I think that contributes to the confluence of symbols and different time periods; at the same time it provides a contrast with the kind of dry, sophistic, nitpicky theology practiced by the school theologians, as in deciding how many angels can fit on the head of a pin... and the kind impelled by devotion, faith and truth... a mountain of works as opposed to one page of an illuminated manuscript; a maze of doors as contrasted to one stained glass window.
Or as Borges shows, a vipers' nest of testy, competitive church scholars as opposed to first the wheel, then the cross, and the Celtic confluence of wheel and cross. At that point, are we then compelled to think about the nature of wordy argumentation and debate, and that of image and symbology. Does one take precedence over the other, have more power or influence than the other? And by inference, is there a way that the primitive or instinctual brain trumps the intellectual, rational or over-rational mind... and what does that mean for modern and ancient, evolved and atavistic, theological and divine? What would seem distinct and clear between the times, from primitive to ancient to modern, and the means of reaching the religious heart of humans, is questioned and muddied from the beginning as we move from the times to the means.