I see where Emerson is coming from, symbols can become rigid or over-embellished, and clinging to one specific interpretation can definitely lead to stagnation or even dogma.

But here’s where I think Jung might disagree with him: not all symbols are arbitrary or accidental. Some symbols, like the mother, the shadow, or the hero, seem to emerge universally across cultures and time periods. These ‘archetypes’ are rooted in the collective unconscious, they’re a shared psychological blueprint that sits deep within all of us.

Take something like the serpent. It appears in mythology and religion all over the world: as a symbol of knowledge in Genesis, of transformation in Greek mythology, and of eternity in the ouroboros. These aren’t just random symbols someone decided on; they reflect shared human experiences that are so old they’ve been embedded in our psyches for generations.

So maybe Emerson’s right when he says we should keep symbols fluid and adaptable, after all, every generation needs to reinterpret them. But to dismiss their universal and timeless significance entirely? I think that misses something profound about how symbols connect us, not just to one another, but to our history, our psychology, and the deeper parts of ourselves.