Interview: Gary Land on the Ellen White Project
16 November 2009
Interview: Gary Land on the Ellen White Project
image:
Gary Land is one of the organizers of the Ellen White Project, a group of Adventist, ex-Adventist, and non-Adventist scholars who are preparing to publish an academic book on Ellen White. He is chair of the Department of History and Political Science at Andrews University and author of, among others, Teaching History, a book about integrating historical knowledge and Christian faith, and the Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-day Adventists. Dr. Land was kind enough to answer some questions about his latest project shortly after he returned from the working conference where authors of the book's chapters had their work critiqued.
Can you give us a brief history of this Ellen White Project?
GL: Now this will be my version of it; it might be a slightly different story for some of the other people. But Terrie Aamodt has long had an interest in having a conference. She talked about that with me and others, but it didn’t really get of the ground until she talked with Julius Nam at the Adventist historians’ meeting at Oakwood two and a half years ago. He’s an organizer type, and he immediately wanted to do something. It went through an evolution as to what the goals were, but eventually he, myself, Terrie, and Ron Numbers ended up as the organizing people. And we’ve been working on it for a couple of years.
I’d like you comment on the philosophy of history that will inform the editing of this book. In other words, how is it possible for scholars who have differing beliefs about the source of Ellen White’s visions to produce a collaborative history of her?
GL: First of all, saying collaborative history isn’t correct. It’s a collection of essays, and there will be differing interpretations and viewpoints in the essays. But at the same time we do hope that they will be cohesive. The issue of her inspiration is really not an issue as far as the book is concerned, because our goal is to look at Ellen White as a historical figure. I’ve had a hard time explaining that to some Adventists, because they have difficulty looking at Ellen White in something other than religious terms. But the main thing is that we have other 19th century religious leaders of what we call “American originals” who have received quite a bit of attention from historians. But neither Adventists generally nor Ellen White in particular have received very much attention in historical literature. And there are a number of reasons for that. Maybe a simple one is that we aren’t quite strange enough; we’re more aligned with the mainstream than those other “American originals”. But the purpose of the book was to bring a number of essays looking at various aspects of Ellen White’s life with the underlying purpose being to say, This is a significant woman that historians should give attention to. So it wasn’t really a matter of whether one believes she’s inspired or not inspired.
Can you clarify what you mean by “historical figure”? What I’m thinking when you say that is someone who influenced others after her and was influenced by people before her. Is that correct?
GL: And was influential during her own time. Although, we’re not just discussing her in terms of influence. But when one talks about things that she did, those also have influence.
So also looking at the bare facts, and laying those open. . .
GL: Right.
When I read Ron Number’s book, he starts off by saying that a real historian has to look for human causes, not divine causes in history (Prophetess of Health, xxxii, para 1). And it seems to me that presupposition is at once necessary for doing history while also ruling out the possibility of divine inspiration. Is that a fair way to frame the issue?
GL: Yeah, I think so. Look at a book like George Marsden’s The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, where he’s talking about how one is a Christian and does scholarship and how if you bring in divine elements, you’re probably not going to get accepted by a historical journal or university press. So he talks about something he calls “methodological agnosticism,” and that’s essentially what Ron Numbers is putting forward. Now Ron is not a Christian believer and makes no pretense of being one, so his motivations might be different in saying that. But Marsden is a Christian and is noted for that. But he distinguishes methodological agnosticism from what he calls “methodological atheism.” And it comes down to subtle use of language when you give an explanation on the human level. In methodological atheism you use language that suggests that there is nothing else to say beyond what’s being said. If you are a methodological agnostic, then you will have language that suggests there might be other things. Just as an example: You’re talking about a revival. And if you say, This revival was caused by economic dislocation (That’s a frequent explanation that’s given for revivals.), well, that doesn’t leave anything else available. But if you say, Economic dislocation contributed to the revival, then a person could think that maybe there was a divine aspect as well, even though you’re not talking about that as a historian.
If Ellen White is a multidimensional figure, what hidden dimensions of Ellen White would you like this book to reveal to Adventists, the scholarly community, and the average American?
