Tuesday, July 19, 2011

When The World Was Enchanted

First I want to thank everyone who took the time to respond to yesterday's Groper Poll. Sammy especially took the time to give an in-depth response which I found interesting and helpful.

My interest in Harry Potter has been aroused for some time. I've been considering watching the movies. I keep hearing that to enjoy the full impact I really need to read the books. Those massive books! At any given time I have eight to ten books on my bedside table that I'm working my way through - and rarely do these include fiction. Guess I need Cliff Notes on Potter.

After posting yesterday's question I found an interesting editorial by Michael Gerson of RealClearPolitics, Harry Potter and the Power of Myth. This piece addressed something I thought must be at work in Rowland's story telling.

Gerson writes:

The books, in fact, are gloriously derivative, providing an introduction not to magic but to mythology. Harry's world is populated by centaurs, dragons, werewolves, grindylows, veela, Cornish pixies, sphinxes, phoenixes, goblins and hippogriffs. It is as though Egyptian, Greek and Roman mythology, European folklore and Arthurian legend suddenly discovered the same playground....

Now that is something I can really appreciate; myth and symbolism. The majority of my criticism aimed at religion, usually of the fundamentalist variety, is that many adherents (too many) take various myths and symbols literally, as truth claims, and take psychological motifs and turn them into a cult of fanaticism.

Gerson goes on to add:

The world's great stories -- of heroic journeys, of peril, testing and courage, of nature enchanted, of happy endings -- get reincarnated for a reason. Created to explain the world, myths eventually began to explain us and our pre-rational values and culture. When these strings are touched, we feel the vibrations deep down. And we know that myths are not the same as lies.

The enchanted world of our childhood imagination is often tempered by the starkness of reality as we get older. It seems that for most people, it is just redirected to one of the religious traditions. In our day cafeteria-style religion is popular. People tend to partake of whatever spiritual truths they see being served up and in a sense create their own personal spiritual world view. I think that is why New Age ideas are so popular. These New Age ideas have actually infiltrated many of the traditional religions, much to the agitation of orthodox theologians.

My Pantheism is a symbolic and imaginative response to the universe I find myself a part of. When I speak of God, creation, sin, and similar terms, I'm really speaking metaphorically to evoke what Gerson referred to as those strings that vibrate deep down in our souls (there again I speak metaphorically).

That isn't well-received among a small minority who believe scientific skepticism and pure logic is all that is needed to form a well-rounded individual. They feel folks like myself are only muddying the waters. I respect their opinion. I just disagree, obviously.

We need science, more than ever before as our world is facing so many challenges. But we need religion/spirituality too. We need logic, but we need fantasy as well. Try as hard as we like to be purely rational creatures and our brains will betray us in our dreams while we are off guard. There is that illusionary realm of thought where our psychological needs are addressed as they often are not in the banality of the real world.

We are emotional creatures and wish-fulfillment and repressed desires will out. We must acknowledge and embrace that aspect of ourselves. Yes, yes, keep a foot firmly grounded in the "real world" and let reason be our guide. But give imagination its place.

Our increased knowledge of our surroundings hasn't diminished the usefulness of myth. If anything I believe it highlights it.

10 comments:

D'Ma said...

I love this post, DougB. Yes, rationality, skepticism, logic and scientific method are all so very important. But without imagination wouldn't life be so boring, so ordinary, so bland? I want the extraordinary. I embrace my imaginative, creative side. Though I don't call it spirituality, I see where for some that may be true. Without imagination we would have no Mona Lisa, no Canon in D, no airplanes or hot air balloons. Without a vision for something grander than ourselves existence would be ho hum. I love a good Disney fairy tale. It is important to know the difference between reality and fiction. When it comes to religion people like myself sometimes obliterate the line between the two.

Diane J Standiford said...

I think I have a good imagination, but fantasy is just a waste of my time. I know I am probably in the minority here and your point is well taken, but I just am not moved to thought by fantasy, fairy tales, or sci fi, no more so than a bowl of ice cream. You must know me fairly well by now, how do you think it might advance me?

Anonymous said...

Alright, I acknowledge I have a feeling component. I enjoy imaginative flights of intuition and creation.

What is the difference between this and what you call a spiritual component? Maybe I'm not getting it.

Does the spiritual component survive death? If not what is the big deal that it has to be a spiritual component as opposed to a sensitive, feeling, imaginative component?

These are not rhetorical questions. It may be we are not that far apart. Words can be stumbling blocks.

But people kill other people about differences in religion. Cannot approve religion.

Very interesting, in any case.

Anonymous said...

Exrelayman said ...

Sorry - anonymous post above was me.

Doug B said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doug B said...

@ D'Ma - I'm glad you loved this one. Bear in mind that the reason I brought spirituality into this is because I think Harry Potter goes beyond being merely imaginative. To understand Potter you need to understand the magical worldview he lives in - one not unlike the primitive prescientific outlook of humans and similar to the mystical view of life most of us enjoyed as young children. And obviously Rowland deals with good versus evil. I believe that most of us have a sense of good versus evil concerning life. It seems to me that this leads most of us at least to the subject of religion and spirituality.

