The Disappearing Shoe, One Turning into Two - Reading Claude Lévi-Strauss's 'Mythologiques' through Deep Semantics (88_ 'Mythologiques 3: The Origin of Table Manners' - 39) M489 Stone Child

This is the 88th installment of an attempt to ”creatively” misread Claude Lévi-Strauss's “Mythologiques”. We will be reading Part Six, "Equilibrium," of "Mythologiques 3: The Origin of Table Manners".

You can read all the previous articles from the link below.

Even if you haven't read the previous articles, you can still enjoy (?) this one on its own.

Introduction

In this series of articles, I attempt to read Mr. Lévi-Strauss's “logic of myth” by likening it to a mandala-like structure of double four-term relations (eight-term relations) such as those Kukai describes in his "Unjigi," or rather, as the “things” (koto) where the pulsations that cause mandala-like patterns to emerge like ripples resonate with one another.

Empirical distinctions become conceptual tools

Mr. Lévi-Strauss writes the following at the beginning of his massive work on the logic of myth.

Extracting ideas by using empirical, sensory distinctions (discrimination) as conceptual tools (in other words, superimposing discriminations to articulate meaning), and connecting these ideas (linearly chaining one-to-one static pairs of signifiers and signifieds) is "how it is done." If we simulate this "how" on a model of the pulsations of generation and extinction of a mandala-like meaning-articulation system, it looks roughly like the following.

The algorithm (movement) of the logic of myth

In other words, at the end of the narrative, myth aims to draw a stable mandala-like pattern by separating Δ1 to Δ4 in Figure 1, while connecting them without being too attached or too detached, so as not to separate them excessively.

To achieve this, the narrative first describes movements of expansion and contraction that trace an amplitude, such as the β-term extending long toward the first and third quadrants, or the β-term extending long toward the second and fourth quadrants, or gathering at a single central point. The ones who embody and perform these movements of expansion and contraction, these movements that trace an amplitude, are the “ambiguous” beings who appear in myths.

Moving ambiguous mediators further away or closer

Let us assume that the pole marked “β” in the figure above represents an ambiguous mediation. In myths, the β-term ambiguous mediator takes the form of, for example, a human who does not know how to use fire and pecks at the ground like a chicken, a jaguar that wears clothes and walks on two legs with a bow and arrow, the moon that transforms into a porcupine to seduce a human woman, or a human who separates their lower body from their upper body and dives into a river with only their upper body to lure and catch fish with the scent of flowing blood. They are

Human / Non-human

Separated / Combined

They have the appearance of having short-circuited the two poles of a binary opposition that are clearly divided in terms of empirical sensory experience. Such things do not "exist" in an empirical sensory sense, but myths aim to capture and stabilize the movement of the "/" that exists just before one becomes able to distinguish between something existing and not existing.

To that end, in order to verbalize the process by which two poles that should be empirically diametrically opposed—such as human/animal or prey/hunter—gradually separate while expanding and contracting from a situation where they are not yet clearly divided, it deliberately narrates a state where the very poles that are empirically and sensorily opposed overlap into one, making it impossible to tell which is which. The offering of vomit as food in the myth of Ogetsuhime is an example of this.

Things that show a movement of drawing an amplitude that violently goes back and forth between such empirically opposed poles, or things that exist in a way that is both and neither of the two empirically opposed poles, are called ambiguous mediators (β relative to Δ in the diagram above).

Like kneading mochi, potter's clay, or pie dough, two of the four terms seem to be excessively combined on the first axis, while simultaneously being excessively separated on the second axis, which is orthogonal to the first. These "axis that causes separation" and "axis that causes combination" alternate at high speed.

Turning from there, when the βs are pulled out in all directions and the four β terms are separated at an equal distance without being attached or detached (drawing a square), this pulling-out movement and the force trying to return to the center balance. Here, the speed of expansion and contraction slows down infinitely. Thus, in the "between" of these β terms, room opens up for four regions or objects, "that which is not-that, distinguished from that which is not-that" (Δ), to flicker so that they maintain their contours continuously.

The meaning of the world for each of us is articulated as a combination of oppositional relationships.

