED BY THE SPIRIT OF HIERARCHY (OR MOVED BY A SENSE OF ORDER).

Virtually all animals have hierarchies, but these hierarchies are all “natural” hierarchies. In the insect world (which you visited in the show “It’s Tough to be a Bug” in the Animal Kingdom), the top of the hierarchy is typically a female, such as the Queen Bee. Among such birds as chickens, there is a “pecking order.” One chicken (or rooster) is in a position in which s/he has earned the honor of not being “peckable” by other fowl. (This is not the same as when English speakers speak “impeccable” German!) This non-peckable chicken is allowed to peck every other chicken in the hen-yard. However, none of the others can peck her/him. There are those below this chicken who can peck every other chicken EXCEPT the one at the top of the hierarchy. And, so it goes until you reach that one chicken that is peckable by every other chicken in the hen-yard, but is not allowed to peck ANY other chicken back. We call that lowest one on the hierarchy “hen-pecked.” Humans, noticing this natural hierarchy, label husbands who do not seem capable of fighting back against their wives’ onslaughts “henpecked.” A similar phenomenon occurs among wolves. The “leader of the pack” is allowed to bite the back of every other member of the wolf-pack. Some lowly wolf is bitten by all the pack, but cannot bite any other wolf. Humans, noticing this natural hierarchy, speak of “backbiting” going on in organizations as employees jostle for superior ranking in the organization.
What is enlightening to Burke is that, while various animal species seem to have a single “natural” hierarchy, humans have innumerable “symbolic” hierarchies. The Greek word HIEROS, translated “priest,” when combined with the Greek word ARCHE, meaning “first,” produces the word “hierarchy.” Even in the Catholic Church, there are priests who seek higher and higher positions. The highest or first priest in the Catholic Church would be higher than Bishop, Archbishop, or Cardinal: the Pope. Yet, the hierarchy goes even higher—to Jesus and God the Father. The bottom level of the hierarchy also goes lower than the lowest priest—to altar boy, parishioner, Protestant Christian, member of another religion altogether, atheist, and (eventually) Satan. This is, of course, a religious hierarchy.

There are educational hierarchies—with Ph.D.s at the top and illiterate grade school drop-outs at the bottom. There are athletic hierarchies as numerous as the number of events in the Winter and Summer Olympics, plus all organized (and unorganized) sports. There are corporate hierarchies at every corporation, as employees climb the corporate ladder. There are popularity hierarchies in Middle School.


I comment, on pages 306-307 of my chapter, “Communication, Hierarchy, and Dramatistic Form,” in Omar Swartz’s book, Transformative Communication Studies:

Another hierarchy is the family hierarchy. We call the competition among children in this hierarchy “sibling rivalry.” Politics is a hierarchy . . . humans create all kinds of symbolic hierarchies—from the best tobacco spitter in Tennessee to the best practitioner of speaking the English language in Britain, to the best looking hand model in Hollywood. Ironically, many of those who oppose hierarchy theoretically create their own new hierarchies, such as the hierarchy of “least hierarchical systems.”

Just as humans are symbol-MAKING,
INVENTORS of the negative,
And tool-MAKING,
they are also, now, hierarchy-MAKING.

Bottom line . . . humans MAKE things, and they MAKE things using their SYMBOLIC nature.

Almost everything Genesis claims that God MADE was MADE by God using his SYMBOLIC nature—he SPOKE. This symbolic nature (of both man and God) is what Burke may have been referring to when he said that man was goaded by a SPIRIT of hierarchy. (Spirit is, for Burke, another word for symbolicity.) While other animals HAVE hierarchies, their hierarchies are NOT OF THEIR OWN MAKING. The other animals utilize hierarchies that already exist in nature. Humans are different. They are capable of making things due to their symbolic nature as the “image of God,” the creator.

As I first mentioned in Disneology #6: “The term ‘create’ is used by Genesis only in terms of creating the ‘heavens and the earth’ in 1:1 (which seems to imply [in the term ‘heavens’] that the Sun, Moon, and stars were already created by Day One), creating ‘the great creatures of the sea and every living’ thing in the sea in 1:21 (the beginning of animal life), and God creating ‘man in his own image’ in 1:27.” Other activities of God in the creation week are described as God MAKING things. MAKING could be thought of as less impressive than (but certainly in the same order as) CREATING. Furthermore (based upon the Genesis 1:2 claim that the universe that God created was originally “without form and void”), the creation week account was essentially an account of God bringing this chaos into ORDER. First universe/mass, then light, then seas, then plant life, then water-based animal life, then birds, then amphibians, then land-based animal life, then mammals, and finally humans. This bringing to order was often essentially God MAKING something out of something that he had already created. God, according to Genesis, CREATED the heavens and the earth, but ORDER needed to be brought to the earth. With the exception of animal life and human life in God’s image, all of the other acts in the creation week consisted of MAKING. Even the contentious issue of God’s providing the Sun, Moon, and Stars as indicators of days, seasons, and years (on the 4th day) was a matter of God MAKING, NOT CREATING. That is, things that he had already created (Sun, Moon, and Stars) were now MADE to serve as time markers. It was not until the heated waters above the earth had sufficiently condensed that these preexisting (already created) celestial bodies could be made into “tools” for keeping time. Likewise, the tool-making animal (man) takes elements that already exist in his natural environment and MAKES them into useful instruments. Humans bring further ORDER into the universe.

