-
About KU’s Trollope Prize.
1. On the spirit of poetry in a time of plague by Richard Berengarten
2. More trouble with genre. Markku Nivalainen in conversation with Simon Collings
3. Plum Pudding books: Anthony Howell reviews Michael Hampton and Marius Kociejowski
4. Why I am not a philosopher, or The Annoyances of Philosophy, by Alan Wall.
5. ‘oracle’ and ‘Mary Does Laugh’. By Kate Ashton
6. Of Peace and Strife by W.D. Jackson, illustrated by Alan Dixon. A verse-column
7. J’accuse…injustement, Anthony Howell considers Stephen Glascoe’s account of being falsely accused
8. Passion, framed by silence. Michelene Wandor reviews James Runcie.
9. The Hills and the Desert: Claude Vigée and Edmond Jabès, by Anthony Rudolf.
10. ‘A Way to Dismantle’ and four more poems by Ion Corcos.
…and much more, below in this column.
Audio archive: Two poems, with an audio track, from Heart Monologues by Jasmina Bolfek-Radovani | Daragh Breen’s Aural Triptych | Hayden Carruth reads Contra Mortem and Journey to a Known Place | Anthony Howell reads three new poems | James Laughlin reads Easter in Pittsburgh and five more | Peter Robinson reads Manifestos for a lost cause, Dreamt Affections and Blind Summits
Previously: More below. Scroll down.
New to The Fortnightly Review? Our online series, with more than 2,000 items in its archive, is more than ten years old! So, unless you’re reading this in the state pen, you may never catch up, but YOU CAN START HERE: Four short texts by Jeff Friedman | Hacheston Halt by John Matthias | Disinterest and Aesthetics Pt 1/Pt 2 by Tronn Overend | Out of the house and into the business district by Martin Stannard | We need to talk about Vladimir, by Jonathan Gorvett | Two new poems by Fred Johnston | Several dwarves and one pet by Meg Pokrass The wheel in the tree: An appreciation of Penguin Modern Poets 12. By Ian Seed | Wonder Travels: a memoir by Josh Barkan | Five poems from Fire by Jaime Robles | Three instructive texts by Rupert M Loydell | On John Wilkinson’s ‘Wood Circle’, by Rupsa Banerjee | The Ringstead Poems by Peter Robinson. With an afterword by Tom Phillips | From Dialyzing: poetry by Charline Lambert. Translated by John Taylor | The O.E.D Odes by Lea Graham | Demarcation and three more poems, by Pui Ying Wong | What are poets for? Alan Wall on Nathaniel Tarn’s Autoanthropology | Martyrdom. Anthony Howell on the Russian invasion of Ukraine | Bard-think: Anthony O’Hear on teaching with Shakespeare | The Pleasure of Ferocity: A review of Malika Moustadraf’s short stories. By Michelene Wandor | Pastmodern Art. By David Rosenberg | Central Park and three more new poems. By Tim Suermondt | What Is Truth? By Alan Macfarlane | The Beatles: Yeah x 3. Fab books and films reviewed by Alan Wall | The Marriage by Hart’s Crane of Faustus and Helen by John Matthias | Young Wystan by Alan Morrison | Nothing Romantic Here. Desmond Egan reviews Donald Gardner | Parisian Poems, by César Vallejo, translated by César Eduardo Jumpa Sánchez | Two sequences of poems by David Plante, introduced by Anthony Howell | Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s Big Noise in the Night: Film commentary by Simon Collings | Gli Ucelli and two more poems by Michael Anania | Interior and three more prose poems by Linda Black | For Britney (or whoever) by Fran Lock | The wages for reading is rage: Reflections on the Book Revolution in Texas. By Christopher Landrum | Selfies by Rupert M Loydell | The Loves of Marina Tsvetaeva by C.D.C. Reeve | My Mother’s Dress Shop by Jeff Friedman | The Bride’s Story. Grimms’ No. 40. An elaboration by W. D. Jackson | Poetry Notes: Early titles for 2022, by Peter Riley | Short Icelandic Fiction: Fresh Perspective (Nýtt sjónarhorn) by Aðalsteinn Emil Aðalsteinsson and The Face and Kaleidoscope by Gyrðir Elíasson | Exercises of memory: Prose poetry by Adam