Book Club: Chapter 3, Idea, Energy, Power

Dorothy Sayers argues in this chapter that every work of creation is three-fold, "an earthly trinity to match the heavenly:"  She posits this as a means of saying that we do, in fact, live a life analogous to the Trinity (which is a difficult and not-oft addressed concept).

1st)  the Creative Idea
I was really stumped how to put this into words, so I turned back to the introduction to read how Madeleine L'Engle described it.  She says it is "the imagining of the work" that began from the time she was born; before she was aware of any particular book.  I take this to mean, all the experiences that went into making her, her, or you, you, or me, me.  This part corresponds to God the Father.  After rereading this section of the chapter, I noted this, "If, that is, the act has a beginning in time at all, it is because of the presence of the Energy or Activity."  I think I am wrong in trying to describe this first part of the analogy with any words relating to time; afterall, it is indivisible from the other two.  A little perplexing to my finite mind!

2nd)  the Creative Energy
The sum and process of all the activity which brings the book into existence, the incarnation.  This corresponds to the Word, "consubstantial with the Father."

3rd)  the Creative Power
That which flows back to the writer from his own activity, corresponding to the Spirit.

A couple of sections really piqued my interest. In the first, Dorothy says that she will use language that may seem out-moded to persons brought up in "scientific" habits of thought.  I'm not exactly sure what she means by the 'scientific habits of thought,' but I think I understand her to say that much of the language has been abandoned for being too absolute.  She says, "This difficulty which confronts the scientists and has compelled their flight into formulae is the result of a failure to understand or accept the analogical nature of language."  And, "The confusion and difficulty are increased by the modern world's preoccupation with the concept of progress."  This last part resonates with me.

She further states that this imposes two inaccurate suggestions on the human mind: 1) any invention or creative act will necessarily tend to supersede an act of earlier date, and 2) once an invention has been brought into being and made public by a creative act, the whole level of human understanding is raised to the level of that inventiveness.

Both very much untrue and both run counter to the law of humanity.  I appreciated her spelling that out so succinctly.

The other section that has me a bit baffled is the second to last paragraph of the chapter, which ends like this, "Metaphors become dead only when the metaphor is substituted for the experience, and the argument carried on in a sphere of abstraction without being at every point related to life."

I understand she is making an argument for the continued use of old and dated metaphors so long as they are used to interpret direct experience.  They are still useful and vital regardless their age.  But I wish she had given an example of a metaphor that has become dead, because I'm not sure I fully understand what that is.  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.  Is this a dead metaphor?  Or am I being way too literal?

Looking forward to Chapter 4!

Book Club: Chapter 2, The Image of God

I found this chapter fascinating and full of revelation.  Dorothy Sayers states that man, made in the image of God, shares the characteristic of Creator.  Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, she points out that all language about God is necessarily analogical; even the word creator, but it is none the worse for it.

She takes this thought further by saying "all language about everything is analogical; we think in a series of metaphors."  And especially so about things which we have no direct experience.  "Man measures everything by his own experience; he has no other yardstick."

We know we use metaphors and analogies and we instinctively know exactly where they begin and end.  (with the good)  Language is an expression of experience.

We are all makers in that we spend our lives putting matter together into new patterns.  The closest we come to being like our Creator (creating ex nihilo) is when we produce art.  An artistic work is more than the sum of its parts.  It is limitless and comes from the imagination.

For this reason, it is the artist we should look to for an unfurling of the truths surrounding God as Creator.  His experiences can shed light on this facet of Him.

I found the last part of the chapter good food for thought when Dorothy described the analytical bias of the previous three centuries saying it has encouraged us toward confining ourselves to a specific sphere of knowledge and, therefore, a special metaphor.  She states that she "sees signs that the human mind is beginning to move toward a synthesis of experience."

I'm trying to apply that belief to our age of technology, information, and immediacy.  Are we tending toward a synthesis of experience?  I really don't know.  Certainly more information is available to us.  What I see in terms of the secular world and its methods of communicating is language that is deliberately selected to evoke a particular meaning/image in its hearers/readers, when in fact another meaning is intended.  Intentional deception.

I think a lesson I might take from this chapter is the importance of truth in our metaphor.  Refining and molding it to be as near to the truth as we can make it.  One might say, Of course! Naturally!  But naturally we are lazy and tend toward the easy path.

I think I've perhaps gotten off on a rabbit trail, here.  But, then again, perhaps this is one of the many hidden discussions in this chapter that Cindy wrote about.

Book Club: The Mind of the Maker, 1:The Laws of Nature & Opinion

Dorothy Sayers begins chapter 1 of The Mind of the Maker by saying that the word "law" has two distinct meanings and when people use/read that word they may or may not have the correct meaning in mind in relation to the context.  This is cause for confusion, says Dorothy.

The two meanings are arbitrary and necessary.  Briefly, arbitrary is a regulation made by man with the consent of man.  Things like Roman Law, the laws of civilization, and the laws governing the game of cricket (or football to us Americans).  Arbitrary laws are not necessary in that, if a football is run by a player into the end zone but the six points are not awarded, it doesn't cause a cataclysmic affect on the world.  The rules can be changed, and if everyone is in agreement, the game is operated under the new rules.

Necessary law is that which creates unalterable consequences if broken (put your hand in a fire and it will be burnt).   Necessary law includes those things than express tendency.  These could be historical fact (Grimm's Law) and physical fact (an apple falling from a tree will hit the ground unless something (Newton?) arrests it in mid-fall.)  Historical fact expresses something that has happened (and one might imagine a world in which it did not happen and the world would remain substantially the same), and physical fact expresses something that does happen (and imagining a world in which it doesn't would be very unlike our world).

Confusion occurs when the word "law" is used to describe these two very different things (an arbitrary code and a statement of unalterable fact about the nature of the universe).  Dorothy says it is at its worst when we talk of moral law.

She says there is a universal moral law (distinct from moral code) by which man enjoys true freedom.  The closer the moral code is to this universal moral law (UML), the more it makes for freedom in human behavior.  The more widely it departs, the more it enslaves mankind (and produces catastrophes called Judgments of God).   Dorothy says that UML is discoverable by experience.  The moral code can be written to prevent man from doing violence to his own nature.  Unlike matter, which isn't tempted to diverge from its own nature, man continually suffers this temptation.

Societies may agree or disagree on these, however, the closer it adheres to them, the more the people will flourish.  In creating the universe, God put this UML into motion, and because it was made that way, it cannot be altered just as the law of gravity cannot be altered.

A creed claims to be statements of fact about the universe as we know it.  As we make an intelligent apprehension of what the creed is saying and what it means, it enables us to decide if it is or is not a witness of universal truth.

That is my summary of chapter one.  I think I understand what she is saying.  Something came to mind while reading about UML; I am hesitant to write about it because it is somewhat controversial today.  It was the first time I saw, in physical terms, the intent behind God's law.  I tended toward a view of God as a critical, judgmental Father with a set of rules I really didn't understand.  In the early 1980's as the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome began to spread rapidly, devastating whole specific communities with the disease and death, I "got the picture."  God's laws are intended to protect us.  They are for our good.  They are not arbitrary.  I felt I could trust Him more with this greater understanding of Him.

I appreciate all the foundational work Dorothy is giving us.  I think it is particularly relevant today.  Who hasn't heard, "You can't legislate morality."  in their political discussions?  This gives me a broader but more stable framework for discussions like this.

Am I even on target with what Dorothy is communicating in this chapter?  I'm not sure.