Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 09:02:52 -0700
Subject: The literal and the Symbolic


Michael E., In 1997 I wrote:

> In depth psychology there is an emphasis (supposed to be an emphasis)
on the symbolic nature of phenomena over and above the literal
interpretation of those phenomena. Meaning is the issue. If someone says
they are feeling like shooting me, presumably I would not respond to
this as a literal issue but, rather, attempt to open myself to the
symbolic meaning of the patient feeling like shooting me... and explore
that as opposed to calling the police.

and you answered:

This does not seem to be a difference between literal and symbolic but
an issue of interpreting what the client says, i.e. whether it's a wish,
an urge, a diffuse feeling, a statement of intent, etc. Are there really
any literal meanings? Isn't all language always metaphorical, since it
has always already transcended the beings to which it refers?

questioningly me:

Is the distinction between the "literal" an the "symbolic" an outgrowth
of subject/object metaphysics in that to say something is "literal" is
to say that it points to one world,  while to say that it is symbolic is
to say that it points to another world? Or maybe that is going too far
afield and it would be better for me to ask simply if there there is a
place for such a distinction (literal versus symbolic interpretations)
in the work of Heidegger?

Michael Staples




     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---