Now, what about God’s hierarchy? My book on Revelation considers the hierarchical order of beings in the heavenly realm: First God (the one who is seated on the throne), then the Lamb, then the twenty-four elders (who may be a combination of the twelve apostles and the twelve sons of Israel). Beyond these, John equates all Christians--priests, prophets, saints (and even angels)—as “servants. There appears to be no hierarchy, except that of the two who in Revelation are worthy of worship (God and the Lamb). I discuss this hierarchy thoroughly on pages 145-148 of my book on Revelation:

In both creation week and in heavenly hierarchy, one could say that God was “moved by a sense of order.” This is precisely the language used by Burke to describe humans. Since they are also “moved by a sense of order,” one could say that humans are the image of God.

Disneology #12: Man’s Tool-making=God’s Image?

ASSIGNMENT 13: JOURNEY ON THE “JUNGLE CRUISE” AT THE MAGIC KINGDOM. PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO DEPICTIONS OF THE NATIVES. LIST ANY TOOLS THEY ARE CARRYING, ESPECIALLY TOOLS FOR HUNTING.

Now that we have considered the first two phrase of Kenneth Burke’s definition of human--“symbol-using, symbol-making” and “inventor of (and moralized by) the negative”--I turn to the third phrase.

PHRASE 3: SEPARATED FROM HIS NATURAL CONDITION BY INSTRUMENTS OF HIS OWN MAKING.

God, as the creator of nature, would not have a “natural” condition. He would be “super”-natural (above nature). In the sense of being “separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making,” one could also say that man is “super”-natural. Animals may “adapt” to their natural environment through mutation, but humans can separate themselves from the limitations of their natural environment by symbol-use. Humans, using symbolic logic, are able to “make” instruments that remove the limitations of nature. If humans live in a cold environment, they “make” clothing, insulated homes, fireplaces, central heat, thermal underwear, etc. If humans live in a hot environment, they “make” electric fans, backyard swimming pools, central air conditioning, etc. If humans desire to travel faster than their legs can “naturally” carry them, they make chariots, bicycles, automobiles, motorboats, airplanes, jets, etc. If they, like other animals, are earth-bound as a part of their natural condition, they make rockets and space shuttles.


Chapter 3 of my book, Implicit Rhetoric: Kenneth Burke’s Extension of Aristotle’s Concept of Entelechy, is entitled “The Human as Super-Natural.” The human is the only animal to have the ability to transcend natural limitations by his rational thought, symbol-use, and inventions.

Consider the human natives you encounter along the Jungle Cruise route. Even uncivilized cultures knew how to be super-natural (to separate themselves from their natural condition by instruments of their own making). It is true that sea otters can “use” tools (that they do not make). They can “find” rocks and use the rocks as tools to break open the shells of shellfish, so they can eat the meat inside. It is true that apes will use sticks they “find” to place in holes and crevices to retrieve insects and other foods. However, the sea otters and apes do not “make” these instruments—they “find” them in their natural environment. Humans, on the other hand, “make” the instruments that separate them from their natural condition.
While sea otters may “use” rocks as tools, humans “make” the rocks into cutting instruments. They chip away edges of the rocks to make sharp knives. Humans did this—even in the Stone Age. Then, humans realized that they could use vines to tie their sharp rocks to sticks and they “made” axes. The humans, next, realized they could put the sharpened rocks on the ends of longer sticks, so they did not have to come into close contact with the animals they hunted. They had invented spears. They noticed they could throw these spears, but if they tied vines to each end of a willow stick and bent the stick, they could use this bow to propel smaller spears (arrows). Every single human culture, it seems, has learned to “make” bows and arrows. But, it did not stop there.

When riding through Spaceship Earth, you noticed all of the tools for saving and sending (via the media) the pieces of symbolic communication the humans had “made”: stone tablets, papyrus, chisels, pens, paint brushes, moveable type, printing presses, newspapers, telegraph, telephone, radio, motion pictures, television, and computers.

