once & future gods

Judy Diamondstone (diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu)
Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:46:16 -0400

Jay's last few messages were especially well-said, from my points
of view. I am deeply grateful for the continuing discussion
of time-depths, since I am still working it into my own working.
I can however enter the conversation only where it concerns the crossing
of scales (the "materiality of semiosis"), and there are several
threads at that point of interest to me.

With respect to our quickly dying gods (and thank goodness
they are no longer SEEN in fixed, material objects), it's worth
emphasizing the complications of our relations w/ those Signs of Bigger
Meanings- they are not only first-order real but also second-order fiction
& vice versa. Since the conversation between us and our gods [i.e., the
work we do to know who or what we are about, to see the rightness or
true-ness of our being-in-the-world, to separate what is real from
what is not] is mediated by the disillusioned us [the one who knows at some
level the nature of the work], there can be more play in our
interactions with Them. On the one hand, there is or there seems
to be less risk - we know better. Harumph! [The learning =
not so disillusioned after all!] More optimistically, there is
certainly more chance for re-fusing the old, for re-framing the Sign,
and, apparently, remarshalling our defenses. Do those defenses
dwindle? is there enlightenment, no-mind, further on? As-Suchness?

Judy

>we don't still need, as in ancient
>times, to _incarnate_ our archetypes, to make them first-order real for us,
>and not only second-order fictions of imagination, our irrealis, etc., so
>that we can thus _interact_ with them and through them as representatives
>or Signs with the larger scale meanings, the mythic burdens we make them to
>bear?
<snip>
>When we bid our gods ride mortal men and women, is it any wonder they die
>young?

>So, yes, we can 'develop defenses' against the confusion of or the
>substitution of what we call the imaginary for/with what we call the real
>-- and we should, because as said before, it is the RELATION between them
>that gives us the power of the sign -- but we cannot do so outside a
>particularistic frame that gives its own cultural and historical spin to
>what that Relation is, and so to what will help in the work of separation.
>We can also ask, Do we do the work of separation for its own sake? or to
>enable us, having split asunder, to newly reconnect, to creatively
>re-confuse, so that the next time we separate and purify, the Frame itself
>will have been moved on, the Relation be reconceived, the defenses
>transformed in their point and method ... and if we are lucky, their
>forebears still Remembered, to give us some wisdom from HISTORY.

Judith Diamondstone
* NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
MAILING ADDRESS:
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08903