So I have been trying to understand the spider in An Invitation to a Beheading and much of An Invitation to a Beheading through the motif of light (e.g. Cincinattus being referred to as “opaque” and others being referred to as “transparent” or “translucent”). For example, in class I believe we made the connection between Marthe and the spider in that the spider produces silk and Marthe typically wears velvet, a material made of silk. At first glance you can understand how light figures into something like the silk of a spider web because it is transparent. Bugs cannot see it and so get caught in the web. Thereby, can we understand the spider and the web as an extension of the translucent enemies that surround Cincinattus? I’m not sure it’s so simple. I’m no physicist and couldn’t tell you much about the optics of webs, but it seems as if its an exaggeration to say that webs are simply “transparent.” This site: (https://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/fileadmin/arbeitsgruppen/zawischa/static_html/spiderweb.html) suggests that webs can reflect all the colors of the rainbow and this study (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080612-spider-webs.html) and also (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2141493-spiders-web-uses-optical-illusion-to-lure-nocturnal-moths/) suggests that spider webs actually use light to ensnare insects.
So if I am trying to understand the spider web through the motif of light how can I proceed if scientific consensus to how webs use light is mixed? Potentially, the danger of the web being its manipulation of light instead of its transparency could have huge hermeneutic differences.
I also wonder about the words “transparent” and “translucent.” In physics, these definitions have different meanings.
Here is a snippet from wikipedia: “Translucency (also called translucence or translucidity) is a superset of transparency: it allows light to pass through, but does not necessarily (again, on the macroscopic scale) follow Snell’s law; the photons can be scattered at either of the two interfaces where there is a change in index of refraction, or internally. In other words, a translucent medium allows the transport of light while a transparent medium not only allows the transport of light but allows for image formation. The opposite property of translucency is opacity. Transparent materials appear clear, with the overall appearance of one color, or any combination leading up to a brilliant spectrum of every color.”
Again, in terms of hermeneutics, this leaves me at a loss. Should I conflate the two terms or is their separation a kind of hint I should dig a little deeper and arrive at a symbolic world of Invitation that can provide a reason for the specific usage of either word? Or would that be reading too far?
Science seems to be more reflexive and self-correcting than religion and in terms of hermeneutics this presents a kind of challenge. The core beliefs of Gnoticism will never change, and often gnostic symbols seem easier to track than others. The stability of the signified depends on the stability of the symbol. In the case where science has destabilized the connection between symbol and signified how can the reader come to meaning? Should they historicize? Isn’t that the sort of thing Nab. would disagree with? Maybe not, as “kindness to the author” could include historicization when necessary. I don’t really know what to do with this idea, but it has been something I’ve been thinking about.