GL: First of all, Adventists are not our primary audience. Obviously we would hope that Adventists would read it, but we’re aiming to publish through an academic press. (I think it needs to be clear that we’ve contacted Oxford, they’ve expressed some interest in it, but there is absolutely no commitment on their part until they see something.) So our target audience is scholars and that proverbial educated general reader. We hope Adventists will come along with that. Now what do we want to accomplish with that? I already spoke about scholars, that they would think, Maybe she deserves more than a line in the history of American religion. The general reader—sort of along the same lines—but that they would find her an interesting person. Here’s somebody who did all these different things. And we would hope that they would find this an interesting person that they might want to know more about, because this book is not exhaustive. It’s not a biography, but sort of an opening of a window on an individual and her movement. She had an interesting life, a long life, and as a woman she did things that were not typical of women in her time. She was a public figure of somewhat restricted range, a speaker, a writer when not many women were writers, was involved in establishing institutions. So I hope that people would find her life story interesting.
Don McMahon has produced what was for me one of the more illuminating, if not unconventional, studies of Ellen White in recent decades. How will this book address his multidisciplinary approach? And maybe that would be a better question to ask Numbers, but since I have you in front of me. . .
GL: Right. I don’t think it’s going to address it very much. Numbers would have a lot to say about McMahon. I think he has something in the footnote of his paper about McMahon, but that’s about all it addresses. An interesting observation about the conference: For every paper we had an Adventist respondent and a non-Adventist respondent. Several Adventists raised the issue of plagiarism; it didn’t seem to be an issue for the non-Adventists. And I believe the reason for that is for Adventists it’s related to the issue of Ellen White’s authority and inspiration. And that’s not an issue to the non-Adventists. And Adventist apologists have argued that this was relatively common in the 19th century, and I think non-Adventists recognize that. So it’s not a big issue to them. So basically I think [McMahon] will be a footnote and not much more than that.
As a Seventh-day Adventist, how do you anticipate this book will benefit your church?
GL: Well, to come back to our original purpose, it’d give us more visibility. Second, I think it will help people understand Ellen White better, although we’re not really breaking new ground as far as Adventism is concerned. We’re breaking new ground as far as the general historical community is concerned. But one thing that I became aware of—I wrote the paper on Ellen White and historiography—and I became aware that Ron Numbers’ Prophetess of Health has done more than any other book to bring Ellen White to the attention of historians, even though it’s still relatively small attention. But people have looked at Ellen White almost totally in terms of a health reformer, and even Adventism in terms of health reform. And so hopefully this book will help people understand that Ellen White had a multifaceted life. Health reform obviously was a part of it, but there were other aspects of it as well. And then secondarily to help them understand that Adventism is more than a health reform church. So I would hope that it would contribute to a better understanding of the denomination. But again, we’re not really writing it for PR purposes, but to better place Ellen White and Adventism within their 19th century American context.
___________
A Seventh-day Adventist pastor and seminarian, David Hamstra blogs at apokalupto, where this interview first appeared.
Search
- Steve Moran on Why Can’t I Own Canadians?: Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism
- jay rasco on “Panentheism” Is Not a Four-Letter Word!
- Tom Zwemer on Interpreting the Bible Can Be Difficult
- Elaine Nelson on Why Can’t I Own Canadians?: Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism
- Donna Haerich on “Panentheism” Is Not a Four-Letter Word!
- Tom Zwemer on Cornel West Speaks on Truth at Oakwood University
- Tom Zwemer on Why Can’t I Own Canadians?: Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism
- Just an Engineer on Satire: The Miracle of Chance
- Jeannie Brown on Strangers in the House
- Alexander Carpenter on Why Can’t I Own Canadians?: Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism
Comments
Gary wrote:
"When I read Ron Number’s book, he starts off by saying that a real historian has to look for human causes, not divine causes in history (Prophetess of Health, xxxii, para 1). And it seems to me that presupposition is at once necessary for doing history while also ruling out the possibility of divine inspiration. Is that a fair way to frame the issue?"
__________________________________________________________________
That philosophy SHOULD be the purpose of all history, shouldn't it?
Would that not also apply to biology?
The current discussion regarding the accusation that LaSierra is teaching "evolution" if handled similarly, would not recognize divine or supernatural events if this were followed. Shouldn't all history, biology, or other subjects be taught without resorting to the "supernatural" and simply teach to the objective facts that are quite common to all others in the same discipline?
Elaine:
I actually wrote that. (The bold text is me; rest is Gary.)
You wrote: "That philosophy SHOULD be the purpose of all history, shouldn't it?"
Question: How does the methodology I described constitute a purpose for history?
