[320]

we have artistic symbols,^a there is always the possibility that we say "This is one concern beside others. We MAY be interested in art; we may not be." And there may be situations in which the artistic realm cannot work upon this at all. We may be deprived of it completely. And there are certainly many social groups which are almost completely deprived of it. Let us think for instance of the extreme moment, the moment of having to die, where ultimate concern shows its ultimacy^b more than in any other moment. If we see this, then we see that RELIGIOUS symbols ^care present even in these moments, AS RELIGIOUS symbols. Even in the ultimate moments---or as it has been called, "the extreme situations"---the religious symbol is present, in many extreme situations---[e.g.] the symbol of the Cross---in other religions, and in any case the experience of ultimate concern about the ultimate

experience which is made in the situation of death. Now this is the one side. This is the difference. The one is total, concerning our whole being, with all its functions, including the artistic function besides others. The other, the artistic, is partial, ONE of the possibilities of human existnece [sic.]. Or: the religious function is unconditional, it is not dependent on any external conditions, it can be present whenever there is present life at all, even in extremis. But now an interesting phenomenon must be observed, namely the phenomenon that since religion, in the sense of ultimate concern, is present everywhere, it can be symbolized by ALL

symbols^d taken from ALL forms of life. And so with respect to arts^e, the phenomenon of double symbolization^f appears, and without this we don't understand religious art at all.