Doug B said...

@ Diane - You never enjoyed television shows like I Dream of Jeannie or Bewitched? You never daydreamed and wished you were more than you are or able to do more than you can do? Sure, these things are just a temporary escape from the ordinariness of life, but worthwhile to most of us. At least I think they are worthwhile. I just don't think we should live there all the time.

Doug B said...

@ Exrelayman - Ah, I thought that was you. Glad for your second post which clarified it.

I'm so glad to have you as a reader and have your thoughts as maybe something of an opposing viewpoint. And I'm very happy to answer your non-rhetorical questions.

The difference between our imagination and what I consider our spiritual side is idealism. When I speak of spirituality, I'm speaking of the human pursuit of noble principles. The whole point of this post is that Potter and mythology in general deal with things more important to humans than mere flights of imaginative fancy.

Does the spiritual component survive death? That is a strawman, insisting that "spirit" has but one meaning. In nearly seven hundred posts on this blog I have never argued for the survival of the human personality beyond the point of death ... and I've addressed the question more than a few times here.

What is the big deal that it has to be a spiritual component as opposed to a sensitive, feeling, imaginative component? I never said that. Never. Not once, ever. But because Harry Potter and mythology go deeper than mere imagination, I felt spirituality is the proper context. As Gerson whom I quoted wrote: "myths eventually began to explain us and our pre-rational values and culture." Religion is steeped in myth and still deal with values and culture.

I respect your concerns that "people kill other people about differences in religion." Of course they do. They do with regard to differences in politics, too. But I don't think politics is evil (just too overrun by irrational silliness, as is religion).

But my religious naturalism, which takes as its ideal that all creatures are children of the cosmos, would not lead to mass killing. I think the non-theistic religions like Buddhism and Taoism, also are nonviolent in principle. I just think you are painting with too broad a brush here.

At any rate, as I said, I'm so glad to have you as a reader and commenter.

Anonymous said...

Exrelayman said ...

"Does the spiritual component survive death? That is a strawman, insisting that "spirit" has but one meaning."

I don't know how to say this without sounding adversarial, and I hate that because your writing generally pleases me very much.

The strawman fallacy consists of restating the opposing argument in a way that does not say the same thing as the original argument, and then finding fault with the inaccurate restatement. All I did was ask a question. That's why I went to the trouble of stating it was not a rhetorical question - I was trying to learn if your notion of spirituality implied continuing existence or not, NOT representing that you had any position of any kind, which I could then attack.

Again, hope that wasn't too unpleasant. When I err in some fashion (alas, only too frequently!) I desire to be corrected.

Now that diversion aside, I still don't see how 'spirituality' can access deeper truths about our nature or origins than 'sensitiviy, imagination, creativity' cannot.

I am perfectly willing to let this rest. I even think it would be foolish to say we are agreeing to disagree. Your further remarks about what spirituality means to you seems to show me we are very, very close on this and only the subtleties of language may prevent us from seeing we agree completely.

Now onward to enjoy the next treasure you have posted.

Doug B said...

@ Exrelayman - Not unpleasant at all. And as I said, I'm glad you are here. I hope I can count on your continued input.

Really, I wasn't accusing you of using a strawman argument. But inasmuch as I said nothing positive at all in my post (or in any other post on this blog over three years of its existence) about ghosts or immaterial anything that would allow us to survive our own death, then I am at a loss to account for your question - unless you don't recognize the metaphorical use of the word spirit. IF (and I'm saying if) you would fault me for speaking of spirituality without attaching the concept of ghosts to what I'm saying, then that would indeed be a strawman, and not at all my position at all.

Reading the rest of your latest comment, it seems to me - but please correct me if I'm wrong - that you have a problem with my use of the term "spirituality."

Sensitivity, imagination, creativity, of course are all useful in mythmaking, to be sure. But do they go far enough when I'm talking about noble principles and ideal ethical behavior - the stuff of which religion or spirituality are made?

I believe I use spirituality in a manner is understood by most folks. Heck, even the atheist André Comte-Sponville wrote a book attempting to develop an atheist spirituality, "The Little Book Of Atheist Spirituality."

Of course I can get along fine without using words like spirituality and religion. But why should I avoid these concepts that have played such a big role in my life, and that play a big role in the lives of others?

To quote Comte-Sponville:

"What are 'the essentials'? In spiritual matters, it seemed to me that they could be summed up in three questions. Firstly, can we do without religion? Secondly, does God exist? And thirdly, can there be an atheist spirituality? This little book reflects my search for the answers to these questions. Atheists have as much spirit as everyone else; why would they be less interested in spiritual life?"

Why indeed?

Of course, as you suggest, I think we mainly agree, just have some semantical differences.