David Hamstra
apokalupto
There is a kind of history: know as the Sgt. Joe Friday brand: :"Just the facts mam, just the facts!" The battleship Maine blew up in Havana Harbor. "Teddy wanted a war. So the phrase "Remember the Maine" became a crowd pleaser and brought a country to action. Philosophy would be understanding motive, human behavior under attack, pride of country etc, etc or philosphy and psychology. It worked for Teddy. It didn't work so well for George W. Who will write that history? The West or the East? Tom
David,
The methodology which you and Dr. Land speak of is interesting (the agnostic approach), yet, isn't history also based on eyewitness accounts and the beliefs of the time. For instance, for me Ellen White was indeed a prophet and if I lived during her time I would have interpreted the manifestation of what I see to be miracles as divinely originated. However, if I did not believe she was a prophet then this interpretation would be turned on its face.
I guess what I'm saying is that, even if I attempt to write history from an agnostic methodology I would with certainty taint the picture with my personal beliefs as well as be bound to leave out certain historical context that would be essential to describing, accurately, the events to be described.
While I believe that Ellen White was indeed a prophet to the entire world, the validity and her impact on history is only relevant to those who accept her as a prophet of God giving an end-time message. I don't believe that bringing together Adventists, non-Adventists, and former Adventists to write on Ellen White will do anything more than to entrench the various positions of those who already are acquainted with her. It will also serve to make the Adventist church look more Ellen White centered rather than Bible Centered. A focus on Ellen White rather than what God did through her would contradict her claims. I don't believe that Sis. White can be discussed in isolation to the divine impact which God worked through mere clay. Try explaining the parting of the Red Sea or the Jordan from an agnostic methodology and it becomes meaningless and nonsensical. I'm afraid that this is what will happen to Ellen white in the pages of these essays.
However, I would not object to reading such material, I just don't think it is conducive to introducing the world to our movement.
Mormons created their history: and they truly believe that the golden tablets that Joseph Smith found are an accurate portrayal of history, just as most early Adventists believed that EGW was a prophet elected by God.
While these two denominations have quite different histories, their early followers and disciples believed completely that they were truthful and each prophet was evidence of divine leading.
They both have also had historians question the authenticity of what had been taught. These historians have been treated very shabbily by both the Mormon and Adventist churches. Time will tell whether this history will be met with more acceptance than past has shown.
David:
"Methodological agnosticism" is Gary's term, not mine. However, I will try to address the concerns you raise from my perspective.
As I stated in the interview, I believe that assigning divine causation would undermine the task of history because it would end all inquiry with a single answer: God did it. Therefore historians must focus their work on the human component of history. Gary has proposed a way of writing history that does not (wrongly) assume the humans are the only actors in history.
I believe the task of determining where God is involved in history is the task of theology. Theology alone has the resources (i.e. Scripture) to interpret history in a way that shows where supernatural actors were at work. But this interpretation is based on historical work that has already been done.
Adventism is very much based on this kind of historical work. Without the non-inspired, pagan king lists, how could we determine any of the dates in our prophetic charts? With appeal to generally recognized history, how could we identify the little horn in a convincing way? And without the historical work of people like Ron Numbers, as damaging as it may have been to some, we'd still be laboring under false notions of Ellen White's inspiration.
So I think that we need the kind of historical work that Land is talking about. And hopefully it will help increase our profile in the teaching of American history. In a time when 45% of Americans have never heard of our church, I'm all for more publicity.
David Hamstra
apokalupto
There is probably a good reason why Don McMahon's alleged research on locating causality of the supernatural in the health gospels of Ellen White may only appear as a footnote, as Professor Gary Land explained.
McMahon presents what he conceived as scientific evidence that points to a divine origin for Mrs. White’s health principles. But scientists in general eschewed appeals to hypothetical arguments where the evidence might be wrong and requires an individual to relinquish belief in any theory that has been contradicted by empirical evidence—no matter how much the scientist is attached to his or her theory. Natural causes, not the supernatural are all that is available for science to work with and still maintain logical integrity (this is also true for historians).
Firstly, McMahon did not use double-blind methodology. He selected the health statements and evaluated them using his own medical training without eliminating possible observational bias. He divided each health statement into ad hoc "whats" and "whys," and discovered that in Mrs. White's writings the most important or explanatory "whys" showed little, if any, evidence of inspiration. Over the years since 1960 of presenting his results the "whats" have risen from 26 percent validation before rescoring, then to 56 %, and needing more validity to 72 % and finally recently to 98 %. He keeps rescoring Mrs. White's "whats" to get what an Adventist audience wants to hear. But look carefully. All of the validated "whats" were commmon to the health reform movement and nothing was original, actually most can be found in the health writings of the Mehodist John Wesley (in his book Primative Physick, 1747).