When riding through the “Universe of Energy,” you saw the humorous slice-of-life demonstrating that humans learned to control fire (something no other animal has learned) and found that the use of that basic form of energy led to other tools for using energy: steam engines, internal combustible engines, hydroelectric dams, solar energy collectors, oil wells, off-shore drilling platforms, windmills, and nuclear power plants. This human “control of energy” reminds me of a point I had made in an earlier commentary: That God’s Word may have been the “energy source” that may have been converted into mass in any theoretical “Big Bang.”

Yet, with all of this tool-making by humans, no other animal has figured out how to make its own rudimentary stone knife. Humans are the super-natural animal. Hence, you could say that they are the “image” of God.

If you have more time . . .

ASSIGNMENT 14: (OPTIONAL) SINCE YOU HAVE THEOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED THE TOOL-MAKING NATURE OF HUMAN BEINGS, EXPLORE THE CELEBRATION OF SOME OF THOSE INVENTIONS. RIDE “THE WALT DISNEY WORLD RAILROAD” AT THE MAGIC KINGDOM, THEN THE “MONORAIL” TO EPCOT, THEN “TEST TRACK” AT EPCOT (BUT PAY ATTENTION TO ALL OF THE TESTS OF THE AUTOMOBILE YOU SEE IN THE QUEUE) LEADING UP TO THE RIDE. NEXT, RIDE “SOARIN’” AND RIDE “MISSION SPACE,” TO FEEL WHAT IT IS LIKE TO FLY AND SPACE TRAVEL. (CAUTION: UNLESS YOU HAVE A REALLY STRONG STOMACH AND ARE RESISTANT TO DIZZINESS, THE MILDER VERSION OF THE “MISSION SPACE” RIDE IS RECOMMENDED.) SINCE YOU ARE TRAVELING INTO SPACE, YOU MAY WANT TO RIDE “STAR TOURS” IN DISNEY’S HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS, AND JOIN R2-D2 IN A (FUTURISTIC) SPACE MISSION.

Disneology #11: Man’s Morality=God’s Image?

ASSIGNMENT 12: VISIT VIRTUALLY ANY DISNEY ATTRACTION (“THE HAUNTED MANSION” AT THE MAGIC KINGDOM, FOR EXAMPLE). LIST THE “THOU SHALT NOT’S” YOU ARE CONFRONTED WITH: THOU SHALT NOT TAKE FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY, EAT, DRINK, SMOKE, RIDE IF YOU ARE NOT AT LEAST THIS HEIGHT OR UNDER THIS AGE, USE CELL PHONES, PLACE YOUR HANDS OUTSIDE YOUR VEHICLE, STAND UP, SIT DOWN, PUT ON YOUR 3-D GLASSES UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO, ETC. DISNEY HAS ITS OWN VERSION OF THE TEN COMMANMENTS PERTAINING TO EACH RIDE. HAVE A SNACK AT (OR JUST A VISIT TO) PINOCCHIO’S VILLAGE HAUS RESTAURANT IN THE MAGIC KINGDOM. SURROUNDED BY A SCENE RESEMBLING THAT OF DISNEY’S MOVIE, THINK OF THE IMPLICIT “THOU SHALT NOT’S” IN THE MOVIE, PINOCCHIO: THOU SHALT NOT BE TRUANT, DRINK, SMOKE, OR PLAY POOL.

In my last commentary, I considered the first phrase of Kenneth Burke’s definition of human: “symbol-using, symbol-making.” I suggested that symbolicity was one way in which humans are the image of God. Today, I consider the second phrase, which depends on the first phrase for its existence. The entire definition, again, is:

“Man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) . . . animal, inventor of (and moralized by) the negative . . . separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by a sense of order) . . . and rotten with perfection.” (LSA 16)

PHRASE 2: INVENTOR OF (AND MORALIZED BY) THE NEGATIVE. This phrase, like the first phrase applies to both humans and God. Even though God, like humans, uses symbols or words, he uses two types of words. Burke calls the type of words he uses in creating the world (capitalized) “Word.” If God speaks a “Word,” that Word has “omnipotence” (the total power necessary to complete its task). In Genesis 1:3, God speaks a Word (“And God said, Let there be light”). The very Word he speaks has the “omnipotence” to produce light. Psalms 33:9 confirms the power of this (capitalized) Word: “He spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and [the universe] stood fast” (RR 11). The Word of God has tremendous power. Isaiah 55:11 goes so far as to suggest that God’s Word is infallible--it cannot fail: “So is my word that goes out from my mouth; it will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”

How, then, can God give a command (word) to Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and have that word FAIL to achieve its purpose? How is it possible that after the command from God was issued, Adam and Eve ate anyway? The second type of word God uses is (lower-case) “word.” Burke offers theological distinctions between “word” and “Word.” This (lower-case) “word” has much less power to affect humans. Burke identifies the basis upon which he distinguishes between the two types of words--the negative.


