[38] LECTURE V -- Oct. 13, 1955 Tuesday we started the discussion of religion^a and language^b. I told you that there are two main problems in connection with our whole subject, religion and culture^c. The one problem is, "Which is the ultimate concern expressing itself in language AS SUCH?" --and the other is, "Which is the nature of religious language in contrast to other forms of language?" We discussed the first question. I tried to show that language is an encounter between mind and reality, and that this encounter is guided by an ultimate concern, and that the different ways in which a language-creating group IS concerned ultimately, has consequences for the different forms of language--I gave you some examples from ancient and modern languages. Finally, I said that in all languages there are two elements, as in all spiritual life of man, namely an element of meaning (a word, a sentence, are bearers of meaning), and an element of power (they have connotations, which have power over the mind, not only through the meaning but also above the meaning. This last remark brings me to the next step in our consideration, namely a discussion of the special character of religious language. This special character is symbol^d and myth^e. Expressions of ultimate concern are symbolic and mythological. We have to devote today's lecture, and probably more, to discuss the meaning of these terms generally, and in their special religious character--always on the basis (which I like to repeat in every lecture) of the duality of the meaning of religion: 1) the universal, general, large meaning: the state of being ultimately concerned; 2) the concrete, expressive meaning; religion as expressed in a special group, with special symbols and myths, with special ritual and ethical activities. Never forget this duality of the meaning, because without this, the WHOLE relation [of religion?] and culture becomes un-understandable. I said that religious language^f is symbolic. When we speak of symbolic language, then we presuppose implicitly that there is non-symbolic language. Our first task is to distinguish symbolic and non-symbolic language. The relation of word and content is a profound problem of semantics in itself. I cannot go too much into it, but I will a little. Every word has significatory