Kosan | Species of light and seven more poems by Mark Vincenz | Two Micro-fictions by Avital Gad-Cykman | Pictures, with Poems: A two-generation collaboration. Photographs by Laura Matthias Bendoly, with poems by John Matthias | In Famagusta, a revisit by Jonathan Gorvett | Shakespeare’s Merchant by Oscar Mandel | Toughs by Anthony Howell | Holding the desert, a sequence of poems by Richard Berengarten | Two pages by Michael Haslam | Contusion not Rind by Peter Larkin | Four poems by Katie Lehman | Blind summits, a sequence of poems with an audio track, by Peter Robinson | The Censor of Art by Samuel Barlow | Small Magazines, and their discontents (as of 1930) by Ezra Pound | Modern Artiques by Robert McAlmon | Two poems, with an audio track, from Heart Monologues by Jasmina Bolfek-Radovani | Blavatsky in violet: poetry by Alan Morrison | Everything that is the case: A review of John Matthias’s Some of Her Things by Peter Robinson | Khlystovki by Marina Tsvetaeva, newly translated by Inessa B. Fishbeyn and C. D. C. Reeve | A king and not a king, a poem by W. D. Jackson | Violet, an essay by John Wilkinson :: For much more, please consult our partial archive, below on this page.
2011: Golden-beak in eight parts. By George Basset (H. R. Haxton).
2012: The Invention of the Modern World in 18 parts. By Alan Macfarlane.
2013: Helen in three long parts. By Oswald Valentine Sickert.
2016: The Survival Manual by Alan Macfarlane. In eight parts.
2018: After the Snowbird, Comes the Whale, by Tom Lowenstein.
-
LONDON
Readings in The Room: 33 Holcombe Road, Tottenham Hale, London N17 9AS – £5 entry plus donation for refreshments. All enquiries: 0208 801 8577
Poetry London: Current listings here.
Shearsman readings: 7:30pm at Swedenborg Hall, 20/21 Bloomsbury Way, London WC1. Further details here.NEW YORK
Time Out’s New York listings here.
In the New Series
- The Current Principal Articles.
- A note on the Fortnightly’s ‘periodicity’.
- Cookie Policy
- Copyright, print archive & contact information.
- Editorial statement.
- For subscribers: Odd Volumes from The Fortnightly Review.
- Mrs Courtney’s history of The Fortnightly Review.
- Newsletter
- Submission guidelines.
- Support for the World Oral Literature Project.
- The Fortnightly Review’s email list.
- The Function of Criticism at the Present Time.
- The Initial Prospectus of The Fortnightly Review.
- The Trollope Prize.
- The Editors and Contributors.
- An Explanation of the New Series.
- Subscriptions & Commerce.
-
By Roger Berkowitz, Juliet du Boulay, Denis Boyles, Stan Carey, H.R. Haxton, Allen M. Hornblum, Alan Macfarlane, Anthony O’Hear, Andrew Sinclair, Harry Stein, Eugène-Melchior de Vogüé, and many others. Free access.
· James Thomson [B.V.]
Occ. Notes…
A dilemma for educators:
Philosophy and the public impact.
.
Michelene Wandor on Derek Walcott and the T.S. Eliot Prize.
.Nick Lowe: the true-blue Basher shows up for a friend.
-
Anthony Howell: The new libertine in exile.
.
Kate Hoyland: Inventing Asia, with Joseph Conrad and a Bible for tourists.
.
Who is Bruce Springsteen? by Peter Knobler.
.
Martin Sorrell on John Ashbery’s illumination of Arthur Rimbaud.
.
The beauty of Quantitative Easing.
.
Prohibition’s ‘original Progressives’.
.
European populism? Departments
Subscribe
0 Comments
The god of Athens.
A Fortnightly Review
of
Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers
by John W Cooper.
Baker Academic 368pp $36.99 £19.99
By Thomas Conlon.
Curious to know the bounds of the broad church of panentheism – the view, or perhaps just the feeling, that God is somehow immanent in the universe but not, on the one hand to be identified with it as in pantheism, nor, on the other, to be considered as utterly transcending it as in Islam – I turned first to the final chapter for the explanation of why the author is not a panentheist.