Here, a world meaningful to us is generated—a "world" where we can say "Δ1 is Δ2," where the various Δ terms have already been separated and arranged orderly as individual objects, and which can be linguistically and stably distinguished. Any empirical world, and the myths that tell of the origin of the elements of that world, have this kind of logic.

Just beneath the surface of our empirical world, the movement to adjust the frequency of β and derail it from the fleeting "four" square of the here and now, thereby regenerating the world as a different four-term relationship, never stops moving. The meaning-articulation system that feels like it has arranged the given elements as a solid structure, as shown in Figure 2, which floats in the surface consciousness of the discerning mind, is actually like the expansion and contraction of pulsating waves (the period T[s] of periodically repeated vibrations expanding and contracting) viewed with narrowed eyes.

＊

Becoming well-versed in the logic of myth makes it possible to observe how our experience of the world, including ourselves, as something meaningful is made possible by discernment, or how patterns of meaning-articulation emerge and disappear in various ways, and it also makes it possible to construct such discernment and methods of meaning-articulation quite consciously and freely.

Reading the predicates of the Stone Child's movements

Following the myth covered in the previous article, here comes the "Stone Child." It is a myth that begins with the passage: "A woman left behind by her brothers, all alone, swallows a stone and gives birth to a stone child." Let's look at M489, "Oglala Dakota: The Stone Boy (II)," from 'Mythologiques 3: The Origin of Table Manners'.

This is a myth full of highlights.
Swallowing a stone to become pregnant or burning pubic hair to resurrect the dead—for all you sensible ladies and gentlemen, you will likely wrinkle your brows, thinking, "What an unscientific and vulgar story."

However, without getting hung up on the strangeness of these superficial subject-like things such as 'stones' or 'pubic hair', let us promptly refocus on the 'predicates'..

In other words, take the focus off subject-like things like 'stones' and focus on predicates (verbs) like 'swallowing' or 'giving birth'. Take the focus off subject-like things like 'pubic hair' and focus on predicates (verbs) like 'burning' or 'smoke rising'.

When you do this, you realize that 'swallowing' means that the distance between two poles that were originally separated has shrunk, leading to excessive conjunction, and 'giving birth' is also understood as something that was integrally joined becoming separated, conjunction turning into separation (a short distance stretching out to become long). 'Burning' is also a transformation occurring between one form and another, between two separate, separated forms; in other words, the original form and the subsequent form, the space between two poles that were different and separated is joined as being 'different yet the same'. 'Smoke rising' is also a movement that connects—that is, joins—the separated poles of heaven and earth.

In myths, these predicates cause 'separation' or 'conjunction'. Furthermore, this is not merely a binary choice of movement between separation or conjunction; rather, it is a case where if you separate this, that joins, and if you separate that, this joins, and it moves in such a way that even between the pair of opposing predicates of separating and joining, it separates or joins.

← Separation →
Separation / Conjunction
→ Conjunction ←

How predicates are expanding and contracting

With that in mind, let us look at the myth above, focusing on how the predicates are causing expansion/contraction between empirical and sensory binary oppositions.

Four brothers, men only, a single family

First, there is the part where 'four brothers lived by themselves, and they handled all the women's work themselves.'

Here,

Male / Female

The empirical distinction of
is leaning excessively toward the 'male' only side. In other words, the distance between the opposing poles of male and female is separated far, far apart. This is excessive separation.

If there is excessive separation, at the same time, excessive conjunction must be occurring somewhere. That is to say, the fact that the brothers are 'four'.

The four brothers are a superposition of two binary oppositions of elder/younger (senior/junior). In particular, the second and third brothers are 'both elder and younger'—they are in an ambiguous, oscillating state of being both elder and younger.

Both elder and younger
Elder / Younger
Both younger and elder

They are indeed divided into 'four,' but they are all the same brothers. They are in a relationship of four-is-one, one-is-four. As individual existences, the four do not stand out; they are excessively connected to one another.

Male←/→Female / Elders→←Youngers
|| ||
Excessive separation / Excessive connection

In other words, at the beginning of this myth,

Separation / Connection

this binary opposition itself is both excessively separated and excessively connected.

To speak simply of separation means that it has become different into the many. To speak simply of
connection means it has become one.

In contrast, the situation of being both separated and connected, or of separating and connecting the separation and connection, is that of ' neither one nor different.'

