![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Mar. 14th, 2009 03:03 amStruggling with what to make of "The Theologians," everything in which is teasingly close to schematic without being it. Is the only point that these people, who find themselves so different, find their differences literally damnable, look basically alike to us - and presumably would look even more so to a not-so-personal (and not-so-specific?) God? Who can tell the heresies apart, even directly opposite ones: time is repeated infinitely, everything happens only once (actually, much more distinct than the most controversial ones re. Jesus which none of us can keep straight). Obviously both are wrong, but that both were believed indicates that a very similar thing keeps happening over and over - absurd religious disputes about attributes or intentions of God people pulled out of their asses. Or am I missing something else, something Borgesian and cool? Though it's pretty cool to be this scornfully yet sympathetically amused at theology itself.
Was the lightning bolt part of the humor? "Oh, he was struck by lightning, God must be punishing him," then the other shoe drops and "God" takes him into "heaven" indifferent of what he'd done, unable to tell him apart from his victim and worst enemy.
Seems like some kind of point is being made about quotation as well. Similarities exist but not sames? And we recognize this by borrowing opinions of others we nevertheless do not share in their exact form (since that would be Menardism)?
I don't know the date of composition, but I wonder if there's also present an element of mockery toward people's more creative interpretations of Borges' earlier stories. This one does leave you in no doubt - if you weren't already - that Borges doesn't actually believe in the various infinite demiurgencies he's been describing, at least in any occult way. Maybe even poking fun at Nietzsche too? Unoriginality, the same damn errors over and over, as the prize example of eternal recurrence. Though when John refutes the Monotones elegantly, his style seems like that of "all men" - perhaps it is our best that is most human, most shared. Whereas our differences, our insistent heresies, are falls from that? I don't know, I think I'm missing something.
Was the lightning bolt part of the humor? "Oh, he was struck by lightning, God must be punishing him," then the other shoe drops and "God" takes him into "heaven" indifferent of what he'd done, unable to tell him apart from his victim and worst enemy.
Seems like some kind of point is being made about quotation as well. Similarities exist but not sames? And we recognize this by borrowing opinions of others we nevertheless do not share in their exact form (since that would be Menardism)?
I don't know the date of composition, but I wonder if there's also present an element of mockery toward people's more creative interpretations of Borges' earlier stories. This one does leave you in no doubt - if you weren't already - that Borges doesn't actually believe in the various infinite demiurgencies he's been describing, at least in any occult way. Maybe even poking fun at Nietzsche too? Unoriginality, the same damn errors over and over, as the prize example of eternal recurrence. Though when John refutes the Monotones elegantly, his style seems like that of "all men" - perhaps it is our best that is most human, most shared. Whereas our differences, our insistent heresies, are falls from that? I don't know, I think I'm missing something.
