Re function and potency of the shears Again I admit that I have difficulties when trying to understand EJ's choice of the concepts of function and potency in this context. Apart from that it is obvious that the rational pole of that juxtaposition is identified with function. Here the shears cut really and in earnest. At he occult (or spiritual, if you prefer) pole they might cut but don't. To put it more plainly: in our rational everyday world where we are used to handle prognoses, television and remembrance of things past we will all die; in that other world, however, where prophecy, telepathy and second sight are possible and effective we are close to the realm of death (or better to the timeless realm of what is beyond death) but not subject to it?
The difficulty derives, I think, from EJs attempt to put his ideas in a kind of system. You cannot have a system without using generalizing concepts. At the same time he tries to follow his "Bildergebot" (1) to which we owe so many unforgettable passages in his prose. Due to this dilemma he uses a language wavering between abstract concepts and visual imagery, making his adept feel uneasy. (1) "Wer in Begriffen und nicht in Bildern denkt, verfährt der Sprache gegenüber mit derselben Grausamkeit wie jener, der nur Gesellschaftskategorien und nicht die Menschen sieht." (STRAHLUNGEN 7 May 1943) "Ich muss mich immer eindringlicher bemühen, die Sprache bildgerecht zu handhaben, die logischer Verflachung anheimgefallen ist. Muss überhaupt zu den Bildern zurück, von denen der Logos nur die Strahlung, der Anschliff ist." (STRAHLUNGEN 6 August 1943). Günter Rebing