The negative is an interesting concept. The symbol “tree” is a symbol for something that positively exists, but what is “not a tree”? Animals may, through classical conditioning, even understand our “positive” symbols. But, the negative is a “symbol” for the absence of something. Animals may conceive of “food,” but they cannot conceive of “not food.” My dog, Nicolete (pictured to the left), grew up with my daughter’s dog, Pigeon (pictured on the cover of my Concise Kenneth Burke Concordance, in the previous commentary). If I say the word “Pigeon,” Nicolete perks up and looks around to find her. If I say, “No, Nicolete, Pigeon is not here,” Nicolete becomes even more intent on finding her. She does not understand the negative. Similarly, she likes to take a “walk.” She runs to the door and waits. If I say, “Sorry, I don’t have time for a walk,” she happily jumps around at the door. She knows only what the positive word “walk” means; she does not understand what the negative “no walk” means. Burke, however, is most interested in what he calls the hortatory negative, the negative of command, as with the "Thou shalt not's" of the Ten Commandments. (RR 20)

Clearly implied in any "Thou shalt not" is the element of free will or choice. We do not tell anyone “Thou shalt not” do something it is impossible to not do. It does no good to tell a baby not to cry. We don’t tell people not to digest the food in their intestines. We don’t tell someone not to let his or her heart beat, hair or fingernails grow, or kidneys work. We don’t use such hortatory negatives because people have no choice in such matters. On the other hand, if we tell people, “Thou shalt not kill, lie, steal, rape, commit adultery, or slander,” it is clear that humans have free will or choice in such matters. They may choose either to kill or to not kill. They may choose to lie or to tell the truth. They may choose to steal or to refrain from stealing, to rape or refrain from raping, to commit adultery or to refrain from committing adultery, to slander or not to slander.” Having this distinction in mind, I should point out that, although God's utterance is presented as "Word" in the case of the creative fiat (“Let there be light!”), God's utterance might be understood as "word" in the case of the Ten Commandments. In the first instance, there is no implicit free will attributed to that which is created. In the second instance, humans to whom the Ten Commandments are directed are implicitly credited with free will. If God extends free will and choice to humans by issuing hortatory negatives, or (lower case) word, God has just made humans into “free moral agents.” Another way of putting this is to say that God has made “man into his image.” Just as God is free to do whatever he wants to do, by issuing hortatory negatives, God has made man free. He is an “agent,” just as God is an agent.

Burke defines man as “moralized by the negative.” Animals, since they are not “symbol-users,” and therefore cannot understand the hortatory negative, do not have morality. Whatever they do is prescribed by instinct and classical conditioning. “Thou shalt not” is the basis of all morality. While I may tell my dog, “No,” she does not interpret the negative as a negative. She interprets the word as a positive command to stop in her tracks. She learns that, if she does not stop, she will experience pain; if she does stop, she may experience pleasure (a treat). This is classical conditioning. Jewish theology, on the other hand, suggests that humans have both a good inclination and an evil inclination; humans are capable of choosing either to do good or to do evil. When humans have the option to do either good or evil and yet CHOOSE to do good, they are the very image of a God who chooses good over evil 100% of the time.

Disneology #10: Man’s Symbolicity=God’s Image?

ASSIGNMENT 11: RIDE “SPACESHIP EARTH” AT EPCOT. YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SYMBOL-USE. WHAT SYMBOLS ARE USED IN THE CAVE DRAWINGS, HIEROGLYPHICS, SCULPTURE, CHAPEL ARTWORK, MOVIES, TELEVISION, ETC.?

The centerpiece in all of Walt Disney World for the study of Communication is Spaceship Earth. Visitors journey through the history of human communication. Cave drawings, hieroglyphics, papyrus scrolls, Phoenician alphabet, Greek philosophy, Roman roads, the Dark Ages, Jewish scribes, Islamic scholars, Christian monks, moveable type, the Renaissance, sculpture and chapel artwork, newspapers, telegraph, telephone, movies, radio, television, and finally, the computer age. The entire history of human communication exemplifies the definition of humans offered by Kenneth Burke:

Man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) . . . animal, inventor of (and moralized by) the negative . . . separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by a sense of order) . . . and rotten with perfection. (LSA 16)

Take out the word “animal,” and this definition of human approximates a definition of God. In the next few commentaries, I will compare Burke’s definition, phrase by phrase. Today, I will just explore the first phrase.

