In his book “On Writing,” Stephen King says, “Symbolism exists to adorn and enrich, not to create an artificial sense of profundity.” The use of symbols extends beyond the literary world. Whether they are cultural, religious or psychological symbols are objects that are deeply ingrained in our psyche and help assign depth and meaning to our human experience that mere language cannot contain.  

On this episode, we explore symbolism and stories with Jonathan Pageau. Jonathan is a professional icon carver, writer, public speaker and the host of the popular YouTube channel, The Symbolic World. We talk about the role of art and how understanding symbolic language in religious stories, legends as well as blockbuster movies can help us navigate the modern meaning crisis. We dive into Zombies, The Matrix, feminine symbolism and more. Jonathan is the editor and a contributor for the Orthodox Arts Journal. He also teaches weeklong carving classes at the Hexaemeron School of Liturgical Arts.

Highlights:

• Role of Art in Spirituality
• Meaning Behind Zombie Stories
• Symbols in The Matrix and Christianity

Resources:

• Sacred Space, Sacred Art and the Power of Women by Jonathan Pageau
• The Language of Creation: Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis by Matthieu Pageau
• Zombies in Western Culture: A Twenty First Century Crisis by John Vervaeke, Christopher Mastropietro and Filip Miscevic
• Symbolism in Moana
• Symbolism of The Matrix | System Failure

Listen:

• Apple
• Google
• Stitcher
• Spotify
• Youtube

Poem Inspired by This Episode

Full Transcript

Adrian:

All right. Jonathan, welcome to the show.

Jonathan Pageau:

Oh, it’s great to be here. It’s great to meet you.

Adrian:

Thank you. Thank you for coming on. Yeah, it’s my pleasure. Yeah maybe a place to start for us is to just draw the link between our previous conversation we had with John Vervaeke where we talked about cognitive science and spirituality and your name came up. You know, he mentioned that we might want to explore your work in the symbolic world, which is actually perfect timing because, you know, here we are, we have a chance now to go into that world. From an outsider kind of looking at some of your videos, I see that part of your goal is to unpack symbols or hidden patterns within stories. And you seem to do this both with religious stories as well as pop culture stories. And I know there’s lots we can dive into, but maybe as a starting point is to ask when did this start? You know, early on in your childhood, what was sort of your early spiritual life and how did you get into symbolism?

Jonathan Pageau:

I grew up in an evangelical world. My parents were Catholics who converted to the evangelical faith in the 1970s, late sixties, 1970s, in Quebec where I’m from, French Canada. There was a massive shift, you know, we call it the peaceful revolution, the quiet revolution, and a lot of people left the Catholic Church and some of those people, you know, discovered evangelical Christianity and that my parents went on that route. And for them it was really a way to free themselves from a very strict and, and misunderstood aspects of Christianity. But myself then when I was in my twenties, because I had an artistic tendency, I tried to join my faith and my art and it was very difficult to do that. First of all, because in the Protestant Evangelical Church, there is a quiet disdain of art, at least not in the church. Like some people will say, I know art is fine as long as it doesn’t come into the church and there’s no images, there’s nothing. And so I was struggling to find a place for being an artist in the church. But then also I was struggling to join, let’s say my, my faith with contemporary art because contemporary art is extremely cynical and it’s then the way that it represents the world, it’s always representing things. It’s as a commentary upon a commentary upon a commentary. It’s very removed from what it’s doing. Um, and it seemed like I just couldn’t fit it together. And so I finally decided to give up art and to kind of throw it all away. And as I was doing that, I was also looking and searching spiritually because it just felt like there was something missing in the, let’s say in the Christianity that I had learned in the Evangelical Church and you know, through different routes, different kind of… Going around reading all kinds of things, trying to figure out what was, what I was attracted to. I discovered mystical Christianity, Hesychasm, the mystical tradition of the eastern church. And then at the same time, I discovered medieval art and Orthodox iconography, which had a powerful symbolic language within it. And so it was that which kind of started everything. And my brother, um, who is going through similar things as I was, he really went down the route of reading a Jewish text and reading Rabbinical commentary and, uh, and even the Zohar and, and more kind of esoteric texts. And so in our discussions, you know, I was reading the church fathers in discovering all this medieval art and he was reading rabbinical commentary and we had these amazing discussions where we just realized…we realize all the patterns that were in the biblical text. Then how these patterns leaked out into the just the, you know, the architecture, the art, the shape of culture itself. And then finally, when that started to take shape in our mind and, you know, our minds started to be formed in that direction, then we could look at the world in general and see the same patterns within, uh, popular culture or anything. You know, it’s basically the symbolic understanding is basically the pattern which underlies the way we interact with the world. And so they, they, they are patterns, which are there in history which are there in our lives. Um, it’s easier sometimes to see them in stories because they’re so condensed, whereas, but they still, they lay themselves out even in the way we perceive the world. So that’s kind of how everything started and then slowly gaining that insight you could say, um, is what led me on this path.

Adrian:

That’s really cool. I want to ask you, was there a one pattern that stood out early that sort of was maybe more transformative than other ones that kind of sets you on that path?

Jonathan Pageau:

I think so because I guess I’m an artist and I deal in space in terms of what I’m making. I think that the basic pattern of center and periphery would be the basic pattern that then is the one I would hook everything onto. And I still do that today. And so I still tend to see the world in terms of a center. The center being identity, being a name essence, cause all these things. And then the periphery, which is the, uh, let’s say, the question you could say, you could call the center of the answering, you could call the periphery the question which asks, which is constantly asking the identity, you know, do I fit? Do I fit? How do I fit? What, what’s my place? And so understanding that, that, uh, that basic relationship of center and periphery is the pattern that I use. If you watch my videos, you’ll see I’m always using that same trope because you can, you can use analogies for that. We could use masculine and feminine, you can use a heaven and earth, but all those, you know, tend to manifest themselves in the world as this relationship between center and periphery.

Thal:

So, um, according to you, like it’s, this big question is coming to mind. According to you then, what is the role of art? Or what kind of, how does it serve a purpose in our modern world?