Traditional Adventists, those who believe that Mrs. White’s health gospels were original and accurate and not blemished by the common reformers of her time, will be greatly disappointed in McMahon's findings. Essentially, McMahon showed that the Holy Spirit operated only slightly above a random level of accuracy in separating “gems from the rubbish,” while the more important “why” statements, essential for creating confidence in the "what" principles were only slightly better than the common reformers.
McMahon explained in his book Acquired or Inspired? that, "Superficially, it seems Ellen White copied heavily from Graham, Alcott, Coles and Jackson. It is understandable that many people would interpret these results to mean that the health writings of Ellen White were acquired from human writings, rather than being divinely inspired." The double talk and scientific evidence that McMahon used, though flawed by lack of expertise in applying proper methodology supports this view. I suspect Ronald Numbers has reviewed this "scientific" study carefully since NcMahon attacks him directly in public discussion and in the book Acquired or Inspired? And Numbers, as an academic would provide discussion if he thought McMahon's study had any merit. That is a common practice amongst academicans.
David,
Could you explain what you mean by "False notions of inspirations".
Though I'm not acquainted with either Ronald Numbers work or McMahon's work I believe that a prophet is not considered a prophet from the terms of originality. What is absolutely amazing and divinely inspired is the prophets ability to organize the sheer amount of information into a coherent whole without focusing on incorrect information.
Honestly, today if one scientist says one thing about a topic, you can find a score of others who say the direct opposite. Ellen White's inspiration did not have to come in the form of originality but in her keen ability (divinely manifested ability) to organize information into a coherent whole.
Also David, I agree that our evangelistic thrust is always based on historical fact. However, it always comes back to the divine manifestation in God directing world events. The historical events are always buttressed by divine manifestations of God's power and authority over human nature.
No, no history should stop at "God said it" or "did it" and thats all. This kind of research and thinking is lazy thinking and does not add to God's purposes. But to wholly ignore God's roll, or in your own words, to allow for other possibilities does in fact contradict the adventist method and ignores historical context and beliefs making the actors look like religious fanatics.
David Salem
"assigning divine causation would undermine the task of history because it would end all inquiry with a single answer: God did it."
A profound statement that should always precede any statement concerning not only history, but especially science. When a simple answer is not readily available, to resort to "God did it" or it was a "supernatural event," discourages thought and exploration, which is not learning but indoctrination of belief.
David,
I agree with your concerns, but I argue that only theology has the resources to discover divine causation in history and that appeals to divine causation would undermine the task of history.
David Hamstra
apokalupto
Joe:
Your argument regarding methodology would be valid if McMahon were attempting a purely historical or scientific study, but that is not what he has done. As I said in the interview, his study is multidisciplinary, and one of those disciplines includes theology, which is where he gets the distinction between whats and whys, for example. If one holds that God is able to work through the processes of history, among other things, McMahon's method is perfectly valid.
Where are you getting the 26% figure for validation from?
David Hamstra
apokalupto
Greetings David:
I enjoyed reading your theistic idealism, but I do not think that Dr. Don McMahon would agree with you. He is not a theologian, doing the research of a theologian. McMahon was trained as an ear, nose and thrat surgeon, now retired. He applied his medical knowledge throughout this "scientific" study. Even the use of multidisciplinary is not appropriate since you only mention two disciplines, one of which he is not qualified as an expert, nor does he advertise himself as a theologian in his book.
The ad hoc separation of the health statements into "whats" and "whys" came from The Desire of Ages written by Ellen White. But as Ron Graybill, formerly from the White Estates, pointed out Mrs. White borrowed this concept from Fredrich Krummacher. Here is the statement you referred to, and it has little importance as applied here. This came from a pamphlet published by the American Tract Society and was adapted by Mrs. White. As you can see it applies to things mysterious.
“The whys and the wherefores are concealed from us … The ways God leads us are generally mysterious.” Friedrich Krummacher. Elijah the Tishbite. American Tract Society. 1846. p. 20.
The most significant argument for Adventist believers is that Mrs. White warned against segregating or dissecting her writing and calling some inspired and others not. McMahon claims that the "whys" came from another source than the divine. Review what Mrs. White said about doing this.
You asked where did the 26 percent figure come from. Go to p. 34 of McMahon's Acquired or Inspired? There in the lower diagram you will see that in 1960 he validated only 26 percent of Ellen White's statements as significant, and by rescoring them in 2000 they rose to 56 percent. In 2006 he reported 70 percent and in 2008 that number had risen to 96 percent. In science we call this "cooking the books."