PHRASE 1: SYMBOL-USING (SYMBOL-MAKING). The first attribute of a symbol is that a symbol is something that stands for or represents something else. As Korzybski observed, “The word ‘tree’ is not a tree.” Yet, the word “tree” represents or stands for a real tree. The word “tree” is therefore a symbol. Nevertheless, the word “tree” is not the ONLY symbol for a real tree. If you were German, the word “baum” would be your symbol for a real tree (as you may remember from the Christmas song, O Tannen-BAUM.) The French, Spanish, Italians, Greeks, Hebrews, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Russians, etc. all use different symbols for the same real tree. If you were a caveman, the symbol for a real tree would be a drawing of a tree on the cave wall. If you used hieroglyphics, the symbol would resemble a tree. According to http://www.virtual-egypt.com/html/hieroglyphics.htm , “There were basically 604 symbols that might be put to [use] . . . as an ideogram, as when a sign resembling a tree meant ‘tree.’” The Phoenicians developed an alphabet, which most western civilizations use to this day. They created symbols (letters) to represent each sound, so t, r, e, and e, when combined, help us sound out the word “tree.” These letters are symbols, but they are not the ONLY symbols for sounds. Greek letters are somewhat different from Phoenician letters, but represent similar sounds. Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese letters are much different, but still help humans sound out words. Sign language provides symbols for those who may not even be able to sound out words. Braille provides symbols for those who cannot see.

Why do humans have so many symbols for the same thing? Why can’t we automatically understand the messages of other humans, from any part of the globe? Other animals have no such problem, so far as we know. Whales from the North Atlantic seem to be able to understand the communication of whales from the South Pacific. Japanese dogs seem to understand the barks of American Beagles. Bees understand the messages of the flight patterns of other bees, even though they have had no time to learn the meanings. It’s because animals communicate with “signals,” not “symbols.” A signal is “programmed communication.” The animal INSTINCTIVELY knows the meaning of the communication of its own species. Humans have a different form of communication. As Burke observes, humans MAKE their symbols.

The symbol does not even need to make sense. The second attribute of a symbol is that it may be arbitrarily chosen. Some words, such as the “hiss” of a snake appear to have been logically created. Other words may appear to make no sense whatsoever, as when I tell my students that my word for chalk is “bleh.” Yet, after having heard me say that, if I ask someone to hand me some bleh, that student hands me a piece of chalk. It may seem simple to draw a picture of a tree. But, what other animal has ever drawn even something so simple as a picture? Our cave-dwelling human ancestors did, however. Theologically, you could say that “symbol-making” is a CREATIVE act. The very fact that humans CREATE their own forms of communication argues that humans have a god-like nature. They may be said, in that sense, to be “in the image of God,” if we define God as Creator.

So, who decides which symbol we should use when referring to a tree? The third attribute of a symbol is that there must be shared meaning. English speakers are able to read this commentary, but those who know only another language cannot. Not even all English speakers know what I mean when I use words like “arbitrary,” “immutable,” etc. But, now that you know the word “bleh,” we have shared meaning. I can ask you to mail me some and you would at least understand my request. At times, we need to limit our vocabulary use to those words with which our audience is familiar—even if it means that we must be less precise in our communication.

Enter theology. One problem God may have had in communicating to humans thousands of years ago is their limited vocabulary. I discussed in an earlier commentary that Genesis uses the word “yom” or “day” in a variety of different ways. Perhaps, that is because the audience of Genesis had a limited vocabulary. One word had to do yeoman’s service. Wait! Did everyone understand the word “yeoman”? Or, did you have to look it up? This does not mean that God as a symbol-user does not know what he wants to communicate. It may mean that his audience does not have shared meaning with the terms/symbols he could use. How could the original audience of Genesis have possibly understood symbols like “the curvature of space time” or “E=MC²”? Those who are quick to criticize the scientific teachings of Genesis should at least consider that communication with humans is limited by the amount of shared meaning possible in any context.

Disneology #9: How to Make an Invisible Image

ASSIGNMENT 10: RIDE THE “GREAT MOVIE DRIVE” IN DISNEY'S HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS AND PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE INDIANA JONES SET WHERE INDY IS MOVING THE ARK OF THE COVENANT. NOTICE THAT ON TOP OF THE ARK ARE TWO GOLDEN ANGELS WITH THEIR WINGS TOUCHING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ARK. THE PLACE WHERE THE WINGS MEET IS CALLED THE “MERCY SEAT.” HEBREW THEOLOGY SAYS THAT GOD SITS ABOVE THAT SEAT. LOOK VERY CAREFULLY ABOVE THE SEAT. DO YOU SEE ANYTHING?