Here, John W. Cooper more than lives up to his stated aim of fair-minded courtesy to those with whom he disagrees. He clearly distinguishes a spectrum of positions – classical Christian theism, modified classical Christian, revised classical Christian theism, Christian panentheism, non-Christian panentheism – the finer points of whose differences I imagine only the most dedicated or partisan readers will be troubled to master. However underwriting his own disavowal is his quibble-free Christian stance as a Calvinist pastor. He expresses this as a personal affirmation of “a traditional Christian view of Scripture as divinely inspired, infallibly true and authoritative in all that it teaches.” In this ultimately unbridgeable dichotomy of view one sees again the continuing relevance of Tertullian’s age-old but still rather good question: “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem ?”
The god of Jerusalem is a god in whom the full range of human nature is manifest. He is God the jealous lover, God angry with His people, God taking vengeance when spurned, as well, of course, as God the omnipotent creator. The god of Athens is the god made in the image of man – the mystic, the designer, architect and thinker. The rabble of the polytheistic pantheon with their disedifying weaknesses and failings has been abolished and replaced by one omnipotent god who has manifested his greatness through the universe which he sustains. The nub of panentheism is to assert that the universe exhibits, directly at least, some aspects of the divine nature and that God is more than simply “the maker of heaven and earth”, as the Nicene Creed has it, but, in some sense, is heaven and earth. Cooper traces this tendency from Plato to Polkinghorne.
Aristotle is an interesting omission. In Metaphysics Lambda 7, Aristotle gives us his account of the Prime Mover’s relationship to the universe, which, putting it mechanistically and crudely, is to impart motion to the Primum Mobile which, in turn, communicates this motion to the concentric spheres of the Aristotelian universe. The threat of an infinite regress of celestial cog wheels turning celestial cog wheels is averted by Aristotle’s noble vision that the Prime Mover, Himself utterly unmoving, induces the motion of the Primum Mobile as an object of its desire. C.S. Lewis translates the Greek “kinei os eromenon” as “He moves as beloved.” Aristotle provides for a more intimate relationship between God and the universe than that merely of “Maker”. For him, the universe is sustained by its love for God – but this vision nevertheless does not qualify him as a panentheist. The universe remains separate from God and Aristotle does not affirm, as Cooper’s true panentheists do, that “the world is ontologically within the Divine.”
THIS BOOK IS intended primarily for theology students and consequently only touches lightly on what might be of greatest interest to the more general reader – the interaction between scientific and panentheistic thinking. The most clear cut and decisive interaction occurred in the seventeenth century and is primarily associated with the names of von Guericke – best known for his invention of the vacuum pump – whom Cooper does not
mention at all, and the more celebrated Newton, whose panentheism the author briefly acknowledges. The issue, whose resolution became one of the cornerstones of physics, was the objective existence of time and space. In the generation before Newton, von Guericke devoted Book II of his magnum opus, the Experimenta Nova Magdeburgica, to a philosophical and theological discussion of the nature of empty space. His final position is panentheistic, if not quite full-bloodedly so. Von Guericke writes :
His views are very similar to those of Newton, who famously described Time and Space as the Sensorium Dei. Both distinguish matter – what exists in the Aristotelian category of substance – from space and time, whose existence is a direct eternal and omnipresent manifestation of the Divine nature, from material creation, which is finite and contingent. In this way space and time were rescued from those, notably Aristotle and Descartes, who, admitting only an ontology based on the category of substance, denied its existence altogether, and those, notably Leibniz and Kant, who relegated space and time to the status of constructions of the human mind to enable us to deal more effectively with the truly objective.
This partial panentheism served the scientific world well for the two centuries after the publication of Newton’s Principia. It gave way to the current dispensation where mathematical model making, whose relationship to experiment can be tenuous, is the primary activity of theoretical physicists. In respect of progress in establishing the objectivity of space and time it would appear that one set of metaphysical problems has merely been traded for another.
