Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Meditiation in a Toolshed
I enjoyed how C.S. Lewis opened "Meditation in a Toolshed" with a down to earth experience that almost anyone who has a garden or worked on a farm can resonate with. That is C.S. Lewis talks about how in older tool sheds one can often see shafts of light penetrating the darkness therein, kind of an apt metaphor for the revelation C.S. Lewis wishes to give to our benighted selves, and on first glance at the light one only sees a beam of light with bits of dust floating through it, but when one looks along the beam, one sees the sun and green leaves. Then C.S. Lewis, like any great teacher or philosopher, takes the familiar experience and relates it to the two basic types of perspective, looking at or looking along. To further illustrate his point Lewis applies these same perspectives to a male lover, a mathematicians contemplations, a ancient ritual dance, and a girl crying over her broken doll. Almost all of these are experiences people normally experience, ancient ritual dances for the most part excluded, which Lewis dissects according to physiologists and psychologists standards that look at what is occurring chemically or how people are thinking which is breaking down a complex system and saying it is nothing more than its parts. I concur with Lewis in that this is a bad thing. After all do not we see in cells that as groups of similar cells amass tissues form which have properties none of the individual cells have alone? Likewise one must, according to Lewis, look along the beam of light which is to experience something. However, this too leads to issues because one can lose a firm grip on what is actually occurring and can make false connections. Thus, we are left with Lewis's thought that we must use both to understand what is truly occurring because each has properties that can be misleading and those that can be revealing. This means that we cannot solely rely on even first-hand accounts of what something is like nor can we rely solely on an experts advice, but to truly comprehend we must take the plunge and dive in without fear, when sensible and possible, trusting in God to guide us and protect us which in turn deepens our faith in God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have to disagree with parts of your conclusion. You say "to truly comprehend we must take the plunge and dive in without fear..." But to experience something is not to understand it. That is very different. To look at something is not to understand it, and to look along with something is not to understand it. Those are different ways that something can be seen, but I think to truly understand something we must look both along with it and look at it.
ReplyDeleteWhile everything you have written does originate from Lewis, you tend to put words into his mouth which I assume are your own beliefs. Not once in the whole piece doe Lewis mention God. But you are writing as if he does.
ReplyDeleteI agree that one could assume his argument can apply to a belief in God, and I apply it as such, I think you narrowed your horizon a bit by making his argument say less than it does. Lewis's argument explains how to understand faith, it does not say that one must have faith to understand all things.
Now if you were to say that Lewis's argument puts into words the faith conversion process, you would be correct. But Lewis's argument is one that explains what is necessary to truly understand all aspects of life. To lose that detracts from the argument as a whole. You lost Lewis and inserted you as Lewis.
Just nitpicking. It's obvious you understood the reading, but the passivity of your written voice confuses that.
Benjamin, I think must not have been distinct enough in my conclusion because I hold a slightly differing but similar belief to yours. The last sentence was intended to be read more as though while expert advice and hearing first hand accounts about an event or thing is good it is not complete without an experience, if such an experience is within out capabilities and is not obviously foolish to undertake to begin with. I hope that helps the conclusion make more sense.
ReplyDeleteMaggie, I think you are correct in that the voice threw off my intent while you were reading my blog. My reasoning is this. I state in my conclusion that "Thus, we are left with Lewis's thought that we must use both to understand what is truly occurring because each has properties that can be misleading and those that can be revealing." Then I follow with "This means that we cannot solely rely on even first-hand accounts of what something is like nor can we rely solely on an experts advice, but to truly comprehend we must take the plunge and dive in without fear, when sensible and possible, trusting in God to guide us and protect us which in turn deepens our faith in God." This is where I think a distinction needs to be made. In the first instance, I was summarizing Lewis's position. In the second instance, I was not referring to Lewis's position except as a springboard for drawing a corollary between Lewis's position and my thoughts as to how it relates to our faith as Christians and not attempting to put words in Lewis's mouth.
To both, I thank you for your comments as they were both insightful and do not wish to create angst with these replies. Rather the point of these responses is to clarify points that not obviously differentiated between so as to help you to better understand the underlying message so that even better critiques can be made.