In Disneology #1, #2, and #7, I discussed the famous theological descriptive terms—omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, omnipresent, and immutable. Kenneth Burke, in The Rhetoric of Religion, page 22, discusses what he calls “‘negative theology,’ the defining of God in terms of what he is not, as when God is described in words like ‘immortal,’ ‘immutable,’ ‘infinite,’ ‘unbounded,’ impassive,’ and the like . . . since God, by being ‘supernatural,’ is not describable by the positives of nature.” Logically speaking, a God who created nature cannot be restricted to the laws of nature. Another negative term Judaism adds to the description of God is “invisible.” The Ark of the Covenant (as presented visually in the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark) was designed to symbolically make this point.

All other gods presented at Walt Disney World are visible. The Hebrew God is invisible. Notice the following gods at WDW, for example:

• Gaia is encountered when you are greeted by some cast members in The Animal Kingdom. You will also see a sign when approaching the Tree of Life that says “Viva Gaia!” Viva Gaia means “Long live Gaia!” There is no statue of this ancient Greek goddess because you are standing on her. Gaia is the Earth goddess.
• Pegasus, the Greek Horse god, is encountered in the Great Movie Ride (in the film clip from Fantasia) at Disney’s Hollywood Studios. Pegasus is the horse with wings.
• Kukulkan, the Mayan creation god, may be seen at the Mexico Pavilion in Epcot. He is the feathery serpent whose head protrudes multiple times from the columns that ascend the pyramid. As I mentioned in Disneyology #7, “Mayan creation stories begin with sky and sea, and then the creation god Kukulkan (whose pyramid . . . may be seen at the Mexico Pavilion in Epcot) speaks the word “Earth,” and the Earth rises from the sea. Following this, the thoughts of Kukulkan create mountains, trees, birds, jaguars, and snakes; finally, humans are created (first, out of mud; second, out of wood; third, as monkeys; and finally, as full-fledged humans).
• The Roman god of the sea, Neptune (also known as the Greek god Poseidon), may be seen in the Italy pavilion at Epcot. If you are familiar with the Disney film, The Little Mermaid, you will know that the little mermaid’s father is Neptune.
• The stone god and other Egyptian gods you saw in the Raiders of the Lost Ark set as you rode the Great Movie Ride in Disney’s Hollywood Studios are also quite visible.

While visiting Norway, China, and Japan in Epcot’s World Showcase, you may notice other quite visible gods (or, at least, the images of these gods).

In virtually all ages and cultures, humans have worshiped the images of their gods. This fact presented a particular theological problem for the Hebrews. Their God was invisible, as Burke said: “‘supernatural,’ . . . not describable by the positives of nature.” They reasoned that a God who created nature cannot be restricted to the laws of nature. Therefore, one way they depicted this invisible God was with the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark was a chest that was believed to originally contain the two stone tablets with the engraving of the Ten Commandments. On the top of the Ark were images of two cherubim whose wings met above the middle of the Ark. There, above the meeting of these wings is where the “invisible” God was seated. Hence, God was the invisible being that hierarchically ranked above the Cherubim and was represented in the Ark by His most significant message to His People, the Ten Commandments. In the film clip in the preview to The Great Movie Ride, the Ark is called “a transmitter, a radio for talking to God.” The Ark represented not only God’s invisible nature, it represented His nature as a communicator.

That is one way to make an invisible image. The other way involves a theology that is not as well-known. It involves the Genesis teaching that God made man into his “image.” I describe some of the significance of this theology in my book, Revelation: The Human Drama. Revelation describes a Beast (whom the vast majority of Revelation scholars interpret as first century Rome). Then, Revelation says that the inhabitants of the land were forced to make an “image” of this Beast and to worship this image. Agreeing with two of the most important Revelation scholars of the past two centuries, I point out that the image of the Beast is a sort of person within a person. The image is not a stone or silver or gold image; it is a “human”—the Jewish High Priest in the late First Century a.d. Just as Adam was the “image” of God, so also is the image of the Beast a human. In Revelation, Jesus (like a second Adam) is the image of God and is set in contrast to the image of the Beast. Worshipers in Revelation are encouraged in Chapters 4 and 5 to worship both God and the Lamb.

