Symbolism in 'Prelude to Atheism'

Naked in the Woods

The woods thing is made up. What perspectives does it validate? Does its falsehood invalidate that issue from being embarrassing to the Church? Does it make you feel more/less sympathetic to the narrator? Does it shock you into being more or less serious

There's also the aspect of symbolism. Nudism/sexuality are symbols for the naked truth - being ashamed of it - coming out with it. Many jokes only make sense if the symbolism is understood. (Moments of truth around nature and animals.)

Killing the Turtle 

At some point, I laid out a controversy about killing a turtle and then putting it in the road to be run over by a car. 

In actual life I did not kill the turtle. However regrettably I did lay the turtle out in the road to be run over (after it had died in captivity).

In the way I laid it out as being an extremely important and crucial question, it was an example of the meaningless of some truths that are hyped up to be such pivotal issues in a world of nonsense and manufactured consent.

That portion of 'Prelude to Atheism' was also about various ways that we come to interpret certain ways people either tell the truth or lie. It follows the thread of analyzing honesty - the culture of honesty and telling the truth - the culture of trust in light of some lies - some truths - etc.

Sexual Relationships

Sexual relationships in general are a symbol of the attraction and entanglements with the emotional aspects of a belief system. Is a belief system emotionally manipulative, is it possessive, is it about molesting children (figurative).

Because sexual relationships in 'Prelude to Atheism' are symbolic, they do not hold up to reality. There are descriptions of molestation that are purely symbolic - and other aspects of religion that are symbolic of various perspectives on peoples' encounters with religion.

Physical Death = Spiritual Death

However contrived it may seem, mentions of death or killing in 'Prelude to Atheism' dealt with the Christian metaphor of what is called the '2nd Death' or a spiritual death.

Though I do not follow this belief system anymore, the writing was exploring it. In the Christian sense, spiritual death is a positive thing. It represents a fulfillment of a person's at-one-ment. It means that you have reached a level of spiritual transcendence as to resolve inner turmoil and strife. It is akin to seeing the world with your 3rd eye, as in Eastern religions. You are living in the moment, and you are at peace with everything around you. In one sense, the self is no more.

Real life versus Intentions to Fictionalize

It is extremely crucial for me to communicate that many of the ideas in this writing were intended primarily as brainstorms for how to write characters into a fictional work. 'Prelude to Atheism' in one dimension was simply an effort to wallow in complexity in many cases. Real life personalities and psychologies are too complicated for the interpretations I laid out, and I do not deem myself an expert in this matter.

Writers construct characters that have faults and strengths. They take the rights of interpretation into their hands. They must play God and make assertions about the Universe in realms where they lack expertise. They make statements despite not having degrees in political theory, the social sciences, or theology.

Manipulation

Much of the symbols are supposed to be humorous, or dark. Much of it leads to cheap tricks and manipulation.

The manipulation turns out later to be about symbols and about the nature of truth and lies. It leads to questions about scripture and the manipulation that can result from discrepancies about what is literal, figurative, symbolic, or intentional/unintentionally misleading/dishonest. This discussion leads to questions about the proper methodology of beliefs and relationships to types of truth - and the potential negative consequences of relying on symbolism and deep emotions to control people.

The contortions of truth are supposed to invoke darkness, anger, or feelings of distaste in order to reflect the feelings of leaving Mormonism. The symbolism is not done smoothly, but in a very technical, sickening way while the narrator is proud of how great it is.

updated 07/02/2018

Disclaimer

My journals were a back and forth dialogue that spiraled higher and higher into greater points for both atheism and religion/Mormonism, and eventually human beings generally. It revolved around as many of the ethical/truth issues affecting my overall decision to leave the LDS Church as possible - giving exhaustive attribution to all scopes and plains of the reasoning.

The spiraling created a trajectory from what I posed as lesser points, into what I imagined where greater considerations. The overall trajectory is important to constructing a larger thesis. The lesser points were deliberately heavy handed, to use reverse psychology tactics to set up entirely altered premises along the trajectory.

Much of the first person dialogue is put forth that way in order to pull the reader in, and see what it might be like to think one way or another, like one would be pulled into a fictional character. The perspectives should not be fully attributed as mine. (Please stop acting like they are. When you react emotionally, or judge me for having that perspective, you don't understand what's happening.)

Issues spanned from human rights, into symbolism, into grammatical phenomena that effect what we believe. All of it is wrapped up eventually in a perspective that one would consider.

Symmetry in argument is used to reveal holes - and used to point out that it doesn't always exist. I related it to velociraptors being 'clever girls'. Though even these were still often pretentious, ignorant or dubious.

Part of the grammar issue is in asking a question about what makes people human. I attempted to propose grammar phenomena as a lens for all beliefs and the illusion of consciousness - and to explain my state of mind in some situations.

As such, grammar tricks are used throughout. It was never meant for 'general consumption', and I'm worried at some of the ways in which I phrase my own motives, behaviors, and perspectives - as well as others'. The majority of the time, they were framed in parallels, or just one side of a parallel duality of good and evil - deliberation and accident - ignorance and intelligence - pride and humility.

ie:

• What are the relationships between ethics and truth?
• What are the relationships between what we say - what we believe - what we do?
• What are the relationships between emotion and logic?
• How do we define and value subjectivity and individuality with reference to objectivity?
• What indirect assertions do we make about ethics when we posture certain beliefs, and how do they play out if we turn them into founding principles?
• What is right and wrong?
• How do we value simplicity or complexity? When are we driving too fast or too slow? or When do we become too logical or too emotional?

Another purpose that intertwined with everything else was in practicing different writing techniques, like making characters unlikable or deeply villainous - controlling these different aspects of writing - and then sometimes pointing it out to make points about how people think - asking questions about what makes a villain a villain.