Inner measure of symbol and reality depth

The personaldialogue arises only under condition of perception of another person as real. In this case the body of another person is a symbol of thisperson. It means the direct presence of a person in the body and an image. Only an image showing the real presence of a prototype canbe a symbol. The ontological character of a symbol consists in it. The revealing of ontological character a symbol allows allocating twolevels of its life. The external level assumes outside expression, and the inside level is not embodied in empirical reality. Personal dialogueproceeds at these two ontological levels of a symbol. The person expresses the feelings and thoughts through speech, mimicry,and gestures outside. In the course of a dialogue something occurs in the private world of the person. The event of external dialogue isaccompanied by the event of an internal life, which is not expressed in an empirical reality. There are also two types of symbols. Thefirst type of a symbol directs the perception on external expression of the internal. The second type of a symbol directs perception on theinternal, which is not expressed in the external. The first type of a symbol is characteristic for the antique and European cultures; thesecond is present in the apophatical symbolism of the orthodox Christian tradition and in the Japanese culture. To define the insidemeasure of a symbol the concept depth of reality is introduced. Depth of reality is the non-realised latent potentiality of existence accompanyingan empirical reality. Depth of reality reveals possibility of such senses, which are not assumed by the already given eideticdefiniteness of attitude. The Christian apophatical symbolism differs from the Japanese symbolism in the internal content. The Christiansymbol shows such aspect of depth of reality, which the empirical reality is not capable to contain. It is the depth of a completely divinereality. As absolute urgency cannot be completely empirically expressed, from the point of view of the empirical world it is representedas a reality of potentially existing senses. The Japanese symbol shows something absolutely opposite; it is a potential aspect of the depthof reality. Pure potentiality cannot be expressed empirically either as at such expression it ceases to be potentiality. Potentiality in thiscase appears not as a potential sense, but as a pure possibility of an embodiment of any sense. According to the antique tradition thispotentiality is designated by the term meon. The Christian symbol is apophatical as in the course of expression it denies the eideticcontent of its own symbolical image. The Japanese symbol initially is not directed at expressing the actual aspect of depth of reality;therefore it is not apophatical. The concept of a meonal symbol is used to define it.

Keywords

Authors

References