From Taylor (put here so I can look at it while I think out loud),
The knowledge likewise of common conceptions is necessary; but common conceptions are such things as all men, when interrogated, acknowledge to be indubitably certain; such as, that every god is good, without passivity, and free from all mutation; for every thing which is changed, is either changed into something better or into something worse: and if into something worse, it will become depraved, but if into something better, it must have been evil in the beginning.
This section is where my attention falls most squarely each time I read this chapter. First, I read the proposition about gods in two directions. 1. The gods are ___. A simple description of the characteristics of the divine beings we call gods. 2. That which is ___, ___, and ___ can be categorized as gods.
I know that this is not exactly what Sallustius is saying, but it's an interesting conceptual exercise to think of it via mode 2: that which we recognize as good, active, and unchanging(ly so) can be conceived of as a god. I think this supports Sallustius's later assertion (Ch. 4) that myths/fables work on different levels and that the gods and their actions can be understood differently via those levels.
Second, I've tried to accept S.'s limited notion of change, but my contrary-mary-mind insists on chiming in. I don't think change must be forced onto an axis of better-worse. Acorn - oak, child - adult, summer - autumn, even living - dead... Perhaps it's helpful to consider that there are non-polarized types of changes that do not change the "essential nature" of a thing (I feel like I'm walking among landmines by using that phrasing, but I don't know what else to say). So, a being may arise, grow, develop, mature, decline - but its essential nature is unchanging? I may be over-expanding the concept of change here since I'm not just talking about gods... but perhaps you see the dilemma. I don't see change as indicative of a flaw. Gods may not appear to us to change, but who's to say that they don't change on some cosmic level. Their stories change - does that mean it's only the humans who've changed their conceptions?
I'm also seeing if I can reconcile JMG's notion that gods may in fact be part of an "ecosystem" and may have periods of increasing/decreasing influence. If they don't change, then nope. If, though, they change but without modification of their essential natures as divine beings, then maybe?
I admit, I don't have a clue. But those are questions that occur to me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the nature of change
Date: 2021-11-04 08:37 pm (UTC)The knowledge likewise of common conceptions is necessary; but common conceptions are such things as all men, when interrogated, acknowledge to be indubitably certain; such as, that every god is good, without passivity, and free from all mutation; for every thing which is changed, is either changed into something better or into something worse: and if into something worse, it will become depraved, but if into something better, it must have been evil in the beginning.
This section is where my attention falls most squarely each time I read this chapter. First, I read the proposition about gods in two directions.
1. The gods are ___. A simple description of the characteristics of the divine beings we call gods.
2. That which is ___, ___, and ___ can be categorized as gods.
I know that this is not exactly what Sallustius is saying, but it's an interesting conceptual exercise to think of it via mode 2: that which we recognize as good, active, and unchanging(ly so) can be conceived of as a god. I think this supports Sallustius's later assertion (Ch. 4) that myths/fables work on different levels and that the gods and their actions can be understood differently via those levels.
Second, I've tried to accept S.'s limited notion of change, but my contrary-mary-mind insists on chiming in. I don't think change must be forced onto an axis of better-worse. Acorn - oak, child - adult, summer - autumn, even living - dead... Perhaps it's helpful to consider that there are non-polarized types of changes that do not change the "essential nature" of a thing (I feel like I'm walking among landmines by using that phrasing, but I don't know what else to say). So, a being may arise, grow, develop, mature, decline - but its essential nature is unchanging? I may be over-expanding the concept of change here since I'm not just talking about gods... but perhaps you see the dilemma. I don't see change as indicative of a flaw. Gods may not appear to us to change, but who's to say that they don't change on some cosmic level. Their stories change - does that mean it's only the humans who've changed their conceptions?
I'm also seeing if I can reconcile JMG's notion that gods may in fact be part of an "ecosystem" and may have periods of increasing/decreasing influence. If they don't change, then nope. If, though, they change but without modification of their essential natures as divine beings, then maybe?
I admit, I don't have a clue. But those are questions that occur to me.