Thursday, February 25, 2010

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.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

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.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

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.

Friday, February 5, 2010

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.