So. I meant to reply to this a million years ago, but then this weekend was made of rock-solid fail (including AT&T's internet service, which in general reaches a level of fail the word "fail" cannot express.) Two busy nights at the bar, one emergency picked-up shift, and many disgruntled calls to my ISP later, I am back! As far as I can tell, they turned off my internet because I paid on time for once, which caused a catastrophic rift in the space-time continuum.
That book looks fascinating. I'll pick up a copy on my library expedition this afternoon. I'm particularly interested in that characterization of God for a lot of reasons, some shallow (see me play in sandbox), and some more intellectually meaningful: if God created Man in His image--Man is Godlike--then why do we always assume that God is not to some degree man-like? That He can't have needs and desires and dreams? That way of thinking about love is also fascinating: humans love one-to-one (I love my boyfriend/wife/father/sister/cousin and he/she loves me) or in the abstract (I love playing volleyball; I love Steinbeck). But a god or God would have to love in a greater sense, would have to love both concretely and abstractly at once, and would have to love even those who arguably don't deserve it, who don't love Him back. Those He doesn't know, those whose hearts are closed to Him. We can't fathom that kind of love. We're not wired like that.
Out of the quotes you posted, I really latched on to this one: "The meanings never change, only the people who seek for them." With the part that comes before, he links the word "meaning" to the idea of "power," the idea that a society or a deity only has power as long as its meaning can be understood. Once you lose words and songs, rituals and "secret doors," you also forfeit your power. It's a concept I'm not sure I can get behind, though I see where he's coming from. I think I'd rather believe that meaning and power are related but not synonymous. Or that he's using the word "meaning" to describe the narrower concept of "knowledge," which brings up all sorts of issues regarding how people in power manipulate access to knowledge and interpretation of meaning to bolster their positions. I'll probably get the book and then end up writing a whole freaking essay on that paragraph.
Re: PART 2, because I exceeded the character limit!
Anyway. I like the idea of multiple parallel pantheons as well; it's something I've been playing with in my latest fic. (A subplot involves Cas searching for God, actually, and hitting up Babylon and Luxor for clues.) More particularly, I like the idea of multiple pantheons treated with respect, not just as places to find new villains. I mean, how cool would it be to have Xué show up and be like, We've got some trouble down south, boys, and I'm not talking about those assholes still poking around after El Dorado. And they could go to Colombia and Dean could freak out about having to take a plane and Sam could speak Spanish (which he totally does in my head), and there would be a cursed emerald or maybe a salt mine involved, and someone would teach Dean how to play tejo, and something Deep would be revealed. It might be a little tricky to film South America in Vancouver, but hey, that's what set designers are for. Ahem.
That book looks fascinating. I'll pick up a copy on my library expedition this afternoon. I'm particularly interested in that characterization of God for a lot of reasons, some shallow (see me play in sandbox), and some more intellectually meaningful: if God created Man in His image--Man is Godlike--then why do we always assume that God is not to some degree man-like? That He can't have needs and desires and dreams? That way of thinking about love is also fascinating: humans love one-to-one (I love my boyfriend/wife/father/sister/cousin and he/she loves me) or in the abstract (I love playing volleyball; I love Steinbeck). But a god or God would have to love in a greater sense, would have to love both concretely and abstractly at once, and would have to love even those who arguably don't deserve it, who don't love Him back. Those He doesn't know, those whose hearts are closed to Him. We can't fathom that kind of love. We're not wired like that.
Out of the quotes you posted, I really latched on to this one: "The meanings never change, only the people who seek for them." With the part that comes before, he links the word "meaning" to the idea of "power," the idea that a society or a deity only has power as long as its meaning can be understood. Once you lose words and songs, rituals and "secret doors," you also forfeit your power. It's a concept I'm not sure I can get behind, though I see where he's coming from. I think I'd rather believe that meaning and power are related but not synonymous. Or that he's using the word "meaning" to describe the narrower concept of "knowledge," which brings up all sorts of issues regarding how people in power manipulate access to knowledge and interpretation of meaning to bolster their positions. I'll probably get the book and then end up writing a whole freaking essay on that paragraph.