Karl Brown Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture Appendix A 10/26

I like the concept of the distinction of symbol vs. sign. It seems important to have an open and modifiable icon with the potential to add one’s own meaning, the symbol. However, at the same time there is a more concrete manifestation that does not necessarily have to require likeness, the sign. The author defines them in such a way that they are such polar opposites that it is almost as if one cannot exist without the other. Open vs. closed system, likeness vs. non-likeness, etc. I also like that the individual has the power to change the symbol if they can manage to exert influence over the necessary authorities/groups/religious orders/etc. I just wish the book went more in depth into the defining of signs.

                      

Building onto this concept with dominant symbols, I have a question. Does changing the dominant symbol (we mentioned earlier that symbols were alterable) modify the ritual itself? The text says that the dominant symbols "represent a crystallization of the flow pattern of the rituals over which (they) preside" (246). What are the ramifications of altering a dominant symbol significantly? Can you change the core concept of the ritual itself, or is it not possible to alter such dominant symbols due to the resulting changes that would occur in the ritual? This just occurred to me, and I think I will have to remember to ask in class or during a Tuesday Tea to find out just how this works.

I love the idea of root paradigms. I feel as if social order and social norms are everywhere, and root paradigms seem to sort of sum that up in an almost religious context. I think that we are influenced by our peers significantly, from things as little as where we sit in the classroom to things as large as how we choose our life partners. I find that root paradigms are corrupted by TV and media in general, and have been skewed greatly. I wonder how the author factors in those outside influences to his definition. I believe they certainly play an enormous part in how humans interact and are "molded" per say. I think in this day and age it is not just each other that play a part in shaping us, its electronic boxes and printed press that form, for better and for worse, our beliefs and practices. I think that the author needs to address media when looking at social models for root paradigms; it really plays a huge role in society today.