Symbolic Pedagogy

Corbin (1960) outlines the intention of his Avicenna and the Visionary Recital in a manner
that provides a useful entry point into discussion of symbolic education. The goal of this
text is to “…elucidate the structure and inner progression that make Avicenna's mystical
recitals an organic and consistent whole… in which the thinker recaptures his spiritual
autobiography in the form of symbols…” (Corbin 1960, p. xi) The question, then, is why an
individual’s spiritual biography is to be recaptured through symbols. What is the nature of
a symbol, and what is it about this nature that allows us to comprehend the spiritual
dimension of self?
We should probably begin with the hermetic dictum—‘as above, so below’. (Scott
1993) The same forms structure all levels of reality. Taking up the example of natural
symbolism, the forms from which the order of nature emanates are the same forms that
structure the evolution of psychology and of the soul. Natural symbols, then, contain the
essence of the forms that structure all levels of being (at least when reality is not deprived of
its intimacy with the Nothing-Infinite Eternal…). The flight of the bird rises from the same
form as the ascension of the soul. In this sense we might argue that a land-based pedagogy
is a symbolic pedagogy in that we learn from the land in of the way that it acts as a symbol
for the Nothing-Infinite Eternal Forms that structure all levels of creation.
The question of artificial symbols, distinguished from natural symbols in that form
and symbol are mediated by historically produced subjectivity, is far more complicated.

“...comprehending an author, especially a philosopher who succeeds in forming his own symbols,
comprehending him (com-prehendere) in the full sense of the word, implies understanding eo ipso how and
why his thought has actually been experienced in the spiritual milieus where he was recognized. For all this
makes up an organic whole, of which the philosopher's thought is the seed and his experience the substance;
all this makes up a structure of which that thought and experience are the explanation. The usual procedure
in this day is to pile up references to the texts that preceded the philosopher chronologically, in an at—tempt
to ‘explain’ him. I confess to a certain skepticism in regard to this kind of causal explanation. I have not here
sought what might explain the philosopher Avicenna, but what the Avicennan experience itself explains to
us.” (Corbin 1960, pp. xi-xii)

I must confess to a lack of surety concerning the question of whether artificial symbols are
necessary. Is there any reason for creating artificial symbols when natural symbols are
available to us? Might a Modernist urban context, where the order of nature has in many
ways been destroyed, beget the need for artificial symbols? I think, for example, of Tupac’s
symbol—‘the rose that grew from concrete.’ (Tupac 2000)

“You try to plant somethin in the conrete, y'knowhatImean?

If it GROW, and the and the rose petal got all kind of
Scratches and marks, you not gon' say, ‘Damn, look at
All the scratches and marks on the rose that grew from concrete’
You gon' be like, ‘Damn! A rose grew from the concrete?!’
Same thing with me, y'knahmean? I grew out of all of this
Instead of sayin, ‘Damn, he did this, he did this,’
Just be like, ‘DAMN! He grew out of that? He came out of that?’

That's what they should say, y'knowhatImean?
All the trouble to survive and make good out of the dirty, nasty
Y'knowhahatImean unbelievable lifestyle they gave me
I'm just tryin to make somethin…

You see you wouldn't ask why the rose that grew from the concrete
Had damaged petals. On the contrary, we would all celebrate its
Tenacity. We would all love it's will to reach the sun
Well, we are the roses - this is the concrete - and these are
My damaged petals. Don't ask me why, thank God nigga, ask me
how!”
(Tupac 2008; Genius.com 2018)

Such a symbol could only be conceived by a historical subject whose subjectivity has been
produced by life in the concrete jungles of Colonial Modernity. Maybe, then, we can say
that artificial symbols like Tupac’s symbol of ‘the rose that grew from concrete’ are only
necessary in the context of the Artificial Worldview and the historical subjectivities
(deprived of intimacy with the transcendental subjectivity, with the goodly order of human
nature) manufactured therein. Artificial Symbols may be necessary for liberation from the
Artificial Worldview and the historical subjectivities manufactured therein as they have the
ability to capture (and thus to teach us about) the essence of the form of the privation of
form. Beyond such Emancipatory Artificial Symbols, it seems likely that Artificial Forms
are not just unnecessary—they must be destroyed as they facilitate our education into
(subjugation to) the Artificial Worldview.
Artificial Symbols are typified by mediation of the relationship between form and
symbol by subjectivity. As such, we can surely say that Artificial Symbols produced by the
Artificial Worldview and its historically manufactured subjectivities ought to be rejected as
they rise from the deprived forms (i.e. forms with no basis in the Nothing-Infinite Eternal)
that are accepted as real by the Artificial Worldview (for example the form of ‘good and
evil’, which is to say the assumption that good and evil hold a dualistic relationship akin to
masculine and feminine, black and white, yin and yang, etc.). Artificial Symbols of ‘good
and evil’ like ‘white and black’ are products of the privation of the Nothing-Infinite Eternal
that leads to the false assumption that good and evil hold a binary, dualistic relationship (in
truth there is no good and evil binary, only good and privation of the good). Again, the only
acceptable Artificial Symbols are Emancipatory Artificial Symbols that symbolize the form
of the privation of form (i.e. ‘the rose that grew from concrete’) that is caused by all other
Artificial Symbols.
This discussion Natural and Artificial Symbols and of Emancipatory Artificial
Symbols necessitates that we distinguish between Natural (Eternal) Form and Artificial
Form. Natural Forms are emanations of the Nothing-Infinite Eternal. Artificial Forms are
rooted in the privation of the Nothing-Infinite Eternal. The form of the privation of form is
the perfect example of an Artificial Form—it is the form of the privation of the Nothing-
Infinite Eternal from which Artificial Forms and Symbols rise.
What is the origin of the Artificial Symbol? What would lead an individual to
Artificial rather than Natural Symbolism? These questions are seemingly synonymous with
the question of how the Artificial Worldview (the loss of human nature) came to be (see

the essay ‘So What’s the Problem?’ in my essay collection Nomadic Exploration of Critical
Pedagogy [Barnesmoore 2018]).

Luke R. Barnesmoore
UBC Urban Studies Lab
Department of Geography
University of British Columbia
luke.barnesmoore@geog.ubc.ca

Bibliography:

Barnesmoore 2018, Nomadic Exploration of Critical Pedagogy, Vancouver: University of

British Columbia.

Corbin 1960, Avicenna and the Visionary Recital, Willard Trask (trans.), New York:
Pantheon.

Scott 1993, Hermetica: The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings which Contain Religious or
Philosophic Teachings Ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus, Boston: Shambhala.

Tupac 2000, “The Rose that Grew from Concrete”, The Rose that Grew from Concrete,
Amaru & Interscope.

Tupac 2000, “The Rose that Grew from Concrete”, Genius.com,

https://genius.com/232045

Warrior 1989, “Canaanites, cowboys and Indians: Deliverance, conquest and liberation
theology today”, Christianity and Crisis, 49, pp. 261-265.