Edward P. Butler (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
endymions_bower) wrote2019-05-10 03:27 pm
endymions_bower) wrote2019-05-10 03:27 pm
On Gods "behaving badly"
Instead of asking "Why does X [a God] do φ [something bad prima facie]?", we should ask "What is the property φ of the cosmos the origin of which is being revealed in this myth? What does the myth indicate to be providential in this cosmic property?"
E.g., Let φX = X rapes Y. Hence cosmic y's (things participating Y) experience x (something of the nature of X) involuntarily or without consent. It is this cosmic state of affairs that we are investigating, not anthropomorphic qualities of a deity.
Hence, e.g., a God's rape of some mortal can usually be assumed to denote that a class of mortal souls symbolized by (and perhaps really participating) the hero(ine) in question experiences a property that comes from the God in an overpowering and even traumatic fashion.
Now, we can still ask "Why does X impart this property to souls in this fashion?" But we are now asking a much more useful question than before. What else follows from the property being imparted in this fashion?
Most likely, the property in question is one to which we could not meaningfully consent, because it lies deeper in the soul's organization than consent does. Were we performing this property "consensually", we would perhaps be performing a weaker version of it.
Comment: The deities which first strike my mind, on reading this: Loki, The trickster God; Zeus, who is many times presented as having lecherous character.
Precisely. Take Zeus: he is a cosmic demiurge who "promiscuously" imparts many devolved powers onto mortals by generating heroes, rather than holding onto those powers Himself. This is one of the factors which has stabilized His reign. By "devolved" powers, I mean delegated. Kronos, by contrast, does not devolve powers, but returns them all to Himself; this is part of what the succession of sovereignty from Kronos to Zeus entails. Moreover, we must interpret what is characterized as Hera's "anguish" over Zeus's "promiscuity". Hera tests those to whom power has been devolved by Zeus; this is not really done out of passion or simply to "torment" them.
Comment: I feel like there’s gotta be a way that we modern polytheists can present this that doesn’t make fundamental truths come across as repellent to contemporary audiences?
Certainly, if we focus on the phenomena themselves, there are other ways in which to speak of them; but we should not lose sight of the fact that certain things were presented in a harsh fashion because they are indeed harsh.
Absolutely, yes! but rape is purely destructive. The idea that Zeus could literally rape me makes me want to return to a purely materialist worldview. The idea that He could change me in an unasked for, unknowable, harsh way but that let’s me better understand the world? That’s *scary* but it strikes me as a reason to believe in and to devote myself to Him (or any other deity).
Right. One also has to recognize that adopting a materialist worldview will not *change* any of the things we are talking about; it will merely substitute a reductive, insufficient "explanation" for one that leaves space open to accommodate the full complexity of what *we* are.
E.g., Let φX = X rapes Y. Hence cosmic y's (things participating Y) experience x (something of the nature of X) involuntarily or without consent. It is this cosmic state of affairs that we are investigating, not anthropomorphic qualities of a deity.
Hence, e.g., a God's rape of some mortal can usually be assumed to denote that a class of mortal souls symbolized by (and perhaps really participating) the hero(ine) in question experiences a property that comes from the God in an overpowering and even traumatic fashion.
Now, we can still ask "Why does X impart this property to souls in this fashion?" But we are now asking a much more useful question than before. What else follows from the property being imparted in this fashion?
Most likely, the property in question is one to which we could not meaningfully consent, because it lies deeper in the soul's organization than consent does. Were we performing this property "consensually", we would perhaps be performing a weaker version of it.
Comment: The deities which first strike my mind, on reading this: Loki, The trickster God; Zeus, who is many times presented as having lecherous character.
Precisely. Take Zeus: he is a cosmic demiurge who "promiscuously" imparts many devolved powers onto mortals by generating heroes, rather than holding onto those powers Himself. This is one of the factors which has stabilized His reign. By "devolved" powers, I mean delegated. Kronos, by contrast, does not devolve powers, but returns them all to Himself; this is part of what the succession of sovereignty from Kronos to Zeus entails. Moreover, we must interpret what is characterized as Hera's "anguish" over Zeus's "promiscuity". Hera tests those to whom power has been devolved by Zeus; this is not really done out of passion or simply to "torment" them.
Comment: I feel like there’s gotta be a way that we modern polytheists can present this that doesn’t make fundamental truths come across as repellent to contemporary audiences?
Certainly, if we focus on the phenomena themselves, there are other ways in which to speak of them; but we should not lose sight of the fact that certain things were presented in a harsh fashion because they are indeed harsh.
Absolutely, yes! but rape is purely destructive. The idea that Zeus could literally rape me makes me want to return to a purely materialist worldview. The idea that He could change me in an unasked for, unknowable, harsh way but that let’s me better understand the world? That’s *scary* but it strikes me as a reason to believe in and to devote myself to Him (or any other deity).
Right. One also has to recognize that adopting a materialist worldview will not *change* any of the things we are talking about; it will merely substitute a reductive, insufficient "explanation" for one that leaves space open to accommodate the full complexity of what *we* are.