So, do we suppose I am enjoying my bedtime reading, or just enjoying the thought of enjoying it? Sadly, it’s acted more like espresso than chamomile.
The idol does not indicate, any more than the icon, a particular being or even class of beings. Icon and Idol indicate a manner of being for beings, or at least for some of them. Indeed, a determination that would limit itself to opposing the ‘true God’ (icon) to the ‘false god’ (idol) in extending the polemic of the vetero-testamentary prophets, would not be suitable here. For the Christian iconoclasts of the eighth century gave the name ‘idol’ to that which had been conceived and venerated as icon of the true God, and the Jews of the Old Covenant rejected all representation as idolatrous, even representation of the God of the Covenant. (the ‘Golden Calf’, it has been argued, perhaps only personalized the God of the Covenant, and the very Temple of Jerusalem could have been deserted by the divine Shekinah only insofar as it foundered in idolatry.) … In short, the icon and the idol are not at all determined as beings against other beings, since the same beings (statues, names, etc.) can pass from one rank to the other. The icon and the idol determine two manners of being for beings, not two classes of beings.
Jean-Luc Marion, God Without Being
transl. Thomas A. Carlson
You must admit, that bit about the Skekinah is pretty clever.