Jonathan Pageau:

Yeah you have to repeat the question. Sorry, I, it totally broke up. Go ahead.

Thal:

That’s okay. What is the role of art and how does it serve a purpose in our modern world? Because you said something very important about contemporary art and it being cynical and removed from the source. That’s really an important observation.

Jonathan Pageau:

Well, one of the things that happened, I think as I discovered art and I discovered under a different, a more traditional, you could say, understanding of art is I really attached myself to the medieval, you know, definition of art, which is that art is, we tend to think of art as being, the object. So we say this is art, you know, some, some object in the world. Whereas the traditional definition of art is that art is a skill. And so we still use that word today. We say something like the art of bread making or the art of, you know, the art of painting. But the art is not the object. The art is the, the, there’s a famous saying by Ananda Coomaraswamy, which is “the art always remains in the artist”, right? The art is the skill of the artist has to fit things together in a proper manner. And so in that, in that manner, art itself does not necessarily have a value in itself. And, and I think that once you start to realize that it frees you so much because people argue over what is art and what is not art. And, they somehow have this presupposition that for something to be art means that it would have value in itself, which is absolute nonsense. Uh, and so the way that I view art is that art is a, is an accumulation of skill and knowledge to fit things together. And then what’s important is what you use it for until what is the purpose of the object that you’re making? Um, and so, so once you, once you kind of see that, then all of a sudden a lot of the art that’s, that’s being made today lifted the contemporary art. You have to always ask yourself, what is the, what is the purpose of this art? And the answer for it, the answer that it is art is not enough. It’s not enough of an answer. The fact. And so you realize a lot of contemporary art is actually there to offer prestige. It’s there to, uh, to create an elite, a cultural elite, which understands the hermetic language. And then, you know, the masters don’t understand it. There’s a whole, uh, it also has a, it’s also there for financial speculation to create, uh, you know a pyramid of investments with, uh, with different collectors who, who make their art being be worth more. So all of a sudden the world of art opens up and you see, you ask yourself what the purposes are. And so then you, so for example, then myself, I had to ask myself then what am I going to make? What objects am I going to make? And that’s when the notion of liturgical art kind of opened itself up for me, which is, okay, well what is the highest use of art that could did, I could engage in let’s say, and then liturgical art just appeared as being the highest because it serves the purpose of, first of all, it is there to kind of show you something higher. It’s there to kind of connect you to something that transcends you, uh, connect you to God connects you to the transcendent. But it’s also there to unify a community. And so sacred art is always also very particular. So iconography has a language which is known by the people who are within the church. It is a, it is a communal language. And so engaging in that language is also unifying a community together and participating in the life of a community. Um, so I think that those end up, I would say that those are, in my opinion, the highest forms of art. Art that can show you the patterns, show you something, connect you to something higher, and then can also create a locust, participate in a language that creates a community. Um, to me that’s it,

Thal:

That’s an important question too that I sit with. Um, I like to write poetry and that’s also a form of art and, um, especially mystical poetry really moves me. And so that brings up the question too of yes, the role of art. There are all of the artists, but also, um, the state of the artist and at what state are you producing? Like you said, it’s about the work itself, um, at that state of being present in a specific way and, and, and the material that’s brought that’s being created. What kind of, um, I don’t know what, like we’re limited with language, but what kind of energy or feeling is the receiver getting from that piece of art?

Jonathan Pageau:

Right. No, I, I agree. I think that for sure in terms of ideally I think that we should, art can be a form of meditation in itself. Creating objects can be a way to, uh, you kind of enter into this zone, and you lose yourself in a certain manner in what you’re doing. You become extremely present. Um, and then the object that you make will reflect that. And so I think that that’s definitely let’s say the greatest art, especially like you talked about a mystical poetry or mystical, um, works in general. I think liturgical art in terms of iconography as well can have that same effect. Yeah. If you look at the icons of the trinity by Rublev or just the icons of the Russian icons that were produced in that time, you know, there’s this, you look at them and there’s this just amazing connection to something which is beyond you. And you hope that, that, uh, the state of the also participated in creating that. But I have to be honest though that sometimes it’s not the case. I, I’ve experimented this very particularly myself because as a, as an icon carver, it’s my job. You know, I get up in the morning and I go to the workshop. So some days, you know, everything is great and I’m in the zone and you know, I, I took time in the morning to pray and to meditate and I go there and it’s good. And there are other days where it’s the very opposite. You know, I just had a huge fight with my wife and I went to bed at two in the morning and I’m getting up and I’m all groggy. Uh, and then I, I work on this piece and I’m not there, you know. And the surprising thing is that sometimes it, sometimes it doesn’t matter. And it’s very strange. I’ve had people tell me, Oh, this, this particular icon you made is, you know, it, it really shows something more. It really connects you to something more. And I’m thinking, Oh, if you knew what state I was when I made that, you would not, you would not think that. So, so hopefully I think that sometimes too, artists can act as a, almost as vehicles despite themselves. And I think that, that’s true. And you talked to any, any artists and they know they’ve had that moment where it’s like they know that it’s not them because they’re a wreck of a person, but what comes out of them ends up being, um, being amazing. And so I think that artists can sometimes act as tuning forks to a certain extent, uh, to something which is beyond them.

Thal:

Absolutely. Absolutely. Sometimes I feel that way. Even I’m writing a poem, I’m like, what? Like, what’s going to come out? Sometimes it’s just, it, just the process of writing the poem takes me from a more disheveled state to a somewhat somewhat balanced state. Yeah,

Jonathan Pageau:

That’s wonderful if it can do that, that’s for sure.

Thal:

Yeah. Sometimes.

Adrian:

Jonathan, I want to ask you, um, you made a reference, I think in one of your videos I watched you mentioned story acting as symbolic compression and that kind of, I really like that framing. Um, and in connecting, connecting it to arts like art can have that effect. It’s a compression of, of patterns or symbols. Why is that helpful for someone who doesn’t look at the world that way? If we don’t look at the world symbolically, how might we make a connection to a modern world? Um, we are putting our finger on the crisis of meaning to sort of tie in all those themes.

Jonathan Pageau:

Well first of all, an interesting, an interesting thing is that both the word symbol and the word art have similar etymologies in terms of what they mean. The word art and from Latin means, you know, properly fitted together. That’s what, that’s what it means. And symbol means two things thrown together. And so for example, the, in Greek they used the word symbol to talk about a place where two rivers would come and join into and become one river. And so both of them have this notion of joining together, coming together. And I think that that’s what symbolism does is that it shows you the pattern. That’s what a pattern is. A pattern is a coherent fitting together of something which could be disparate. So you have all these disparate elements and when you look and you see how actually they come together and they become one thing, you know, I always tell people, how do, why do we think that certain things are one thing? It’s because we have, there’s something in us, there’s a capacity. We have to see unity to see a pattern, uh, in anything, even a physical object. I always use the example of a microphone. Like, why do we think that a microphone is one thing? Why do we, why do we contain it in a, in a category? And that’s because it has a purpose and it has a pattern. And it’s the same for everything. And in stories we can, we can see it more clearly because the story, because the story has to have a beginning, has to have an end. You have to know, you have to recognize it as a story. You know, how do we know that something is a story rather than just a bunch of jumbled, uh, information, uh, put next to each other and it’s because it has a pattern. And so that that recognition is there to help us view the patterns. Now the problem we have today is that we are, we are in this crisis, this meaning crisis. And the way to understand that in terms of the symbolic structure is that we are in the rim. We’re in the periphery, we are in the margin and we use those, those, those words. You can just listen to culture. And you’ll see that we always talk about is the exception. The margin, the uh, you know, the, the, the peripheral, um, the strange, the bizarre, the monstrous, all these, all these images are the ones that are taking over our discourse. And it’s because that’s where we are in the pattern of the story. We are, we are on the edge. You know, we are on the end and so does it in means that we are the, we are at the end of something? I don’t know what we’re at the end of a, of a, of a, of a cycle of civilization where at the end of something, um, now my trick, the way that I’ve been trying to help people to be able to see the pattern is to help them see those, the patterns of the margin. Because the problem, most symbolic writing or most mystical writing has been trying to get you to see the heart, to try to lead you to the heart. Uh, and so trying to talk about the heart as the, the garden of delight as, uh, as you know, the oyster and the pearl as all these, all this type of imagery, which is there to help you understand, you know, the, the top of a mountain, the, the or, or using sexual imagery in terms of the union of masculine and feminine. All of these, the, these symbolic structures are there to bring you into that central space. But the problem is that we’re so far from it that we can’t even recognize those images. And so what I’ve been trying to do is start with the monster. Start with helping people understand where we are. Why do we have all this imagery around us? Why do we have, why, you know, why are we obsessed with ugliness? Why are we obsessed with exceptions, with, uh, with things that don’t fit? Why is that? Why are those the things we talk about? Because those are part of the pattern too. You know, that part of the pattern is also that which doesn’t fit in the pattern. That’s part of the bigger pattern you could say. And so helping people understand that that’s where we are. I think that that’s the, that to me, that has been the way to then point back and say, okay, well now how can we understand that? Understand the role of the periphery of the margin because it has a role. But then how can we then move towards now back towards that sacred space? How can we recognize, the bars of the ladder that will bring us back into, back into the heart, let’s say. Um, so that’s been the way, and I think that it’s, it’s been successful in the sense that I see that people recognize that they can see when you point to it, then you point to the analogies between monsters and zombies and, and uh, and, and all this other stuff that’s going on. And also the confusion that we’re bound in. They can see, okay, yeah. That’s where we are. So now what do I do with that?

Adrian:

Can you, can you help unpack that a little bit? So, yeah. Using this Zombie as a perfect example, I know John, there’s a bit of convergence there too with, for Vervaeke and him writing the book about zombies and the meaning crisis. Um, but how is it a symbol of the contemporary nihilism that I’ve heard heard you speak about?

Thal:

Also in connection with that question, when you talk about center, I’m thinking heart and just the zombies. Are they creatures that have a heart?

Jonathan Pageau:

Right. That’s the idea. The whole idea of a, of a Zombie is that he doesn’t, that he doesn’t have a heart and not a hard, of course, not in the in a physical sense, but the word heart is just means center. You know, and, and when you read in text, when he talks about the heart, it’s talking about the center of the person, both physically because that’s where we feel our life is here, right in the, in the chest. That’s kind of where we experience breath. That’s where we experience, uh, emotion. Uh, all those things happen in that, in that space. But it’s also the center of the person in a more, let’s say, metaphysical manner, you know, the place where meaning and body meet and all that stuff. Um, and I think that that’s the Zombie is very fascinating because the Zombie is a, is one of the only modern monsters. Uh, it’s an, there’s the extra terrestrial is one of them, but the Zombie is really a modern monster. He, he appears in the 60s, you know, with a, with Ramero, although there were hints of what zombies of zombies before. The modern Zombie, the way we understand it as this decomposing, um, you know, walking dead figure really comes from the 1960s and it makes sense because that’s when the 1960s is when the meaning crisis started to accelerate. Um, and when people, you know, when things started to break apart, when faction started to fight over meaning over identity over also, um, let’s say we developed a pleasure culture, a culture that is based on our own passions where we were to give into your passion. That’s the purpose of life. And now we’re seeing the end of that. We’re seeing kind of the gutting of that myth that that giving into your passion or giving into pleasure or you know, living a life which is based on those values is going to provide meaning it doesn’t, it leads you into emptiness. And the Zombie is the, is the perfect example of that because the Zombie is pure desire and, and it’s reduced desire to the, the essence of what desire ends up being, you know, which is basically that the desire to eat life like to devour life and also to devour, um, the, the other person. Because when we give into our just pleasure, when we give it only to pleasure, we always objectify the person who is there to, to serve us our pleasure. Whatever it is, when, when our purpose is pleasure, uh, whether it’s in sexuality or whether it’s just, you know, buying things at the store or whether it’s getting what you want, uh, when you reduce it to pleasure, you’re objectifying the person in front of you, then that person is not a full person, is just a tool to get you what you want. And that the Zombie is the ultimate, you know, the, the, the radical example of that, you know, where human beings become food for this ravenous desire that they have. So that’s just one aspect. But there are many aspects of the Zombie. The fact that it’s decomposing the fact that it’s idiosyncratic. Um, you know, the Zombie, the ultimate punk rocker is a Zombie because, you know, every Zombie is different because they’re decomposing and so they, they, they’ll decompose in a different manner, but at the same time, the strangely are all also this giant mass. So it’s like these two opposites seem to coexist where each Zombie is idiosyncratic, but it’s also, there’s just this giant, you know, like massive wave of death that is coming towards you. So it’s every, almost every single aspect of the Zombie is there to show us the world, the world that we’re living in right now.

Adrian:

Yeah. It seems like, even if we don’t think we’re looking at things symbolically, there’s probably an intuition, which is why these films and these images are so attractive. You know, people love these TV shows and movies and, um, they really sort of resonate seemingly on an unconscious level.

Thal:

And it’s like, it’s, it’s an image of us really. When you said monster, like other monsters are just different alien images, but the Zombie is, is us basically.

Jonathan Pageau:

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean all the day. Yeah. All the monsters are somehow are both, you know, the, the, they kind of represent the edges of, the problem with the edge is that, did the edge is always tends to be… On the edge is also the other, right. When you get to the edge and you, you reach a place where it’s not you anymore. It’s like it’s something else. It’s, it’s this, it’s this other, it’s a, it’s either your enemy or your neighbour or your, or the unknown, you know, the stranger, all those, all those images are there to… The monster tends to manifest all of those ideas we have about the, this, this stranger, the idea of the strange in general. Um, but the Zombie, like you said, it somehow comes closer to quite a bit because the characters in the story, you know, in the story, the characters will become zombies. Most of them, you know, almost in every Zombie movie, the idea is always like, okay, so who’s going to get bitten and who’s not, you know, and, and so many stories end with almost everybody, you know, turning. And so, like you said, it’s a, it’s a monster story which shows us, which comes much closer to us, where it’s like, it’s, it’s potentially us. Who are these monsters more than anything else? More than like, you know, the, let’s say the lizard man or the wolf man or all these kind of these dark creatures or you know, a vampire. Well, the vampire also has a little bit of that too. Um, but in a different manner.

Adrian:

Do you have personal views of how this all will end? I mean, just going off what you just mentioned, like most Zombie movies kind of in the same way, it’s that you don’t beat em. You can’t beat the monsters [laughing].

Jonathan Pageau:

The Zombie story is frightening. Exactly because it is shows the problem of the ending. Um, in terms of this problem that we have, the meaning crisis, you know, there’s a, uh, there’s a trope in video games for awhile where, I don’t know if they still exist. I’m not, I’m not a Gamer, but I saw it when people were playing that they had, um, every game had like a Zombie mode where basically all it was was just wave after wave of zombies coming at you. And you can never win. You can’t, you can’t win all you need to do the, the way you, the further you go, like you, you survive how long you survive, but you can’t beat the game. It’s impossible. The zombies will just get more and more and more until you and until you die. And so it’s very dark. It’s a very dark image. Uh, but in terms of the Zombie story, you know, some friends and I, we’ve actually worked on a solution to a Zombie story and it was very existential for a friend of mine, someone that, uh, someone that reached out to me in, he was having horrible nightmares about zombies, you know, just over, over and over. He would have nightmares, a nightmare then. So he was really an existential thing for him to, to deal with that. And you wanted to to, to deal with the zombies. And so he wrote me and he, he also, he’s the one who actually told me about John Vervaeke’s book because he said, oh here you’re talking about zombies. I’m, yeah cause he was online looking for Zombie. He’s like, I’m looking for solutions to his problem. And uh, he said that he said that the Zombie that John Vervaeke’s book helped him to get rid of the nightmares but not completely. And the solution to the nightmare came in a discussion that we had and the solution was the idea of a Zombie who would a person who would, who would somehow accept to become a Zombie to save others. Um, and then the idea of a Zombie waking up. We’ve never seen a story about that. I seems like that would be the best story. And I’m surprised no one has done it yet. Where within the horde of zombies, like one Zombie wakes up from their, from their situation. Um, so that, that seems to be the idea of waking up in death. I mean, obviously that’s it. That’s the Christian story of the resurrection. And we, I think that that’s the only solution. I don’t know in terms of a society how it’s gonna play out. I don’t, I have to admit that I don’t have the greatest hope for how this, how the social narrative is going to play out. It seems to be getting worse. Um, especially with social media, it seems to, it seems to make things worse because it seems to exacerbate a lot of the conflicts that we have in our, in our culture. And the conflict is exactly an extreme of the, of center and periphery. It’s actually a fight between people who want to, who, who see identity as dangerous, um, and who want to, who want to deconstruct identity and those who see that identity is necessary for the world, but then go too far and want to, you know, you know, um, let’s say declare their identity as being, you know, the one that, that, that you need to hold onto and know that they’ll fight for their identity. And so it’s, it’s a very, it’s a very disturbing, it’s very disturbing way for things to be setting themselves up. And I don’t see, uh, to me the solution to me, the solution is a hierarchy. Um, and I know a lot of people hate that word because it has such negative connotations. But the thing, the thing about a proper hierarchy is that a hierarchy shows you, let’s say, shows you the distance you have from the center.

Thal:

It’s like a roadmap.

Jonathan Pageau:

But it also, exactly, the hierarchy also gives you the steps you need in order to go into the center and so to be able to understand where you are. But also to have, so it’s not, it’s not an opposition between center and periphery, but it’s rather like a ladder that connects the two together, like or radius that connects the center to the periphery. And it’s a path that you can follow and, and kind of move in. And so I think that that, that re-understanding hierarchy, uh, in a proper manner, uh, not, not just not necessarily hierarchies of power, which is the only ones we understand, but let’s say a spiritual hierarchy. That I think is the only solution. So, so that’s why if you listen to my talks, you’ll see that I am always talking about hierarchy and I’m always, always trying to also show the positive and negative aspects of all sides. And so show the negative aspects of the center, how the center can become tyrannical, but then also show the positive aspects of the periphery. How do we also need that question? We need that, that doubt in order, you know, for the world to exist in a normal, in a normal manner. So I think that that’s, to me, that’s the only, it seems like that’s the solution. But in terms of the society, I don’t see it coming on before a major crisis. Uh, sorry. [laughing]

Thal:

It sounds to me like hierarchy is part of that symbolic world that it, the symbolic world is the, is like the paradox or the bridge between the center and the periphery. And when you’re talking about center and periphery, I, um, for me, I’m thinking about the form and the formless, um, and just, you know, um, that it doesn’t have to be that or that, that it’s, it’s really, it’s reconciling both sides and that it’s, what we’re stuck in right now is dualities, which are illusory essentially.

Jonathan Pageau:

Yeah. Yeah. I agree. Especially when we don’t see how the duality comes together into something higher. You know, people often misunderstand or see a very limited image of the story of Adam and eve in the garden. And one of the understandings of that story is that when Adam and Eve ate the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, what was happening to them is that they were giving into duality and they were entering into a world of duality without unity. And that really then becomes the massive problem that’d becomes the, uh, the, the problem of the problem of everything. Uh, you know, and, and in Christianity, that’s why it’s kind of solved by love. Love becomes the manner in which both unity and multiplicity can coexist together. You know, because love does not, love, does not abolish difference. Um, it celebrates difference, but it also celebrates unity. It celebrates how difference can come together and be, be really one at the same time.

Adrian:

I love, I love to…this is all connecting and beautifully.

Thal: This is amazing.

Adrian:

I love your, um, your sequel to the Zombie story because, I’m thinking about the Matrix, right? So when you talked about waking up, and I think that’s sort of, uh, you know, uh, easily recognizable story that a lot of people know are familiar with. And, um, about an individual waking up to sort of a real, more real reality or you know, or differentiating what is simulation and what is what is truly real. And, but then also it brings the dualism, right, that duality that, that is perpetuated in that, in that movie. Um, would you care to, to, to unpack a little bit of symbolism in the Matrix. I know that was one of one of the videos I really enjoyed watching and seeing sort of the hidden patterns that are, um, they seem to do a good job of pointing towards.

Jonathan Pageau:

Yeah. Well I think that the the yeah, the Matrix is very fascinating because they really do set up an opposition. The Matrix is actually, at least the first movie, the second and third movie are such a jumble. It’s actually kind of hard to, to know what’s going on in those. He does, they do try to finish the whole, um, story with that kind of non dualistic finale where Neo joins himself to the source and then, you know, he, he tries to create a non dual, let’s say solution, but it’s difficult because it’s so jumbled. The stories are so chaotic and the second and third one, but in the first one for sure, there is really is a setup of a duality and it’s also an inverse hierarchy. People, it’s so funny how in the Matrix people tend to see, they tended to see spiritual symbolism in a way. I think they purposefully did put spiritual symbolism, but it’s an upside down spiritual symbolism because what’s real in the matrix is the body. That’s what’s real. What’s real is the, uh, this kind of nitty gritty, uh, existence of the flesh. And you know, everything related to the mind, everything related to two spirit is that’s the illusion, right? The illusion is the is the mind is the, uh, is the, let’s say the patterns of the world. Those are all illusions. And what’s real is, is the, uh, is the body. And so it’s an actually, it’s an upside down. It’s a revolutionary story and it’s presented as revolutionary in the, in the movie. It’s a revolution of the body against the, the mind. That’s what the Matrix is about. And that’s kind of, that’s what the modern world has been about, you know, especially since the, the 1960s. And I think that although I think that there are some interesting things in the matrix that that can help us to, uh, to understand some of the patterns. Most of it, most of the patterning is, is upside down. And I have to sadly say.

Adrian:

Perhaps it’s like an embodied spirituality. That’s kind of funny. I never even consider that. But like the flesh you world as, um, sort of a potential path, right? So, you know, it’s maybe not necessarily, um, just giving into passion. So you talked about, you know, the, the hedonistic way of living, but then just maybe celebrating, um, the somatic way of living. You know, cause we are often stuck in sort of left brain thinking modes. And we are disembodied, uh, yeah. In, in sort of a Zombie sense, but reconnecting with, with flesh and being reminded that we are walking around with these vessels and, you know, yeah.

Jonathan Pageau:

But I think that I, that that’s really, at least the Christian story, that’s what it’s, it ends up being all about the incarnation is really about finding the place, the reality of body, um, and the reality of body coming through it’s connection to that which transcend it. And that’s really the, in Christianity, we do not, we don’t view the body, the, you know, the world of phenomena as maya or as illusion. Um, but we, for it to be real, it has to be connected to the transcendent. That’s how it becomes real. And so it’s a, it’s a bit of a different, it’s been different from a lot of the eastern, or at least the, the, let’s say the cliche of eastern thinking that we, that we have in, in the west. Um, but in terms of the Matrix, I always tell people there’s the one scene that helps you to understand the difference between, I think real spirituality and the matrix is that when Neo resurrect at the end of the movie and he, he stands up, you know, and he looks out and he’s, you know, he’s, he’s kind of, he’s kind of full of what he’s going to be. It’s kind of attained this spiritual height that he’s going to attain. The only word that he says is “No”, that’s what he says. And I think that that’s really the difference between true spirituality, which says yes and, and the revolutionary spirituality of the Matrix was which who’s answered to kind of reaching enlightenment is to say no. Uh, so I think that that’s a way to see the difference. I think. Yeah,

Adrian:

There was another one. Um, we actually, it was so hard to select where like, oh, what are some pop culture references that I think people will really resonate. And another one for me was Moana [laughing]. It was actually, when you did a really cool, yeah, symbolic understanding of Moana, which I did not see it all. I mean, I really enjoyed the movie, but the moment you start pointing at those things, I got to rewatch it now and I feel like, yeah. Um, could you share a little bit about that trope that seems to be really popular about replacing the masculine with the feminine character? And I think you did that beautifully.

Jonathan Pageau:

Yeah, I think there’s, I think we have, there’s a very kind of sad trope in our culture, which is that we’ve recognized… let’s say we have these recognized patterns of masculinity and femininity. And at first it felt like, let’s say the feminist way of thinking was we need to get rid of these tropes. Like we need to everybody. Everybody is just a person, you know, like, we, we, everybody can do anything, that kind of thing. Um, but, but now it seems like there’s a, let’s say a one track, which is rather to take all the masculine tropes of a hero and just put a feminine body on the masculine tropes. And it’s, it’s very disturbing because what ends up happening is actually in a lot of movies what ends up happening, it, it looks like it’s actually a degrading of the masculine because in the stories you often see then the feminine character who, who is, has this, this role, you know, degrading a masculine character, you see it, you know, actually quite often. But what ends up happening in the end is that we’ve, we lose the value of the feminine. We use, we lose of the traditionally feminine, you could call it, you know, which is this whole idea of, of the question, this whole idea of, of, uh, of being the one who, the notion of the secret, this notion of the private, this notion of the, the, the hidden, all these, these, these important aspects that are part of symbolism, part of stories, you know, the mysterious, all these aspects are super important. Um, uh, and then, but then it’s like, we, we don’t, we’re almost degrading that by creating these characters that are just basically men with, with breast, uh, you know, cutting people’s heads off. I don’t, I don’t, I don’t totally, and, and it’s actually, it’s an interesting because it’s actually a sign of the times because in almost in all of western culture, there was this idea that on the edge of the world, you know, there existed these, uh, synchronistic nations, you could call them, synchronistic people and part of the synchronistic people were the Amazons, right? Like the Amazons where an upside down world where, you know, the, the, where all the women were warriors and they were fighting and usually there are no men or the men were just used to it to make babies and then they were kind of thrown out. Um, and so it’s very strange that we’ve come at a place where somehow we would, we would kind of glorify the, the, the image of that we would… at the same time, degrade the image of a strong man who would be a hero, but then elevate the same image with a feminine body. To me it’s such a weird contradiction. It’s like a, it, it’s such a jumble that it, it runs the risk of really confusing us in terms of our normal values in a society. I don’t know if that makes sense.

Thal:

It makes sense to me because, um, that’s something that I constantly think about. Um, especially with, uh, what’s going on right now. Like everything is, um, we’re living in a very charged times and um, it is important to situate feminism in a way where there is, um, we bring back the sacred and that’s where I feel like it will be the answer. One of the answers towards the meaning crisis. And we’ve had in the, uh, in our podcast, Jean Shinoda Bolen who, you know, wrote a lot around, um, the, the goddess mythology and that being a way of, of, um, or using the symbolic language to you know, portray the feminine in a more balanced way, the feminine and the masculine, not contradicting each other. Um, and to heal the feminine where you really is to heal the masculine and bringing both of, yet there is no separation. And, and, and your, your description of you know, how, again, limited by language, but how modern feminism or whatever, um, brings back the again, words, toxic masculinity and just dress it with a female body I think is for me as a woman and a woman of color is not the right answer.

Jonathan Pageau:

Oh, I mean, I, I definitely agree. I think that one of the things that I made my mission to do is to help people understand feminine symbolism in the most positive manner that is possible. And so, you know, I’ve done, I’ve written several articles on let’s say, the feminine and Christianity. I’ve done some talks on the mother of God on, on Mary and her role and her and the vision of her in the Christian story. Um, and also let’s say the role of the church itself as, as feminine. All of that is something that I’ve, that I’ve been trying to talk about because I do believe that one of the big problems that has happened is that the enlightenment, you know, for all the good that it has, it was a very masculine movement was, it was, it was in, uh, you know, it was a emphasis on reason, an emphasis on the public sphere, an emphasis on technological advancement. All that stuff was part of, let’s say from the 17th to the 19th century. And it led to the 20th century, led to the maniacal 20th century of totalitarian governments. And so I think that one of the things that have been lost has been a proper balance between the masculine and feminine. And so we need to look for ways to help to restore that, you know, help to restore the place of the, of the feminine. And, and I think that, I think a lot of people intuitively understand that. And I think that a lot of let’s say feminists movements intuitively see that and have a desire to find a way to kind of rectify that problem. Um, and, but I think they did often happens in a, in a confused and angry manner. And, and so it ends up not accomplishing what would we hope that it would accomplish. You know? And, and it ends up taking on that, that strange trope of, you know, a woman can do anything a man can do. And you’re like, oh, so you’re saying that that’s what’s valuable, right? You’re, you’re reaffirming that the only valuable thing is what a man can do. And then you’re saying a woman can do it. A woman can do it. Instead of saying, instead of looking at, at the feminine and looking at, at the wonderful aspects of, of, uh, of femininity and to, and valuing that and saying, this is extremely valuable, you know, uh, that the private, everything that’s related to the private sphere, everything’s related to the mystery, the secret, you know? Uh, you know, and, and also even the, the whole image of, I mean the mother is the most important thing in the world. If we didn’t have mothers, we have no, we would have no, we could actually probably we could, you know, theoretically dispense with pretty much with fathers and we would still, you know, for awhile have human beings. But without mothers there’s nothing.

Thal:

Mother is the heart, is the centre!

Jonathan Pageau:

And so, so I think, I think I, I think that that’s, you know, helping people really understand and relive feminine symbolism I think is, is a very important aspect of what I’m trying to do. That’s for sure.

Thal:

Yeah. And I was, as you’re talking about this, I was just thinking also about hagiography and the stories of saints and that’s something also that’s in the Sufi culture where there are many female Sufi saints that were leaders and had male students and a lot of them really, um, um, broke away and broke the rules, sort of, um, like hundreds and hundreds of years ago, which we see that as something modern. But really it has been going on for a long time. And I wonder how, yeah, and how is that connected to the Christian mystical tradition?

Jonathan Pageau:

Yeah, well, for sure there are many stories of Christian mystics, especially as, as coming, you know, as having immense authority no matter what their gender is. The perfect example is Catherine of Sienna, who was so powerful, you know, she basically decided who the pope was when there was a conflict between different popes. It’s like, oh, well let’s ask Catherine of Sienna to see and to help us decide who the, the legitimate pope is. And so there is, there is a sense, uh, but, but it’s, uh, usually the, let’s say the power that women play is usually a, a whispering like, uh, it’s like, it’s a, it’s a very, it’s a very powerful, it’s kind of, okay. So here’s a, here’s a, a text that I wrote. If people are interested, I wrote an article about this, I think I called it “Sacred Art and the Power of Women”. And so there’s a trope in Christianity in the history of Christianity, which is that the, the woman always converts first. Uh, and so you see that in terms of all the important changes in the story of Christianity. So for example, you know, the mother of Constantine was a Christian before Constantine, you know, uh, the first, uh, Frankish emperor, the first Frankish king who converted his wife was a Christian. Vladimir of Kiev though converter of the Russians, his mother was a Christian and it’s systematic, you know, and not only that, but the great saints. So Saint Augustine’s mother was a Christian, uh, the Cappadocian St Basil and, uh, Saint Gregory, their sister was a Christian before them. And so there is this notion of this secret entering into this, entering into the secret place first, right? This entering into, uh, into a place secretly, first, and then a kind of calling. Uh, and then it kind of called let’s say a secret whisper, and then the world changes, the world moves and then the men start to publicly move around that, you know, and that starts right away in the story of Christ were the first person to come to the empty grave are the women, the first person who sees the resurrected Christ is Saint Mary Magdalene. And then she goes, she sees the resurrected Christ and then she goes back and then she tells the disciples, you know, he’s risen. And so it’s like, it’s right there, right at the beginning of the Christian story. And then the whole history of Christianity follows that, that, um, that pattern, which is this, this kind of this secret entering into somewhere by a woman and then kind of public, a later public coming out, let’s say, of of the, the official, let’s say masculine, uh, king or whatever. Uh, so, so I think that that’s something that people are interested in, that it’s definitely something worth looking into because it, it shows us also what the power of the feminine to invite or to frame. That’s the way that I represented in my, in my article is that because the feminine is a question, it actually frames the answer. It’s like, you know, the mother of God, there’s a story where the first time that Christ does a public act, which is to change water into wine, his mother goes up to him and she says, there’s no wine. And in Christ, the answer of Christ, the answer is, you know, like, why are you tempting me? It’s not my time yet. And it’s like, what? Like what? Very strange answer. He’s basically saying, I’m not ready to die yet. But she’s asking him to just telling them that there’s not enough, that there’s no wine. And so what she’s doing is she’s saying, here’s the problem. Now you have to, you answer, you answer this problem. But she’s the one who’s framing the problem. And so that’s always the, that’s always, that’s the power of the feminine is to ask the right question. And then the, let’s say the masculine answer is within that frame and that if you think about it for a little while, you’ll, you’ll see how powerful that is. It’s actually, it’s actually very, very, it’s more powerful than then we would think at first glance because you know, you don’t answer something that you’re not asked. Uh, you don’t, you, you answer within the question.

Adrian:

For me, a powerful symbol actually was sticking to the image of the moon and the sun using sort of solar consciousness to represent what we commonly consider masculine traits, clarity, height, ascension, um, and the lunar side, right? The moon reflecting perhaps more feminine qualities. You mentioned mystery and question, you know, being able to navigate the darkness, right? The shadows. Yeah.

Jonathan Pageau:

Yeah and veiling and unveiling for sure the moon avails and unveils herself.

Adrian:

And, and yeah, just the idea of a complete human perhaps is also the idea of having a complete day requiring both the day Sun as well as the night. And yeah, it was helpful for me to stay away from the polemics right. To move away from sort of that fraught territory of identity politics and getting caught up with words, you know, offending people. It’s you know, sort of pointing towards, yeah, I need to work on both my solar characteristics as well as my lunar characteristics and, um, and, and sort of treat it that way as opposed to even using the word masculine or feminine because it can be, can be triggering.

Jonathan Pageau:

It can trigger people. Yeah. Yeah. Do whatever works, you know. But I agree. A full, a full person is an androgen is like the, the ultimate person is androgynous. And I think that that’s, that’s inevitable. And, and it’s represented very much in Christian symbolism in terms of Christ himself or Christ is, is a masculine character. But he’s often described as the total man as being, uh, androgynous and Androgyny we have to be careful because we have a weird idea of androgyny. Androgyny is not, is not confusion of the genders. It’s not, it’s not a kind of weird, uh, you know thing where you’re not sure that that’s, there’s a difference between an androgyny and the Hermaphrodite you could say. The androgynous one and the hermaphrodite one. And so the, the Androgynous person is someone who is fully what they are but is also also contains the other side. And so it’s like Christ is fully a man, but he also has within itself all that is feminine as well. And so he doesn’t appear as a confused being, but he rather appears as one that has integrated they’re opposite into themselves. I don’t know if that makes sense.

Thal:

It does. Yeah. And I want to connect it back to what Adrian was saying and also bringing in, um, sort of the Jungian language where there’s the solar consciousness, lunar consciousness and Christ Consciousness is probably the, the marriage of both in a way.

Adrian:

Yeah. Yeah. Unity or nondual. Right. Sort of a non dual state. So you’re not one or the other. It’s sort of a blend of both.

Jonathan Pageau:

Yeah. And I think with, I think that right now it’s interesting because the whole, the whole question of nonduality, I think it’s very important. I for sure, I think it’s extremely important, but when we’re in the margin, we really have to be careful not to confuse nonduality with confusion, like confusion and mixture is not the same as nonduality. And so that’s very, it’s very important to make that difference because we, you’ll meet a, you’ll meet a nihilistic, you know, totally scattered punk rock person who talks about nonduality. But what they really mean is that they’re nothing. And in the negative sense, right? They have no focus. They had no center. They’re scattered. They’re there. Then it’s like, like, yeah, you’re not dual because you’re just a mess. It’s like being a mess is not the same as, as ecstatic mystical non-dualism.

Thal:

That’s a very important distinction. [laughing]

Jonathan Pageau:

Well, especially with the new age, a lot of new age thinking, you know, sometimes that becomes confused and uh, and you meet extremely destroyed people who have become so in the desire to, to become non dual. Uh, and so, so we have to be careful.

Thal:

That’s very important. Yes. A lot of new age type of thinking unfortunately is just narcissistic wounding repeating itself over and over again. And, and that could be, um, yeah, dangerous place to go to. Yeah, absolutely.

Adrian:

Jonathan, do you have any, uh, any favorite myths, um, just as somebody who devotes a lot of time, you know, studying stories and sharing, you know, patterns within them. Is there one sort of, you mentioned the center and the periphery. I guess that’s one theme or one pattern that has kept resonating for you, but is there a story? Yeah. Is there a story that stands out?

Jonathan Pageau:

Yeah, I mean for sure. In terms of stories, you know, I mean, I think that my two favorite stories as they kind of play up against each other is really the story of the creation in the Bible up to the fall. Um, and maybe even up to Noah, let’s say that, that, that like slide, I think that that contains so much, there’s so much in that story and then the story of Christ as an answer to that. So you have these two stories that kind of play off against each other. I would say that if you listen to my talks, you’ll see that I’m constantly going into the story in genesis into the story of creation and the fall and then then going into the story of Christ and trying to show how they relate to each other. Um, but in terms of, um, that’s the, in terms of, of a secular stories, I definitely really enjoy fairy tales. I love to think about fairytales because a lot of them sometimes are, are so strange, you know, they’re so weird, you know, like the story, I did a video on puss in boots for example. You know, that story is so odd. There’s, when you see it on the surface, it just looks so weird and uh, but somehow it’s survived until today. And so it means that there must be deeper in it. And so what I love to do is to take the fairy tales and to break them down to show how they’re symbolically coherent and that that’s been kind of a favorite thing of mine where you see something. So like Rapunzel, I did a video on Rapunzel just recently where it’s like, what does that story of why does she have long hair and why she, you know, she’s up in the tower, which has this weird long hair and, and you know, the, the prince climbs up, but then she gets her hair cut and until it’s like it. And then also she wanders into the wilderness and we don’t even hear you often in the story about how the, how the, witch died. It doesn’t really matter. But you know, then she cries on him and he restores his sight. And it’s so strange, but it makes total sense. It’s completely coherent in terms of, uh, in terms of its symbolic structure. It just, it just seems odd to us at first glance. So that’s something that I love to do is to dive into those types of stories.

Adrian:

All right. Just to close. Is there anything you can suggest listeners as far as, um, maybe sharpening this faculty this ability to see things perhaps in a more symbolic way outside of just merely sort of studying the story? Are there any practices maybe you engage in that are, that are helpful for that reframing or shifting our perspective?

Jonathan Pageau:

Well, I think that being part of an actual tradition is important because you know, when you’re, let’s say I’m, I’m eastern Orthodox and, and there is a coherence which sets itself up not only in the stories but then also in the liturgical year. So what we celebrate during the year, how it follows the pattern of the year, and then what we will sing during those years, what icons we use during the feast. And so what it does is it really creates, and also the architecture of the church and how the images in the church fit with all of that. So what it does is it creates a puzzle, which is bigger than just a bunch of stories that are disconnected. It’s actually a coherent world. You know how we talk about people who write, talk about world building, you know, where you need to have this kind of coherent world where let’s say the liturgical year and everything that comes with it, all the, all the art is a, is this coherent world. And so you can, you can get a lot of insight by meditating on, on that and also being within it instead of just looking at it from the outside. It’s very different when you’re just looking at a story from the outside. Um, it’s different when you’re in the story and you’ve actually taken on the story as your own and you’re participating in it physically. So I think that that’s something that I definitely think is important in terms of, of understanding symbolism. But then, you know, there, there are some, there are some books that you can read. I think there are some church fathers you can, you can also read some of the church fathers. My brother, I told you a little bit about my brother. He wrote a book called the Language of Creation last year. And, uh, I would say it’s probably in my, I mean, I’m not objective obviously because he’s my brother, but I, I think that it really is a very beautiful, concise book that can help you understand symbolic structures and, uh, and he uses the Bible as the, as the core, but he’s actually really talking about cosmic and psychological structure so you can, uh, it can help you to understand all kinds of stories when you, when you read his book, so..

Thal:

Yeah, what you’re saying is making me think about how, how we can view our life as a journey and that we are the hero or the heroine and we’re on a journey and that the symbols we’re not looking at them objectively through a microscope, that it’s within us and it’s around us. And that’s how we can hopefully create some type of meaning.

Jonathan Pageau:

Yeah, I agree. And the meaning, you know, once you engage in that way, no, you’re surprised to see the patterns, like you said, in your own life. It’s not just in the stories outside, but you start to notice in your relationships, you know, in the way that things manifest themselves to you, let’s say you start to see that they do so in patterns as well, and that you’re also part of a story. And so that’s something that’s actually, I mean, it’s, it’s wonderful when that happens, when things kind of come together and everything fits.

Thal:

And that unfolds really regardless of what tradition the person decides to follow, it just unfolds naturally.

Jonathan Pageau:

Yeah. I mean, for sure. We are all here. We all are in those patterns, no matter where we are in, no matter where we do, uh, you know, the question is where in the pattern we are and hopefully we can move towards the heart. That’s what, at least the hope.

Thal:

Absolutely. That’s amazing. Yeah. Thank you,

Adrian:

Jonathan. That was a pleasure. Thank you so much.

Jonathan Pageau:

Okay. Yeah, it was great to talk to you guys. I wish you wish you all the best with your podcast as well. I hope that, uh, it’ll, it’ll, uh, it’ll continue.