Looking back through Frye (trying to grasp meaning from his WORDS--I find it much too easy to drift off in thought while reading Frye, although when I force myself to pay attention and extract meaning he is fascinating).

Pg. 17. God is a verb: I've heard this before. Dr. Mike Miles says that by even applying the name "God" (or any other name for this essence, Yahweh) we lose something of that which we are trying to describe; the best way to understand "God" according to Dr. Miles, is to stop trying to understand (it, Him?). When he was talking about this, I also remember him quoting the phrase "I am that I am". God is a verb. Author Paulo Coelho agrees with this definition of God. He also thinks we have spent too much time and energy trying to define and describe God.

Living in the demotic phase of language, the age of SCIENCE and FACT and TRUTH etc, it makes sense that humans will also try to apply this same view of the world to their religion. The main problem with this of course is that through logic, religion no longer becomes necessary for it is replaced by science and laws and government. So why do we continue to do this? Why the constant culture clash between religious fanatics and evolutionary biologists? Why the constant clash between religions, for that matter (which all seem to have arisen from one common ancestor of religion...)

Pg. 18 "'In the beginning was the Word' as 'in principio erat sermo'. This is a purely metonymic translation: in the beginning, Erasmus assumes, was the infinite mind, with its interlocking thoughts and ideas out of which the creative words emerged." This passage really grabbed my attention. I think it illustrates the power in words during the metonymic phase.

Frye talks about objective observation and how it is essentially obsolete because any observation is affected by the observer, from which we cannot remove ourselves. Using this line of thinking, how can we possibly understand the Bible as it is meant to be understood when we are stuck in the demotic age of language and the Bible was written during the two previous phases of language? Which raises the question: is it necessary to understand the Bible as it was "meant" to be understood? (it seems to me that this is the basis for many arguments among religious folk; everyone seems to think they know better how to best interpret the Bible...)

Frye says that the modern function of literature is to continue re-creating the earlier phases of language (metaphorical phase especially) (23). I have trouble wrapping my head around the functions of earlier literature; also have trouble with the idea that it was "not until the coming of a different conception of language that a tension arises between figurative and what is called "literal" meaning, and poetry begins to become a conscious and deliberate use of figures" (23). Probably because I am stuck in this scientific, factual, descriptive, demotic age. Yet how somehow Utopian and beautiful it seems to me, this idea of speaking primarily in metaphor. I feel like so much more could have been conveyed by provoking a much deeper sense of meaning, rather than a logical thought that is our current way of understanding and comprehending the world. Pg 28 on poetry: "persuading the emotions to follow their intellectual guidance.") Which ties nicely into Frye's point that language uses us, not vice versa. I have noticed this in the scientific world: the power of words and meaning is apparent there. There are words that are not acceptable in the scientific community. For example, scientists do not "believe" something to be true, rather they "propose".

Aha! a quote from Frye that goes with one of my earlier statements pg 26 (he is talking about Kant's writings): "God's existence disappears from the context of "pure reason", where rational proofs are needed, but reappears in the context of "practical reason," where reality in experience is what is appropriate."