What many people do not know is that McMahon fundamentally agrees with Ronald Number literary dependency found in "Prophetess of Health." McMahon wrote to Numbers in 2005 and confesses:
"I have shown that she wrote in the knowledge base and needs of the time she was writing. Many in the church have had, and are still having, great difficulty in, coming to grips to refute my work with what I have concluded. There has been a lot of effort to refute my work from the conservative side of the church, and they have failed so far. I feel that the reason that my level of inspiration has been so well accepted, is not only the work of Graeme Bradford of Avondale and Alden Thompson of Wala Wala [sic], but also because of your work. If they could refute what you have done they would not have accepted my work. So it is because of you that I have been welcomed as a satisfactory compromise between the two extremes on the inspiration as expressed by Ellen White.”
Best wishes...
Joe:
What I read on p. 33 of Acquired or Inspired is that McMahon got the 26% figure by scoring the whats "according to how they would have been rated in 1960" (emphasis mine) based how his teachers responded to Ministry of Healing during his medical training, which began in 1959. He does not say that be began scoring whats in 1960 but rather that he started his study in 1987 (139). According to McMahon what changed between 1960 and 2000 was the verification of the whats by science. I guess if people want to know if McMahon cooked the books, they'll have to read his book for themselves, but I don't see that being the case.
Now regarding the theological source of whats and whys, McMahon says the distinction "occurred to" him "while preparing talks or articles on lifestyle and health" (27), and then he found it in the writings of Ellen White. Specifically, in Counsels on Diet and Foods p. 344, where after instructing a couple that they should not stop eating salt says, "The whys and the wherefores I know not, but I give you the instruction as it is given me." McMahon traces this phrase "Whys and wherefores" to Coles' Philosophy of Health (28). But where Coles uses the phrase to expound upon the "whys and wherefores," White uses it to admit her ignorance. McMahon uses White's use of the phrase to draw what in my opinion is a theological principle regarding the information God showed Ellen White in vision (the whats) and the information she researched on her own (the whys).
Here is actually where I have a quibble with McMahon's theology. You are correct in saying that McMahon is not a trained theologian, but I believe that theology is the task of the church and every Christian is qualified to use and required to develop this discipline. The job of theologians is to help facilitate the church in doing theology. But I digress.
McMahon seems to assume that revelation is an exclusively supernatural event, but I believe the Bible is clear that revelation can also take place naturally through historical research (e.g. Luke) or observation of the world (e.g. Proverbs). Inspiration is the process by which God helps the prophet communicate what is revealed through written or spoken words.
So I believe what McMahon's study has confirmed is not what of Ellen White's health writings was acquired or inspired, but what was revealed naturally and what was revealed supernaturally. In my opinion, he has also demonstrated that the authority of what was revealed naturally was to motivate change in the people to whom she was directly writing and that the authority of what as revealed supernaturally was to inform them of what changes they should make. When we interpret her counsel today, I believe it is crucial to take those two levels of authority into consideration.
You are correct that I am a theistic idealist, as I think all theists must be at some level. McMahon as not 'proved' anything, but his research has given me reasons to believe. I fully agree with what McMahon wrote to Numbers in 2005, and if it is in any sense a confession, it is a confession of faith. Only those with an ahistorical view of revelation and inspiration would see his statement as ruling out the possibility that Ellen White was a prophet.
I think everyone who studies the issue is agreed that Ellen White wrote in and to her time and place, and in so doing she adopted and adapted the works of others. But to move from that to the conclusion that there was no supernatural component to her writings is based on flawed assumptions about how God works. And McMahon's research has also indicated that conclusion is also based on a flawed view of the quality of her work.
Thanks for taking the time to dialogue on this subject.
Happy Sabbath,
David Hamstra
apokalupto
I suggest that there is no supernatural component to inspiration. None whatsoever.
We're all built to prophesy - it's in our very nature.
That neatly dissolves the pesky problem of one person's communication being somehow privileged over another's which has so bogged down Adventism, and seems unsolvable.
I double dog dare y'all....
Speak as prophets! God has empowered you! Reach down inside your gizzards and belt it out!
But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
We could probably explain the whole of human history with the phrases, God willed it, and The Devil made them do it, but we would learn very little about how history developed, if we did so. We could probably explain the whole of biology with the phrase, God made it that way. but we would learn next to nothing about why nature works the way it does, if we did so. All branches of learning depend on a deliberate agnostiscism of God in order to flourish. We cannot allow theology to swallow up the entire human intellectual enterprise. As the proverb says, It is glory of God to hide a matter, but it is the glory of the king to find it out. The hiddeness of God must be taken more seriously.
