As verbal beings, we live in a world of icons. We experience the world in an
iconic fashion. A major difficulty for us is that we have lost the vocabulary of
iconic reality. We have substituted the language of photography. The dissonance
between reality and our photographic assumptions has led us to doubt both. Man
is an iconographer and needs to re-learn what that means.
+++
Franz Kafka
famously wrote: “The Lie has become the World Order.” It was a sobering estimate
(by an unbeliever) of the nature of human reality. Lying, simply not telling the
truth, can seem a minor thing. But Jesus and the New Testament seem to pay a
great deal of attention to lying, and treat it quite seriously. There is more
here than the mere abrogation of a moral tenet. It is a concern with something
more “Kafkesque.”
The nature of
truth and lies becomes clear if they are thought of in terms of being.
The Church describes God as the “author of our being.” In the writings of the
Fathers, being itself, simple existence, is seen as a good thing, the first of
all created good things. God brings us into existence saying, “It is good.” More
than that, the Fathers teach that it is God’s will that we grow towards
“well-being,” with the ultimately goal of “eternal being.” This, in terms of
existence, is the path of salvation.
And this
understanding reveals the nature of a lie: it has no true existence. That which
is not true not only has no existence, but its very purpose is to obscure or
destroy that which indeed has true existence. Fantasy and imagination, even
though they have no true existence, are by no means inherently false. Only those
forms which seek to distort, deny or destroy that which truly exists can be
called “lies” rather than “fantasy” or “imagination.”
But this makes
speech about reality (that which truly exists) very significant. The most
obvious thing we can say is that reality itself and speech about reality are not
the same thing. They are, however, deeply connected.
In classical
philosophy, the school of thought that describes words as only “in our heads” is
called Nominalism. The names (nomina) of things are described as nothing
more than thoughts. Those who argued otherwise (there are various types of such
arguments) are called Realists. Orthodoxy, in its classical form, has always
espoused some form of Realism. There is a relationship between words and
thoughts and that to which they refer that is greater than simply being
something “in our heads.”
One of the places
where this debate took shape was in the debate over the veneration of icons. It
is clear that images had played a role in the life of the Church from very early
times. That role was not questioned or explored until the 7th and 8th centuries.
The debate was about more than the mere making of images. A greater and more
pressing question was the veneration (giving honor) to the images
themselves. St. Basil the Great stated a clear connection between the image and
the subject of its image: “Honor given to the image is referred to its
prototype.” Thus the honor given to an icon of Christ was, in fact, honor
given to Christ Himself.
St. Basil’s
statement was something of a simple assertion, without elaboration. But in the
8th and 9th centuries, St. Theodore the Studite developed a much more careful
treatment of the question. He described an icon as a “hypostatic
representation,” that is a representation of the personal or particular
characteristics of its subject (the personal is always considered particular rather
than general or abstract). He further taught that what is
represented is “hypostatically” present in the image. The image does not become what
is represented – that would be a presentation of its essence. Instead, it makes
present what is represented, i.e., the Person. St. Theodore’s
treatment thus used the language that the Church had developed for speaking
about the Holy Trinity, as well as the Person and Natures of Christ to speak
about the Holy Icons. It is a treatment that is often forgotten or neglected.
St. Theodore’s
teaching on this question manages to avoid Nominalist solutions. He does not
say, “It’s just a picture.” He does not say, “It’s only connection to what is
depicted is in the mind.” Like all of the Fathers, he is a Realist. There is a
true, even ontological, relationship between the icon and its subject.
But he avoids charges of “magic” by maintaining that what is represented is only
hypostatically present. His explanation
makes it possible to say, “The man in the picture is Peter.”
Turning back to
language, the same understanding says that words matter. They have an actual
relationship with the reality of which they speak and it matters. Fr. Georges
Florovsky once said that “doctrine is a verbal icon of Christ.” Or, as the
Seventh Council said, “Icons do with color what Scripture does with words.”
Of course, the
palette of language is far richer than the palette of the artist.
Words have “shades” of meaning and subtle hues that an artist should
envy. But, in the teaching of the Orthodox faith, words have a
grounding in reality beyond psychology.
Some have said
that the modern world is inherently Nominalist. We believe that our words are
only words, and only have meaning because we say or think they do. The “reality”
they describe is, therefore, in our minds. There was a school of thought
(Idealism) that held that there is no objective reality outside the mind, or
certainly that it cannot be proved. That extreme position has never gained
acceptance. However, the modern sociology of knowledge, in which perceptions,
prejudice, etc. are given a dominant and controlling position, yields something
of the same effect. Conversation begins to falter in the face of withering
doubts about the reality or trust-worthiness of anything in our heads.
Words have
something of a sacramental relationship with the reality they represent. Or, to
be more precise, they have an iconic relationship with reality. Icons are
not photographs, nor can words ever serve as photographic or holographic
substitutes. But icons also carry more information than photographs and are able
to make associations and connections that reveal the truth of reality (its
foundational reality) far more profoundly than is possible in a photograph.
Words have that same ability. Take the poetic sentence:
What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards
Bethlehem to be born?
No photograph
(and perhaps no icon) could carry as much information as this combination of
words from Yeats’ “The Second Coming.” The many associations of “beast”
(including the Beast of Revelation) do not “approach” – they “slouch.” It
carries overtones of “slither” (and the serpent of the Garden) as well as other
emotional content. And so the analysis would continue. It is a phrase that lives
in my mind, capturing a reality both present and yet to come.
And this brings
us back to lying. The struggle to speak the truth transcends mere morality. At
its most fundamental level, it is a struggle to rightly relate to and
participate in reality itself. To “live a lie” borders on not living at all –
and is a synonym for hell.
To claim that the
reality of our words lives only in the mind is itself a “lie” (not an
intentional one, but simply not true). And even the photographic presentation of
reality (as in all literalisms) fails to rise to the status of truth.
The Fathers held
that the world-to-come (the Eschaton) was the truth. The Old
Testament, they said, was a shadow, while the New Testament was an icon.
As verbal beings,
we live in a world of icons. We experience the world in an iconic fashion. A
major difficulty for us is that we have lost the vocabulary of iconic reality.
We have substituted the language of photography.
The dissonance between reality
and our photographic assumptions has led us to doubt both. Man is an
iconographer and needs to re-learn what that means. The result can be a movement
towards the truth and a renewed confidence in our speech.
On this Sunday of
Orthodoxy, speak the truth. Reveal that which is hidden by living in union with
the truth.
Refuse the lie. Refuse to participate in the lie.
|
