Kant's Symbolic Knowledge vs Materialist Quantification (McGilChrist) & Laboratory Experiments (Kay Deaux) w/ Kant, Nietzsche, Gasset, Heschel, & Heidegger: "knowledge is in the form of categories (symbols) + symbolic "complex" encoded meanings = not quantifiable - E Halas, Balaganapath + R May - where sociology and philosophy meet
Creators: name: Peck Jr, Charles E
Publisher: name: unknown
Year: 2025
Subjects: subject: Logik (Kant, Immanuel)
subject: University of the Philippines. College of Social Science and Philosophy
subject: Friedrich Nietzsche Society
subject: University of Science and Philosophy
subject: Irish Americans in popular culture
subject: Académie internationale de philosophie des sciences
subject: Blaan (Philippine people)
subject: Philosophy of mind
subject: Science--Philosophy
subject: Symbolic logic (Carroll, Lewis)
subject: Social
subject: Social sciences--Social aspects
subject: Social institutions and social change
subject: Stereotypes (Social psychology)--Social aspects
subject: Political anthropology
subject: Political culture
subject: Symbolic interactionism
subject: Interpretive interactionism

description: Introduction: Is there a conflict between Symbolism and Materialist Quantification Methods? Symbols are complex and "condense numerous meanings."
E Halas states: "Of primary importance is the concept of generic metaphor, around which the dominant symbolism of some social group is created (Turner, 1978: 246; Mill s, 1950: 86). These are key representations set in a symbolic system, which condense numerous meanings and unify multiple signs, such as an 'open society', or a 'rule of law'.
Balaganapath emphasizes that "The meanings that these symbolic forms transmit are complex. Instead of standing for a single referent, they evoke a variety of meanings, some of which may be ambiguous." 
Both Kant and Jung state that symbols "point" to a reality outside of the symbol. 
That puts symbols and symbolism outside the scope of strict rational analysis and materialist quantification. So, yes, there is a consensus among scholars of symbolism that symbols are complicated which "condense numerous meanings" which makes symbolism and materialist quantification mutually exclusive. I would note that in my research on Kant, I did not come across this question – which is very relevant in my view. 
Symbols and Synthesis
Kant Synthesis: There remains the question of how our concepts discriminate and organize the information received from the senses. These goals are achieved through acts of synthesis. By "synthesis," Kant means "the act of putting different representations [elements of cognition] together, and grasping what is manifold in them in one cognition" ([1781] 1998, 77). William James spoke about "fusion"
Holistic Synthesis: Baumeister emphasizes that there is no Ultimate Meaning of Life – rather peoples' meaning is a synthesis of diverse meanings – parents, family, siblings, friends, education, religion, spirituality, laws, culture – etc. A holistic synthesis is far beyond propositional statements and materialist quantification. Kant identifies imagination as a pivotal process in synthesis. Kant explains three types of synthesis: the process starts with "synthesis of apprehension in perception," passes through "synthesis of reproduction in imagination," and ends with "synthesis of recognition in a concept" ([1781] 1998, 228–34).