Smuts
When I read the first 20 lines of a published interview and saw three significant typographical errors, I began to shake with the righteous indignation of an editor and English teacher. I haven't read the remainder of the interview yet because it seems to me that the publisher does not care if the effect of the presentation is trashy. Is this a serious publishing outlet or not? I believe strongly that, to be perceived as serious, every Adventist message offered to the public should attain to the minimum standard of being publishable in every way. Please, please consider reaching the minimum standard in every aspect of Spectrum. I believe it brings glory to God.
Tim, providing evidence is the best way to support a claim -- especially when you're providing a writer with a comment about his or her writing. Making a claim, and then providing an example improves credibility and increases the likelihood that the writer will see what you've seen and learn from the comment.
For example, if you've seen "three significant typographical errors" in the first 20 lines, it might be helpful to point them out. This shouldn't take you too long. Perhaps you'll be able to do it when you stop shaking. :)
Just going over it again, I think I used a comma where I should have used a semicolon. I'm terrible a proofreading my own work. Maybe you'd be willing to help Spectrum out, Tim?
David Hamstra
apokalupto
Shaking in indignation about...punctuation? Yes, it's possible to be an intellectual fundamentalist.
And Adventism does seem to be about...Adventism. Long decades after the expected second coming did not happen, Adventism is making itself the object of intellectual study.
This is a significant shift of focus, wouldn't you say?
"Adventism is making itself the object of intellectual study.
This is a significant shift of focus, wouldn't you say?"
Maggie, that seems to be true of all religions, doesn't it?
Judaism did not become a religion of belief and doctrines until writing was introduced, approximately the time of the Babylonian Exile when its texts were first written down. Until that time, it was, like contemporary religions, based on ritual practices such as sacrifices and feasts, very similar to many other ancient religious beliefs.
After that time, the priests and then the rabbis became more influential, until at the time of Christ, the rabbis were the ones to consult on the fine points of the Law, and for their interpretation.
The same with Christianity. When it began it was very simple: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and love one another and thus fulfill the Law.
Gradually, over the first four centuries it began to develop doctrines, practices, and by the time of Constantine was a new religion in the Roman Empire. Then, it began to be codified, adopt a creed, and was legally recognized.
Many changes occurred until today one can see its spread into many denominations, all claiming to be Christian.
Islamism was also a revelatory belief that evolved over the centuries into several branches we see throughout the world.
Nothing stays the same, and the call to return to a primitive and pure state is repeated, but will never happen. History moves forward, never backward, and whether it is called "progrssion" makes no difference. "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
+
When a movement starts being about itself, the law of diminishing returns has set in, it seems to me, Elaine.
Do you suppose anyone will notice?
Just want to add, Elaine, that the metaphor of Hamlet's Mill comes to mind - in the beginning, it ground out gold, peace and happiness; in the end, it ground out salt in a maelstrom at the bottom of the sea.
Pauli mentions the Kalevala, with its magic mill. The mythology seems to be universal.
That this mythology may be obliquely referring to the astronomical phenomenon of precession only reinforces the impression for me, as I see the universe as fractal, with dynamics repeating at different scales.
The Old Testament "oracle" says that without vision, the people perish.
The tendency is to reify the original vision until all it does is grind out salt in a maelstrom at the bottom of the sea.
The antidote to that is to keep vision alive.
The evolutionary step is for individuals to embody the vision dynamic in a vital community.
Call me a dreamer....
Posted by: Smuts van Rooyen (not verified) | 22 November 2009 at 10:59
All branches of learning depend on a deliberate agnostiscism of God in order to flourish. We cannot allow theology to swallow up the entire human intellectual enterprise.
Amen. And to that I can only add we must not allow theology and the intellectual enterprise to swallow up our poetic sensibilities.
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
To extend what Smuts said to the mystical, "The hiddenness of God must be taken more seriously."
The intellect has only one failing, which to be sure, is a very considerable one. It has no conscience. Napoleon is the readiest instance of this. If his heart had borne any proportion to his brain, he had been one of the greatest men of history.
--James Russel Lowell
Regarding reifying the vision, please see the short story The Cleft, by Gahan Wilson.
http://www.amazon.com/Cleft-Other-Odd-Tales/dp/0312865740
(I think this is the one I remember.)
Will go now so you can discuss this topic closer to your interests.
[double post]
Post new comment