The generations following Faraday saw two remarkable developments paralleling, to some degree, the conceptual struggles of the seventeenth century. The first was the doughty defence by nineteenth-century scientists of the anti-panentheistic Cartesian principle that all physical effect is mediated through the interactions of substance – in this case the supposed aether. The loss of one battle over the failure of this principle to account for the action of gravity without need of a corporeal medium, did not make most scientists of the period any more minded to concede another defeat and admit that electromagnetic waves could also travel though nothing. The second development was the inauguration of a long period of mathematicians’ catching up with the intuition of physicists to produce what has become the subject of differential geometry. Thus, when the Special Relativity of Einstein and Minkowksi consigned the aether and all the properties with which it had been ingeniously endowed to scientific irrelevance, this was seen as a triumph of mathematical model-making. It could equally have been seen as a fresh vindication of the panentheistic views of von Guericke and Newton. However, when it comes to philosophically radical ideas, scientists will accept from mathematicians what they will not take from theologians.
THEOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS are antecedent to science and mathematics. Scientists taking inspiration from theology is a natural and well-attested phenomenon and some would argue that the seeds of a scientific culture could only have taken root in the soil of Christian theology. However inspiration in the reverse direction is altogether less convincing. An entire chapter is devoted to Wolfgang Pannenberg, a German theologian who died in 1994 and whom Cooper enlists in the ranks of the panentheists despite his recruit’s known reluctance to be thus conscripted. What makes me wince about Pannenberg is not his insistence that the God of the philosophers might take more than an engineering interest in the universe and choose to stand in an intense relationship to humanity, the summit of His Creation, but his purloining of precise mathematical concepts for imprecise use in theological contexts. The ubiquitous abuse of the scientific concept of energy in mystical pagan circles has made this sort of thing very familiar, but no less irritating. When Pannenberg writes “the spatialisation of time in physics – already in the model of space-time or a universal field comprising space-time and energy – may be described as an extrapolation of all limited participation in the eternal presence of God” one wonders whether Wittgenstein’s exhortation “whereof one cannot speak, thereof should one be silent” has been sufficiently heeded.
A writer, to whom this injunction certainly does not apply, at least as regards cosmic force fields, is the physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. However he does not tie his theological opinions to the metaphysics suggested by this or that mathematical development however sophisticated and useful the latter may be. He has an interesting variant on full-blown panentheism. On the one hand his view on the universe seems essentially Augustinian – all of it, matter, space and time, came into existence in one free creative act of God but the created is distinct from the Creator. Cooper quotes him thus. “Panentheism’s defect is its denial of the true otherness of the world from God.” However, he is eschatologically panentheistic – that is to say that the state of being, after the resurrection, described by orthodox Christianity with affirmations such as “with our glorified and immortal bodies we shall see God face to face”, is, in fact, a state of being subsumed into ontological unity with God.
TO RETURN TO the tensions between Athens and Jerusalem, the God of panentheism is not the God of the Christians because panentheism insufficiently acknowledges the singularity of the Incarnation in Christian orthodoxy. Christians are panentheists in the very limited sense that they believe that 2000 years ago God became man for a short period. Any wider identification of God with any part of nature weakens the force and radicalness of the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Although some of his best friends may be panentheists, Cooper, the biblical Christian, is not about to join them.
Readers will find this book is more a good browse than a good read. It does perform the useful function of describing the wistful religious sensibility which commends itself to the many who find appeal in the idea of a psychologically remote but omnipresent creative and supportive God, rather like a benign European government, and more congenial than the God of Christian orthodoxy who cares intensely about the life and eternal destiny of each human individual. One could wish that his treatment of the interaction of panentheism with the metaphysics of science had been fuller – or suspect that the whole book is perhaps too long for what it has to say and could profit by pruning. However I find myself not wishing to cavil that he has met his own aspiration for his book: “May all readers find it, on the whole, to be an instructive, fair and accurate presentation.”
♦
Thomas Conlon, Ph.D, is the author of Thinking about Nothing, a study of Otto von Guericke. He is currently working on a translation of von Guericke’s letters to the Jesuit Kaspar Schott in the late 1650s.
Also in the Fortnightly: Thomas Conlon on Otto von Guericke and…Nothing
Related
Publication: Sunday, 23 September 2012, at 22:37.
Options: Archive for Thomas Conlon. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback.