The Source of all Symbolism
by Jonathan J. Dickau
©2004 - all rights reserved
is symbolism, and how does it arise? What makes some forms symbols,
where other forms are not symbols, or aren’t considered symbolic expressions?
Is symbolism something that actually has a source, or is it a topic which
exists independent of any real or perceived origin? In my view, there
is the manifestation of an originating process for every example of symbolism,
which can be studied. In this manner, we can grapple with basic questions
that relate to the origin of symbolism, without getting stuck in the details
of any one culture’s symbol set, or symbology. While virtually all
of the forms we study as symbols have their origin in the thoughts and handiwork
of human beings, there are underlying realities of symbolic presentation,
and of form itself, that are greater than culture or beliefs can determine.
It is my belief that examining the basis for form and expression is fertile
ground for understanding both the deeper meaning of symbols, and the origin
of symbolism itself.
What are the basics, therefore, that
can elucidate this topic for us? There is a basic distinction between
figure and ground (or background), between observer and observed, between
content and context. Without some way of distinguishing between these
aspects, there is no possibility for any symbol to be discerned, nor even
the possibility to form symbols which might later be interpreted. On
the other hand, once these qualities do come into play, symbolism seems to
take on a life of its own. The question then arises of whether these
qualities have always been there, or how they might come into being, if they
haven’t existed forever. To some extent this is connected with the
scientific question of how the universe emerges, and whether it had a specific
place and time of origin, but there are issues that arise even in the purely
abstract case, which relate to how symbols are formed, and what is required
for them to be interpreted.
We can assert that there is a place
or condition beyond and before form as we know it, which exists in a state
that is free from any boundaries or comparison, and be on fairly solid ground,
both philosophically and scientifically. Taoist scholars and mystics,
call this place or condition Wu-Ji. The land of Wu is beyond all opposites,
being neither great nor small, neither light nor dark, neither hot nor cold,
and having neither an inside nor an outside. It is formless, but active
and somehow alive. The Chinese belief in Wu-Ji as the primal or primordial
Tao probably predates the advent of written language in China, being thousands
of years old according to the Masters. Much more recently, over the
last 20 years or so, and due largely to the work of one individual, Alain
Connes, Mathematics has verified the existence of just such a condition,
labeling it Noncommutative Geometry. This branch of Mathematics is
the study of those spaces wherein the normal laws of size and distance do
not apply. Strangely enough, ancient and modern scholars both describe
a situation where process predates form, and gives rise to conditions.
The Taoists describe Wu-Ji as pure
process, with no form – being beyond form and somehow coming before it.
Alain Connes asserts that noncommutative measure spaces evolve with time.
Specifically, it appears that they evolve on their own without any form or
forces to drive them. It would seem, therefore, that empty spaces actually
evolve toward a state in which both the emergence of form and the observation
of form can take place. That is; spaces where there is no possibility
for symbolism tend to evolve into spaces where that possibility emerges in
a distinct way. Process engenders observable conditions. Before
long, any process evolves conditions that are rife with symbolism, or ripe
for interpretation. Unfolding processes may automatically give rise
to the possibility for observation, as well. Only when there are observers
is any sort of interpretation of meaning or symbolism possible, however.
Symbols are forms or objects which represent something else. A symbol
could be the expression of truth itself, but it is more often the representation
of some particular object or concept. It is accurate to say that the
actual manifestation of some force or archetype is itself a real symbol or
a true expression of that tendency or quality, but we have come to identify
symbols as representations of things, including abstract realities and ideals
which may not be possible to accurately depict.
The perfect example might be a point.
Mathematicians say it occupies a location in space and has zero size, but
when we draw a point we represent it by a dot on a piece of paper.
If we made the dot too big, it would be obvious that it takes up space, but
if the dot were too small it couldn’t be seen and would not be useful as
a symbol. When we properly account for this projection effect (which
is a product of representation), it is easy for us to see that the word is
not the thing described, and the map is not the territory depicted, just
as Alfred Korzybski explained in the works which have become the basis for
General Semantics. This subject focuses on how we can take advantage
of the possibilities for encapsulating ideas in time offered by the symbolic
realm, without falling into the trap created by inaccurate verbal descriptions
of reality. Most of us are compelled to adopt a specific symbolic interpretation
of the world around us before we are old enough to understand what we are
doing. This interpretation may be limiting, or misleading, but we are
compelled to comply with its recommendations. In effect, we are taught
to lie about what is real, or silently agree with the beliefs and opinions
of our elders, accepting their story despite any inconsistencies, in order
to get along.
Later in life, we can choose our own
symbols, and evolve our own terms for dealing with life. Hopefully
they will be better, on some level, than what we have learned from our forebears,
but this has not always been the case, historically. Part of the problem
is that people fail to acknowledge that any symbol is only a representation
of that which is being described, or symbolized. Every generation rebels
against its elders and tries to establish a new and better order of its own.
There is often a genuine attempt, also, to advance the cause of pure knowledge.
New models replace old ones, and new symbols are needed for new terms.
It is unavoidable for the projection effect to be a part of the story, however.
One cannot have a symbol of any kind, without that symbol being a projection
of some sort, into the space that it is being observed from.
It is sort of like Plato’s image of the cave, where one can see only the
shadows of what is going on outside. In that parable, the world outside
the cave appears unbelievable to those who remain inside fixated on the shadow
pictures that are but a projection of reality. Even in today’s world,
those who see beyond the appearance of things and into the heart of what
is real have a hard time communicating what they see to others.
Symbolism involves a stretch of reality,
either in terms of events and changes that increase the scope or diversity
of things, or in terms of symbols being the projection of some ideal or idea,
or more precisely a representation thereof. Symbols are a means of
understanding something greater than the symbol itself, or a means of representing
or encapsulating that understanding, so it can be shared with others at a
later time. Symbols are real, of themselves, and they don’t have to
be identical to what is represented, for the symbolism to be meaningful.
In our everyday world, we see only the projections of forces and principles
anyway, and almost all of the symbols we are familiar with are inexact, being
only suggestions or tokens of whatever the symbol is meant to convey.
Some symbolic forms are clearly intended to depict motion, for example, although
they are fixed in time and space, but being encapsulated thus they represent
a snapshot of a certain force or movement that desired expression.
In this way, symbols can become a doorway to something greater than their
limited form or expression.
Many people, unfortunately, are confused
by symbols rather than being liberated by them. Far too many of us
are doomed to confusing natural reality as it is with the verbal and semantic
realm, because we have not been taught to clearly distinguish between the
description and that which is being described. Instead, we are taught
to fixate on cultural realities which are not true, in the purest sense,
and to treat these cultural norms as real. The individual is seldom
encouraged to formulate his or her own standards, either. This is true
in many areas of life, certainly both in business and in academia.
The consensus of what is real, within ones peer-group, becomes a standard
for reality. This standard interpretation becomes a buffer for life’s
uncertainty, but it can be a roadblock to understanding, as well. It
is possible, however, to bypass the censors of the acculturated mind entirely
with some symbols, because they speak to something deeper than words can
readily explain. Certain symbols can connect us with realities far
older than the body we inhabit or the world we live in.
Some of the most ancient sacred symbols
hearken back to basic realities of Geometry and the roots of all form, but
they also bespeak basic realities of consciousness, identity, and divinity,
as well. The circle has come to be a symbol for nothing, or zero, but
as a symbolic entity it has much to teach, speaking volumes for those who
know what to look for. Apparently it meant quite a lot for some of
the ancients who employed it. They appear to have used it as a symbol
for the Divine itself, either God or the Goddess depending upon the context
(and also upon who is interpreting the symbol). The circle with a central
dot is usually interpreted as the eye of God or the breast of the Goddess,
and I support these meanings for the dotted circle as a symbol, but what
can we really say of the engravers’ intents, in ancient times? Was
it the Divine, or merely ripples in a pool, that they were trying to capture
We can only speculate about exactly
what was meant by those who carved certain symbols, in the prehistoric past.
We believe some of them to be sacred symbols, but we are not completely sure
about what sort of belief system is reflected by those symbols. Perhaps
the mere fact that some forms (like the circle) are virtually pregnant with
meaning was enough to make it a worthwhile accomplishment for someone to
be able to draw them. Perhaps it was simple imitation of observed natural
forms, like the sun and moon, which led to an expression of symbolic representations.
A reflection of the moon or sun on a still body of water is not the object
itself, but it is a representation of the moon or sun, depicted upon the
surface of the water, and it is therefore a sort of naturally occurring symbol
for these objects. The ability to form an image on another surface
like a rock wall, and thus to create a more lasting symbol for the object
depicted, is therefore a very powerful development indeed.
Unlike the fleeting representations
of form we find in a still pond’s reflection, the forms created by drawing
or carving symbols can be shared, over a period of time, with a number of
other individuals. Korzybski notes that this time-binding aspect of
symbols is significant, in the process of forming a representational framework,
for sentient beings. However, the occurrence of form with duration,
symbolic of forces and archetypes greater than that specific unit of form,
happened much earlier in the process of creation. Scientists see an
array of specific sub-atomic particles which carry the faces of the fundamental
forces, in tiny measure, such that most of the observable forces are the
process of a great many interactions on the sub-atomic level. In effect,
individual interactions on a sub-atomic level are trivial, from our perspective,
but the aggregate effect upon an assemblage of tiny objects is significant.
Still, the individual forms are a specific array of archetypal objects.
Atoms of pure substance blend in true harmony, regardless of what chemistry
they formulate. However, some molecules formed of those atoms can bring
health and harmony to living beings, and other compounds (equally harmonious
in their own structure) are poisons which can bring death or impairment.
When we seek to find the meaning of
symbols in a general sense, we need to remember that there are a great many
more naturally-occurring symbols than most people can catalog or analyze
effectively. If we accept the fact that symbolism occurs at all levels
of scale, and at all points in the process of natural evolution, we can begin
to see the true scope of the subject. Trying to sort things out by
regarding a distinction between intentional and unintentional symbolism does
us no good either, because it only brings us back to the questions in the
second paragraph, and to larger questions of religious beliefs. When
we consider basic issues of the distinctions between a figure and its background,
between the observer and its surroundings, and between the content we are
trying to represent and the context in which it is found, we are back to
the still more basic question of “How do such distinctions arise?”
We could duck the question, so to speak, by claiming that they were both
parts of some pre-existing reality, but this does not satisfy my questioning
Instead, I’d like to tackle this question
using a number of toolkits simultaneously. It seems that this is one
of those perennial questions, which have inspired philosophers through the
ages without inspiring their confidence in any one answer. Similarly,
Science and Mathematics have fostered a wealth of symbolic information about
this topic, but there is no single answer, and there are plenty of clever
reasons why the question is not one that’s proper for Math or Science to
answer. In the context of a discussion about symbology and symbolism,
however, we are free to speculate about the full range of possible meanings,
without getting mired in the details of any one specific interpretation.
We can see the explorations of Math and Science as meaningful symbolic expressions
of natural archetypes, without having to be as concerned about which is the
‘right’ interpretation, the ‘correct’ possibility to explore, and so on.
Even in the realm of Cosmology as a subset of Mathematical Physics, however,
I am an advocate of the belief that those possibilities which are not expressly
manifest in our space, or on our timeline, still help to mold or define real-world
The question of an observer, to make
a determination about any distinctions that might exist, appears integral
to any discussion of how observable distinctions can arise. What is
often overlooked, however, is that any observation whatsoever is centric,
defining a point of view and a direction toward or away from the observer.
Additional directions can be added to this framework, once more observations
have been made, but a sense of proximal and distal space is a basic element
of awareness. There is the ‘me,’ the ‘here,’ and the ‘nearby’ aspect
of local space, but there is also the ‘other,’ the ‘there,’ and the ‘far
away’ aspect of distant areas. The act of making an observation seemingly
defines this dichotomy quite naturally, regardless of the specific dimensionality
of the space being observed (prior to its observation). In truth, it
may do far more than this, since the Quantum Mechanical definition of observability
appears to define, or influence, the emergence of the specific dimensionality
we observe in the universe around us. That is to say that even those
things which technically can’t be observed by any kind of material instrument
are influenced in their form by theoretical constraints relating to observability.
It is as though the need for a symbolic representation of natural forces,
even in nature itself, is as a device intended to convey an understanding
of those forces.
In effect a symbol of any sort, or
any of a large class of archetypal natural objects, carries information that
informs us about the natural force or archetype that is being represented.
The idea of a symbol or object carrying information about something (which
it represents) is essential to this discussion. In a way, that makes
symbols messengers carrying information, but they are also the message itself,
or a representation thereof. In some cases, we find that a human messenger
is given a message to safeguard and deliver, without having any knowledge
of the content they are charged to convey. Sometimes they don’t even
have the means to figure out what a message they carry means, as they don’t
have the skill to understand or decode it. It is up to the person who
is the intended recipient to understand what the symbols contained in a message
mean, or to have a key that will allow him or her to unlock and decode those
symbols. The ability of a symbol or messenger to carry its charge of
information therefore depends upon the ability of the interpreter to discern
a message within what is received.
Thus, we have found that there are
several essential elements, which must all be present together for symbolism
to exist. First, any symbol or arrangement of symbols must have a specific
form and a means for that form to arise. Second, there must be an observer
to discern and interpret the symbolic content within the symbol(s) observed.
Other factors, too, are present in varying degrees. Symbolism may exist,
on a purely abstract level, in the form of content that is suggestive of
something else, but the ability of symbols to contain information, and to
deliver that same information to other individuals, seems to be essential
to the development of meaningful symbolism. The idea of meaning can
be defined a variety of different ways, and still be a useful concept in
this discussion. What makes some messages meaningful and others not,
is an enormous subject – far too large to consider here. In this connection,
however, we are mainly concerned with the question of whether symbols have
a unique or specific interpretation, or whether the symbols are meant instead
to convey double, or multiple meanings.
Of course, the question of who intends to convey what information is important,
at least if there is a ‘who,’ and/or when there is some ‘meaningful’ information
to convey. One can’t completely separate the question of an accurate
interpretation for any symbol from the matter of the intent of that symbol’s
originator. Accuracy of interpretation depends quite directly upon
knowing what meaning, or meanings, the author of the message intended to
encode, symbolize, or convey. If we can re-create the original meaning
of a symbol, or re-establish the same understanding of that symbol possessed
by the originator, we have correctly interpreted it, insofar as there is
a specific and unique meaning to be discerned. When we are trying to
determine the meaning of Sacred Symbols, however, or even of various naturally-occurring
symbols, we can run into problems that derive from the absence of an absolute,
or certain, interpretation. Problems can arise from the lack of any
specific intended meaning whatsoever, or from the absence of knowledge about
the context in which certain symbols are used.
Therefore, when we consider the question
of the origin of symbolism itself or “How does symbolism come into being?”
we are presented with a daunting task, but we have several areas of inquiry
to explore. We can examine the process by which form arises from the
formless, and also seek to discover the nature and origin of consciousness.
We can attempt to figure out what the most efficient means are to convey
information through symbolism, too. We can also study the ways in which
various cultures have evolved a symbology over time. As of this writing,
there remain many ancient texts (inscribed on tablets and elsewhere), in
a variety of forgotten languages, where scholars have plenty of samples to
study, but nobody knows what any of the documents are about. These
texts have become a dead end, for now, as we have little hope of decoding
them unless we uncover another Rosetta Stone. Thus, it’s easy to demonstrate
that it is certainly possible to create symbolical representations of information
you desire to preserve, which others in the future will be able to derive
little or no meaning from.
So when we consider the source of all
symbolism, it is best to focus upon symbolic meaning, and meaningful symbolism,
as the real subject of our inquiry. On the other hand, it can be seen
that there is meaning everywhere, and that many things in life can be symbolic
representations of greater forces and archetypes. The language of symbolism,
like the experience of life can be likened to a stage upon which there can
be scenes and backdrops, actors and actresses, ideas to convey, and an audience
to present them to. The practice of Mahamudra in Buddhism is rooted
in the assumption that all of the things we encounter, throughout our experiences
in life, are meaningful symbols of something greater which drives them, and
which drives us toward enlightenment. Practitioners are taught that
everything which happens to them carries hidden meaning, but they are carefully
instructed to avoid considering any state they reach, or any answers they
find, as the final attainment of their goal.
We too should be wary of assuming that
we know the actual meaning of that which we are attempting to decipher.
When looking to understand some symbols, we should be attempting to extract
as much meaning as possible, rather than trying to find a single meaning,
no matter how wonderful and elegant it might be. Much of the meaning
that is available to us, as part of the human experience, is something that
many people cut themselves off from simply because they can’t deal with the
idea that things don’t always have to be one way or the other. When
we seek to explain what some symbol signifies, therefore, we can tell what
we know of a culture and its beliefs, and explain what we understand of that
culture’s symbological forms, but for us to assert that we know the meaning
of a symbol requires the knowledge of its usage within the context of those
who created it, and an open mind. Not many have the ability to put
themselves in the shoes of the ancients, in terms of knowing the context
which called for certain symbols to be created, but as I said earlier on,
there are some symbols which seem to transcend the need for words to explain
them, and instead speak directly to a deeper part of our brain or psyche.
Accordingly, I will return again to
the circle and circle with dot, as the meanings contained therein speak directly
to the subject of this paper. Specifically, the concept of inside and
outside, or interiority and exteriority, is uniquely represented by this
figure, and this is a foundational concept of form building, in general.
Once this basic notion - of a distinction between inside and outside - is
realized, this first distinction leads to a process where other topological
distinctions emerge, and more interesting and complicated forms become possible.
The circle with a dot at its center seemingly also represents the property
of an observer to define both a center, and a horizon of observation.
The circle, in this instance, describes an encompassing point of view.
There are some who assert that this figure depicts the awakening, or opening
of the eye of the original or first observer, the One Being. Thus,
this simple shape can be seen as representing the origin of all form, the
origin of consciousness itself, and the origin of divinity, as well.
Obviously, the figure we are speaking of is a pretty potent symbol. Though
it might seem like I’ve said enough by now, in fact, there is still a lot
One can certainly imagine a circle
depicting roundness, or wholeness, or smoothness, without stretching one’s
imagination too much. Its surface is complete, or continuous, without
any breaks or discrete segments. It is the very model of connectedness,
on the one hand, but it denotes the sense of separateness existing between
‘what is included’ within the circle and ‘what is excluded’ outside it, as
well. If we place the point in the center of the circle, we make this
distinction more explicit symbolically, but there is also the idea of an
encompassing view. When one climbs to a mountaintop, the idea of being
able to see the full panorama surrounding you is immediately apparent.
If you turn the full-circle, you will see 360 degrees of detail around you,
and likely feel connected to it also. There is a sense of both being
surrounded by the landscape, and having the feeling of being able to take
it all in. This experience is at once both humbling and liberating,
and it is my belief that properly understanding some of the ancient sacred
symbols should take one to a very similar place.
The circle with a point or dot at the
center has become like this for me, personally, it is a kind of magical symbol
that reminds me of many things at once, and brings me to a place of connectedness.
I am not sure that some of the things I perceive in this figure have any
relation to what people were thinking, when they employed the same form in
antiquity, but those meanings are there nonetheless. I would have a
hard time believing that none of our perceived meanings and interpretations
entered the minds of the ancients, and I believe that they were more like
us than we imagine, but they didn’t think quite like you and me either.
I see the dot in the circle, and I know that if you took a line from the
center to the edge (a radius), the surface of the circle is at 90 degrees
to this line, at that point. I ask “What if it was a sphere, instead
of a circle, and I went to the surface of that?” and this is for me yet another
mountaintop experience. I can see that some of the basic concepts delineated
by the simple form of a dotted circle are profoundly important to understanding
creation, as a process, but I can’t really say what some of those ancient
people had in mind, when they chose to render that shape.
It’s quite possible that once someone
becomes liberated enough to achieve a kind of mountaintop view of life, there
is a need to share the experience symbolically, in an attempt to communicate
what has been seen. The mystical experience of unity or connectedness
appears to be a powerful motivator for symbolic expression, and may explain
the presence of some of the circular figures, and other symbols. Even
where pragmatic realities are depicted, we know that there is some belief
system involved, some message encoded in symbolic art, and some audience
or recipient for whom the message is intended. With enough imagination,
a plethora of ‘messages’ can be extracted from almost any collection of symbols,
but not all of them are intended by the framer of that arrangement, nor are
all of the messages which can be extracted congruent or meaningful expressions
of anything real. Still, it is amazing how much information is encoded
in some works, whether this is intentional or unintentional. Perhaps
this speaks again to the matter of the interconnectedness of all things.
There is within every part some semblance
of the whole, as a necessary condition of form’s existence, but sometimes
this incorporation of natural archetypes happens on a deeply hidden level.
It is as though each unit of form is a hologram of the whole universe, however.
Quantum Mechanics teaches that it is equally valid to talk about a wave-equation
for an electron, an atom, a stone, a human, or the entire universe.
