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!