[Sidenote: John Fiske on symbolic conceptions.]
It is one of the aims of the training-class and the normal school to point out the best methods of developing the different basal concepts which lie at the foundation of the branches to be taught. Many of these are complex, and require great skill on the part of the teacher. The difficulty is well stated in John Fiske’s discussion of Symbolic Conceptions. He says, “Of any simple object which can be grasped in a single act of perception, such as a knife or a book, an egg or an orange, a circle or a triangle, you can frame a conception which almost, or quite exactly, _represents_ the object. The picture, or visual image, in your mind when the orange is present to the senses is almost exactly reproduced when it is absent. The distinction between the two lies chiefly in the relative faintness of the latter. But as the objects of thought increase in size and in complexity of detail, the case soon comes to be very different. You cannot frame a truly representative conception of the town in which you live, however familiar you may be with its streets and houses, its parks and trees, and the looks and demeanor of the townsmen; it is impossible to embrace so many details in a single mental picture. The mind must range to and fro among the phenomena, in order to represent the town in a series of conceptions. But practically, what you have in mind when you speak of the town is a fragmentary conception in which some portion of the object is represented, while you are well aware that with sufficient pains a series of mental pictures could be formed which would approximately correspond to the object. To some extent the conception is representative, but to a great degree it is symbolic. With a further increase in the size and complexity of the objects of thought, our conceptions gradually lose their representative character, and at length become purely symbolic. No one can form a mental picture that answers even approximately to the earth. Even a homogeneous ball eight thousand miles in diameter is too vast an object to be conceived otherwise than symbolically, and much more is this true of the ball upon which we live, with all its endless multiformity of detail. We imagine a globe, and clothe it with a few terrestrial attributes, and in our minds this fragmentary notion does duty as a symbol of the earth.