This ' neither one nor different' can also be considered the fundamental algorithm that weaves together the entire system of linguistic logic in Buddhism, and by extension, Eastern thought. I have been reading Takashi Shimizu's 'On Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika in the Age of Emptiness' for the past few days, and this very ' neither one nor different' is the key to deciphering Nagarjuna's logic.

Cutting... from excessive connection to excessive separation

Now, let us return to the myth. The next passage says, 'The eldest brother injured his foot, and his toe swelled up. He cut open the toe and took out a little girl from it.'

This is the movement of non-brothers separating from the very edge (the tip of the toe) of the brothers.

This little girl was originally a tumor that formed on the eldest brother's toe.

This tumor is a part of the eldest brother's body; it is truly one with the eldest brother, the eldest brother himself. The eldest brother and this tumor are inseparable, one, and connected so excessively that 'excessive' is not enough to describe it. However, the place of that connection is not the center of the eldest brother's body, but the tip of the toe, the lowest edge of the body.

Here, the eldest brother does something drastic. He
cuts open the tumor.
To cut open, to slice open with a blade, to divide.

This is simply the predicate of 'to separate.'

*

Using the technique of 'cutting open,' he turns what was excessively connected into separation all at once. Turning connection into separation. He stretches out what was connected all at once and pulls it apart, separating it.

What is interesting is that this tumor had formed on the tip of the eldest brother's toe. The tip of the toe is, within the total existence of the eldest brother, the very edge, the furthest corner. In other words, it is a part that is unified with the eldest brother himself, yet is shifted to the very edge. Among the things (body parts) that are integrally connected to the eldest brother, it can be said that this is relatively the place closest to separation.

Furthermore, it was not the toe itself that was incised, but rather a tumor that had grown on the toe later. The toe is the very end of the body, but the tumor that grew from it is the end of the end. It is clearly a surplus.

*

The part that was suddenly separated from this excessive union became, surprisingly, the brothers' "younger sister." With the appearance of the sister, the distance between the two poles of "male/female," which were initially excessively separated, is suddenly short-circuited and joined. It is a sudden shift from separation to union.

The incision of the tumor is a "shift from excessive union to separation shift" /

the appearance of the sister within the family is a "shift from (male/female) excessive separation to union shift"

The extraordinary predicate that "when the eldest brother's toe tumor is incised, a sister emerges" brings separation to where there was excessive union, while simultaneously bringing union to where there was excessive separation. Let us note that the direction between these two, "from union to separation" and "from separation to union," while beautifully opposed in reverse, are moving together as one.

From excessive separation to excessive union. Appropriately separating this excessive union

While it is said that the eldest brother incises his body to separate a part, which is quite radical and excessive separation (that is, forcibly separating where it should not necessarily be separated), in contrast, the sister is excessively united with her brothers (that is, she is tightly united even though she does not need to be united that much). The brothers "refuse all marriage proposals so that the daughter can live with her brothers forever."

On one hand, from excessive union to excessive separation. On the other hand, from excessive separation to excessive union.

The amplitude is still "excessive."
This is far from the stabilization of a semantic segmentation system that (appears to) be as stable as the everyday life of the present world.

From here, the myth should establish a stable oppositional relationship that is neither too close nor too far, while performing several more shifts between excessive union and excessive separation.

The sister separates from her brothers and becomes alone. And then, to a mysterious pregnancy

Now, this excessively united life of the brothers and sister meets an inexplicable end. "For some reason," the brothers "
disappear one by one" and go missing.

The sister was released from her excessive union with her brothers.

It is a shift from the aspect of excessive union to the aspect of excessive separation.

If so, the next step should be a shift to excessive union in another place.

That is the marriage between this daughter and a 'white and smooth stone'.

Speaking of stones, empirically, they are the representatives of inorganic, non-living things.

Life / Non-life

As if to short-circuit between these two excessively separated poles, the stone and the daughter "marry," and a child is born. It is the birth of the "Stone Child."

The Journey of the Stone Child

The Stone Child shakes off his mother's attempts to stop him, that is to say, abruptly shifts the state of excessive mother-child bonding, and heads toward his missing uncles, separating far from his mother.

While pregnancy by swallowing a stone is a transition from excessive separation to excessive bonding, the Stone Child's departure is a transition from excessive bonding to excessive separation.