Perhaps, the following quotation from page 88 of my book on Revelation will clarify this point:


“If, as Wellhausen claims, ‘[The image of the Beast] is the alter ego of the empire just as Jesus was called the [image] of God’ (cf. II Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15), then a living human being serves as the ‘image’ of the beast, just as the human, Jesus, serves as the ‘image’ of God. Where exactly Wellhausen derives his information that Jesus is the [image] of God, Charles does not indicate; and the explicit statement is found nowhere in Revelation. However, [in a Jewish book written between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament] Vita Adae et Evae 13-14 . . . clearly calls Adam the ‘image’ of God [and, therefore, has God requiring angels to worship Adam], and [Jewish scholar Louis] Ginzberg sees in . . . [Hebrews 1:6] the link which makes Jesus a second Adam in the fashion of Vita, hence making him worthy of worship. Thus . . . literature with which John could easily be familiar has a human serving as an ‘image,’ and therefore receiving ‘worship.’
If John is making the ‘image’ of God (Jesus) in Revelation 5 ‘worthy of praise,’ then, in antithetical fashion, he could be making the ‘image’ of the beast (the high priest) in Revelation 13 the object of (unworthy) antichristian worship. . . . Instead of an image of stone, the Jews had in the middle of their temple an amazing sign--an image that could ‘speak’ (13:15)! He was the voice of the Empire in the midst of the temple.”

How can a human be the “image” of an invisible God when humans are clearly visible? There must be an invisible characteristic of humans that is the “image” of God, while the visible characteristics of humans are NOT the image of God. Perhaps Kenneth Burke puts us on the right track when he claims that humans have two characteristics—animality and symbolicity. Our animality would be the physical characteristics of humans (similar to other animals). Our symbolicity would be that invisible characteristic that makes us different from all other animals. We communicate by using what Burke calls “symbols,” while all other animals communicate by what Burke calls “signals.” Burke calls man “the symbol-using animal.” The dedication to my book, Implicit Rhetoric: Kenneth Burke’s Extension of Aristotle’s Concept of Entelechy, reads: “To God, the Ultimate Symbol-User.” The implication is that this “symbol-using” nature of both God and humans could be taken, theologically, to be the image of God into which humans were made.

Disneology #8: What about Evolution?

ASSIGNMENT 9: CATCH A MEAL AT THE “SCI-FI DINE IN” RESTAURANT AT DISNEY'S HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS. STUDY THE ALIENS. DO YOU NOTICE ANY SIGNS OF AN IMPLICIT BELIEF IN EVOLUTION? WALK THROUGH PANGANI FOREST OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. IS THERE ANY EVOLUTIONARY RHETORIC TO BE FOUND?

The most stressful and emotionally divisive debate between scientists and theologians is over the issue of evolution. Conservatives (who may have even misinterpreted fellow conservatives’ positions on this issue) consign fellow conservatives to Satan because they think the others do not totally agree with them. Liberals dismiss as silly anyone who is not a “true believer” in Darwinism (something that is far from being proven, itself). The entire discussion gets rather mean-spirited, at times. My goal in this commentary is give fair theological consideration to all sides of the theological issue, to help people wrestle with their own views.

In my last commentary, I mentioned evolutionists who believed that logically, there must be more intelligent life on other planets. The “logic” of this belief is expressed in the Drake Equation, developed by Frank Drake, in 1961: N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L, whatever that means! The name of this “branch of science” (that, so far, has produce zero empirical evidence of any kind of life on other planets) is “astrobiology.” A famous popularizer of extraterrestrial intelligent life theory and astronomy, Carl Sagan, even came up with a plan for attaching some sort of message to U.S. spacecraft that may be destined to leave the earth permanently. Sagan, clearly, was not thinking some extraterrestrial “plant” would be able to decipher his message. Sagan’s hope was that his message might eventually be interpreted by some extraterrestrial intelligent life form that might find our spacecraft. Some of Sagan’s notions are dramatized in the 1997 movie, Contact. These ideas were clearly floating around before Sagan and Drake became famous. Disney producers were already toying with the relationship between evolutionary theories and extraterrestrial life in the 1950s.

On December 4, 1957, the Disneyland television series on ABC TV aired an episode entitled “Mars and Beyond,” directed by Ward Kimball. The episode is included in a Walt Disney Treasures collection entitled Tomorrowland: Disney in Space and Beyond, available through Amazon.com. Film critic Ernest Rister (http://dvd.ign.com/articles/518/518352p1.html) explains that the episode offers “the history of evolution on Earth (creationists, beware) in a sequence that strongly echoes the "Rite of Spring" sequence from Fantasia, without re-using any of the 1940 animation. Then we are shown how life may have evolved on other planets in a bravura animated set-piece that is as strong as anything to come out of the Disney studios in the 1950s.”

