I was reading some philosophical stuff by a philosopher named Schelling (he's good). And I came across this passage. I will paste it in and then comment in relation to Scn. Just for fun! It comes from Schelling's lectures in the 1700s on philosophy and mythology.
"Because the gods are ethical beings, and in each of them some sort of spiritual character trait or trait of temperament is in evidence to the exclusion of another, thereby giving them a status above that of human life, they can be employed as symbols of ethical concepts, as has occurred since time immemorial. Use is made of what already is there, but the use does not explain the emergence into being. The poet, when he has need of a deity that demands moderation and self-control, will call upon the contemplative Athena rather than the wrathfully disposed Hera."
It seems as if this trait of the gods is also in play among we mere mortals who rank below them in status. We have our our great composers, painters, writers, poets, actors, dancers, etc. We have had our great leaders, politicians, educators, business tycoons. We have great artisans, tradesman , men and women of science, mathematics, sports,philosophers, etc. Most of these worthy individuals have some sort of spiritual or intellectual trait or temperament which is in evidence to the exclusion of another.
How I read what Schelling is saying about archaic Greek beliefs is that gods themselves were not immutable or universalizable, but that each were thought to have some character trait and not others....they were unique sorts of beings and their ethical natures could not be universalized into one 'definition'. Such that depending on the trait a situation needed, a different god had to be called upon. Scn wants to universalize the OT or the being who is attempting OT. As if what is gained were all-encompassing. Because it cannot stand the uniqueness of powers, that one being might have a power that some other person in CoS lacks. Everything must be equitable. Tell that to lightning or the mountain or the desert. They surely are unique and one does not rule the other. That desire for universal being and a universal ethical being, alone, as a goal, would give anyone even a Uri Geller, an aneurism. Because Uri had some 'gifts' but not others. He was not an OT that fit that OT definition passed around by CoS. Scn fails to see that universals fail because life itself is utterly unique and cannot be made to fit 'definitions'. It's not cookie cutter. This means it remains mysterious and unclear and less than something that can easily be nailed down. For Schelling, the appearance of such beings did not however mean that being itself was in play - the full and unadulterated sort of being that is free of uniqueness and that exists outside of space and enjoys all 'powers' - since being of that absolute form would signal the capacity of to create existence/everything and this would violate the law of conservation/cause paradoxes. Being by itself, free and absolute, is something we never see so to discuss it as if it exists independently is a fool's errand. Such beings as the gods were for Schelling part of nature, having traits, specific qualities. These qualities could not be generalized. Just as horses are not hamster-like - so if you need hamster qualities you don't buckle up the stallion. Often it seems that things like ethics and truth are generalized, as if they were floating somewhere free of the universe.....I like what Schelling discusses since it means that ethical cannot be defined by way of universal one-sized things that fit everyone the same way.
Glad there are a few of us artists 'round here.