Here again,

transition from excessive separation to excessive bonding
/
transition from excessive bonding to excessive separation

these transitions in opposite directions are in opposition.

Defeating the Mountain Hag

The 'Stone Child,' separated from his mother, travels far and wide. This
journey to a distant place as a predicative modality is a way of connecting two excessively separated poles; it is, once again, a mythical beta-pulsation that flips between separation and bonding, between being different and not being different.

And the Stone Child arrives at (bonds with) the hideout of the demon, the Mountain Hag. The Stone Child wins the battle against the Mountain Hag and resurrects his uncles.

Here, let us also pay attention to the passage where the Mountain Hag, though originally 'small,' becomes a 'giant', as well. The Mountain Hag in the Japanese story of 'The Three Charms' also grows large and small, but this is

Large / Small

a spinning transition between a binary opposition that is extremely empirical, sensory, and seems unlikely to ever be reversed, and it is a good expedient to remind the listener that 'this narrative is now in the space-time of myth (that is, a state where the articulation of space and time, such as sensory front/back, large/small, far/near, is not yet clearly distinguished or is perhaps already distinguished).'

This can also be said for life/death.

Characters who should have died are resurrected with ease; such stories, which are impossible in reality, are common in myths, but this would mean that even the distinction and binary opposition of life/death is, for myth, just one of the materials for verbalizing and making the surface of consciousness sense the predicative pulsation that separates and bonds separation and bonding.

Burning the hair

Now, in this myth, a technique of 'burning pubic hair' appears in order to trigger a transition between the poles of life/death. Of course, this hair is not just any hair, but something special, 'used by the virgins who are his (the Stone Child's) fiancées to decorate his hair and moccasins when he set out on his journey'.

Life and death are usually sharply separated, and it is difficult to move freely back and forth between the two poles.

It is the thinking of myth to consider that in order to freely bond and separate between these empirically rigidly separated poles, something overwhelmingly ambiguous, mediatory, and intermediate is required.

The 'virgins who are fiancées' to the Stone Child are in an ambiguous intermediate state regarding the poles of 'married/not married' because they are scheduled to be married but are not yet married.

And that which was 'separated' from a position exactly 'in the middle' of the upper/lower body of those intermediate fiancées (hair) is divided into two and bonded to the Stone Child's 'hair' and 'moccasins' (shoes), that is, to the top and bottom ends of the Stone Child. This hair is what was 'used to decorate his hair and moccasins'.

Since it is quite complex, let's try to illustrate it.

The overarching oppositional relationship is

Male / Female

a binary relationship. Between the Stone Child and his fiancée, there is a male/female binary relationship, and furthermore, this relationship vibrates in an ambiguous state—'supposed to be married but not yet married,' which is like being connected but not yet separated, and separated but already as good as connected....

At the beginning of this myth, there were only four brothers and no women, so male/female were excessively separated.

Then, a woman, a sister separated from the eldest brother's tumor, appeared, but this sister was a part of the eldest brother and, without separating from the brothers, was excessively connected. Here, as a family, male/female were in an excessively connected state.

• Even if men and women are excessively separated, marriage does not occur.

• Also, even if men and women are excessively connected (brother and sister), marriage does not occur.

Marriage is the turning of a relationship between men and women, who were originally separated into different families, into a connection. Being able to clearly distinguish between a separated state and a connected state, and to switch between them appropriately as needed, which makes marriage possible, is the origin of human society and culture in relation to nature.

To achieve this, one must calm the situation where the male/female relationship swings violently between the two poles of excessive separation and excessive connection, and cool it down to the extent of maintaining a stable distance of neither too close nor too far.

• Separating where it is too connected, but not separating too much.

• Connecting where it is too separated, but not connecting too much.

What makes this possible is the mysterious and elaborate method of 'hair' located in the middle of the upper/lower body on the female side being separated, and the upper/lower poles of the male body being connected to each while being separated.

In this case, the 'hair' in question acts to connect while remaining separated the 'separated' state between the male and female, the Stone Child who went on a distant, dangerous journey and his fiancée.

To realize this perfect balance—connecting while separating, that is, neither excessively separating nor excessively connecting—the hair in question transforms from a state of being concentrated in the middle of the top/bottom to a state of spreading to both the top/bottom poles.