That equation is a description of the probabilities for all the different
ways that object or system could evolve. It is the process of evolving,
however, which makes a particular possibility manifest. Human beings
appear to possess a far greater sense of embodying the creative process than
inanimate objects, but all form is the result of a process, and that unique
process constitutes experience on some level. That is not to say that
an atom or a stone ‘knows’ its identity, in terms of being aware, but it
carries information nonetheless. It is the messenger of its experience,
the harbinger of the process which bore it, and a symbol of the forces which
brought it into being. In a similar manner, various kinds of symbols
can carry also information, but they don’t often know what they mean, or
what information they carry. On the other hand, some symbols and collections
of symbols seem to have a life of their own, and to know their own meanings
It is wise, in most cases, to apply
the intellectual knowledge of a subject to the task at hand, when trying
to decipher hidden symbolic meanings, but this is not always enough.
Even when we have a precise knowledge of ancient cultures, it is often necessary
to go beyond what can be found in modern texts, and form our own impressions
of ancient symbols, if we are to truly appreciate them. An intellectual
understanding is often able to grasp only what is on the surface, but the
hidden meaning remains. There are universal truths enough for every
generation to find their share, and want to pass them on. There are
plenty of more mundane messages people would want to leave for future generations,
too. There are those who do not reject the current paradigm of Science
but still choose to look beyond it, believing that answers lie in exploring
interesting discoveries, new theoretical developments, and new symbologies,
rather than re-visiting well-worn answers. Others choose to adopt a
more spiritual approach to finding answers, and this was probably as true
of our ancestors. That is, there were true believers as well as total
skeptics, even then.
So, when I seek to delineate where
symbolism comes from, I will inevitably alienate someone, because everyone
brings their own beliefs to the process of learning about this subject.
Still, there are quite a few things we can say quite definitively, at this
point. First, we know that all symbols must have a form, and we can
generalize this to say that it must be a specific form, or a specific progression
of forms, in order to be useful as a symbol. Second, that form must
be distinguishable as distinct from its surroundings or background, in order
to be perceived. Third, it must encode some information which can be
represented by that form, or forms, in order to be a symbol for anything.
Fourth, there must be some sort of observer to perceive the pattern which
the symbol’s form embodies. Fifth, that observer must have a level
of consciousness and intelligence sufficient to the task of associative reasoning
and symbolic thought. Sixth, that observer must have some basis for
decoding the information contained. Seventh, that individual must behold
or understand that message which has been delivered.
Without all of those factors being
present, the idea of symbolism breaks down, at least in terms of having any
consistent or accurate meaning to it. Meaningful symbolism puts all
seven of the above dynamics to work. On the other hand, some would
contend that the absence of these factors is really where symbolism begins,
to the extent that they regard the symbolic realm as purely abstract.
It is true that the ambiguous and suggestive forms sometimes make the most
interesting and meaningful symbols. One could consider some mathematical
forms, like the Mandelbrot Set (or portions thereof) as a tremendous source
of symbolism, as evidence that some symbolic forms are meaningful or as unrelated
to the topic, because there is no ‘author’ per se, who encoded a ‘message’
in that form. Or perhaps, like many sacred symbols, these mathematical
objects share same the universal ‘author’ who works behind the scenes in
everything. Seeing how a Fractal Fern is almost perfectly manifested
in physical form will make a believer of almost anybody, that there is something
meaningful to explore there.
We are left to ponder some of these
matters, but it is my guess that the search for answers will go on, with
or without us. When we consider the source of symbolism, it is wise
to entertain the possibility that some symbols are universal, or bespeak
cosmic truths, regardless of how the framers came to know this when they
were depicted. I also observe that there are unseen patterns to reality,
which can be discerned through purely symbolical means in the study of Mathematics
or theoretical Physics, which relate to things we see in the observable world
quite accurately. It is almost as if nature strives to establish the
patterns which are already there in theoretical or symbological space, in
the physical realm. If matter is made of energy, maybe what matters
most is the shape of the mold that the energy is poured into. Perhaps
that power to mold reality is what some of our most ancient forebears were
trying to tap into, when they first placed symbols on rock walls. Or
maybe they were just proud that they understood something, and wanted everyone
who came after to know that they did understand.
©2004 Jonathan J. Dickau – all rights reserved
single copies may be printed for reference,
or for personal use, but duplication for
commercial purposes is not allowed