This piece of textual evidence may be important proof that Walt Disney believed in evolution, but does that mean he rejected creation theology? Even if Disney accepted evolution as an explanation of the origin and development of life on earth, has evolution been scientifically proven? Believers in gradual evolution have been hoping that the study of fossils (paleontology) will yield scientific evidence of the various transitional stages of development each genus and species went through as it evolved. They are searching for “missing links.” The website AllAboutScience.org (http://www.allaboutscience.org/missing-link-faq.htm) reports:

“Stephen J. Gould, America's most famous evolutionist . . . stated, ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary . . . textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism. I wish only to point out that it was never seen in the rocks.’”

Gould’s comments may be used by theologians who wish to reject concepts of evolution altogether. Such theologians may insist that “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record” may be taken as proof that gradualism (evolution) did not occur. Such a view may, of course, be supported by the biblical creation account, which uses the phrase “according to its/their kind/s” throughout creation (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24, 25). This “kind/s” terminology may indicate a doctrine of the existence of biological boundaries that are not crossed by evolution. Hence, there would necessarily be missing links. Nevertheless, there may be other theologians who are persuaded that some evolution/gradualism did occur. Does the biblical creation account rule out any possibility of evolution/gradualism?

The issue is “how” God created and/or made things. Genesis 2:8 states that God had “planted” a garden in Eden, but this is surely not an indication of how God made plants. Planting presupposes that one has seeds to plant. Given the existence of seeds, even humans can “plant” a garden. Did God form each plant or seed that grew? Perhaps, but Genesis does not make that claim.

Genesis 1:11 indicates “how” God made plants. He SPOKE to the land: “Let the land produce vegetation.” Genesis 1:12 confirms: “The land produced vegetation.” One way of viewing this phenomenon is to say that God delegated to land the capacity for producing plant life. If land, then, was given by God the capacity to produce life, we should not be terribly surprised if, at some point, humans—putting together the right combination of chemicals from the land—are able to see that “land” (i.e., a chemical combination) produce life (in a test tube, for example). My high school science teacher predicted to me nearly a half century ago that we were on the verge of such an accomplishment. It has not happened yet.

In a somewhat similar manner (but with a curious departure in the way it is phrased), in Genesis 1:20, God SPOKE to the waters: “Let the waters teem with living creatures.” Did God, then, endow the waters with the capacity to produce animal life? Possibly. Possibly not. Note that in Genesis 1:21, “God created . . . every living and moving thing with which the water teems.” This seems to be a special act (hence, the use of the word “created”). Water animal life was the first level of animal life. As I noted before, there are just a few times Genesis employs the term “create” in the creation account. This is one of them.
In Genesis 1:24, we return to a formula similar to the formula for making plants. God SPOKE to the land: “Let the land produce living creatures.” If God delegated to land the capacity for producing plant life, and then (later) the capacity for producing living creatures, it may be that once God created elemental animal life (in the waters), the land was given the capacity for developing that animal life. In other words, there appears to be some room for a somewhat theologically-based evolution/gradualism theory.

Note, however, that Genesis once again employs the term “create” when it comes to humans. Genesis 1:27 states: “God created man in his own image . . . male and female created He them.” Genesis 2:7 adds the detail that God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life before man became a living being. I commented in Disneology #6: “The term ‘create’ is used by Genesis only in terms of creating the ‘heavens and the earth’ in 1:1 . . . creating ‘the great creatures of the sea and every living’ thing in the sea in 1:21 (the beginning of animal life), and God creating ‘man in his own image’ in 1:27.” Nevertheless, all creation seems to have been accomplished by God “speaking,” with the lone exception of the creation of Adam. Those theologians who wish to accommodate some form of evolution/gradualism theory in their theology would do well to pay attention to the significant shifts of these three “create” events.


Regardless of whether biblical theologians choose to reject evolution altogether or to accommodate some elements of evolutionary theory in their theologies, there is a motto borrowed from the Restoration Movement that could be useful in reducing the theological community stress over this issue. I refer to the motto on page 36 of my book, The Seven Cs of Stress:

There was a nineteenth century motto promoting church unity, which suggested: “In essentials, unity. In opinions, liberty. In all things, love.” The second element of that catch phrase is a principle of anarchy. There may be instances in which each individual should have the latitude to decide for himself or herself. When there is no compelling reason for everyone in the group to be doing the same thing, why not provide liberty/anarchy?

Is there a compelling reason for every theologian to hold exactly the same view regarding the evolution issue? When Martin Luther debated the Catholic Church over The Ninety-Five Theses, he tried to establish the compelling basis upon which he thought all Christians could find unity: Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone). If a theologian cites a plausible biblically-based argument for the opinion s/he holds, it may be a situation that cries out for liberty (and love).