*

The tumor on the toe and the hair in the middle of the upper and lower body

Let us note that this state of 'hair' contrasts with the tumor on the tip of the toe that appeared at the beginning of this myth.

(Female) Hair in the middle of the upper/lower body / (Male) Tumor at the lower end of the body

The tumor on the toe was, in terms of the upper/lower poles of the body, the lower of the lower, the very edge of the edge.

In contrast, the hair in question occupies the exact middle between the upper/lower poles of the body, the intermediate region between the upper and lower ends.

Truly, myths bricolage such fine empirical and sensory distinctions to think about highly abstract predicative aspects, such as neither-one-nor-different, and the separation of separation and combination..

* *

Here, at the end of this myth, something attached to the "foot," the "lower of the lower" appears again. It is the "one shoe".

The Stone Child tries to "crush" the Mountain Hag who was defeated in the battle against the Stone Child. This means combining the Mountain Hag to the lower of the lower of the Stone Child's body. Let us note that this is perfectly the opposite of the opening story where the younger sister was separated from the lower of the lower of the upper/lower poles, as mentioned at the beginning.

* * * *

Interestingly, this combination was originally heading toward a form where the Stone Child was the active subject trying to crush the Mountain Hag (excessive combination to the sole of the foot), but it turns around, and the Mountain Hag becomes the active subject, "clinging" to the Stone Child's foot (excessive combination to the foot).

It is truly detailed. Between the two, they are not satisfied unless they repeat the same movement in the opposite direction.

One shoe. Separated here and combined over there.

And as soon as she clings to it, the Mountain Hag steals one of the Stone Child's shoes, disappears somewhere, and never appears again..

Stone Child ← // → Separation → / One shoe = Combination = Mountain Hag

Just like the tumor at the beginning of the myth, a "shoe" is separated from the tip of the Stone Child's foot. And this shoe is carried away—separated—to a place far from the Stone Child by the hand of the Mountain Hag.

A transition from combination to separation.

The younger sister who separated from the foot of the eldest brother of the four brothers at the beginning immediately turned from separation and entered a state of excessive combination with her brothers.

In contrast, the shoe of the final Stone Child separated from the Stone Child and remained separated. Let us note that this separation is explained by the fact that the shoe cannot be found because the Mountain Hag is hiding it.

It seems like it could be found if one tried to look for it.

The missing shoe did not fly far, far away to the other side of the universe.

The one shoe taken by the Mountain Hag is probably still very close to the Stone Child, hidden somewhere. It is just that she is good at hiding, so it cannot be found even though it should be nearby.

Not being able to find it is slightly different from "nothingness," which is one of the two poles of existence/non-existence. It is just not found, but it has by no means ceased to exist. There is no doubt that it exists somewhere.

However, it is the same as not existing because, although it exists, it cannot be found. It exists but does not exist, it does not exist but it exists.
Although it is a state of 'neither existence nor non-existence,' for the time being, for the Stone Child, it is 'not existing rather than existing'.

Focus not on the subject-like entities, but on the predicate-like aspects that separate and combine

Mr. Levi-Strauss points out that this myth of the 'Stone Child' and the myth of the 'Red Head' which he analyzes just before it, are the same story.

The two myths appear to be completely different, separate stories as long as one focuses on the subject-like entities that appear in them.

However, myths appropriate and repurpose empirical and sensory distinctions (binary oppositions) like makeshift materials for a DIY project (Mr. Levi-Strauss calls this 'bricolage'), and while separating and combining, they continue to stably delineate a world meaningful to humans from one that is not.

At this time, as long as things that are empirically and sensorially opposed are spoken of in language and thought of in images, they will be called as some kind of subject-like entity with an individual outline. However, myths immediately drive these subject-like entities toward movements of intense separation and combination. They use the subject-like entities (repurposing and appropriating them = bricolage) to bring to the surface the predicate-like aspect as that movement.

When focusing on the 'way of moving' of these subject-like entities, the myth of the 'Stone Child' and the myth of the 'Red Head' indeed depict the 'same' pattern of movement regarding the separation and combination of separation and combination, and the aspect of movement that short-circuits or stretches the distance between empirical poles.

To be continued

Related articles