Saturday, 25 August 2007

Endings and Beginnings


Orcadia as in Orkney, but et in Arcadia ego ... refers, I think, to death, I am even to be found, says Death, in Arcady, the place of unsuspecting delight, not that I think that Orkney is Arcady: my friends, or at least some of them, think I am insane to move there, but I am not that insane. I do not yet know my way round this public/private space, what to say, what not to say, but Orkney lies some weeks in the future for us, the wife of one of my oldest friends has just died, the funeral is next week, I woke in the small hours of the night she died, with the palpable sense of her presence, that vivid knowledge of a person's essence that one sometimes feels, and my friend is grief-stricken. They have both gone on ahead of us ...

Here the Stourbridge house is filling with boxes ...

I have been reading Darwin's Angel by John Cornwell, a resp0nse to Dawkins' God Delusion:

Dawkin's negative critique is standard fare and accurate enough and so needs to be repeated constantly, and Dawkins needs alas no urging, but his serious failure lies in not making distinctions, not seeing the possibilities embedded in religious language and poetry. He quite properly insists that there is a difference between 'good' science and 'bad' science but seems to dismiss out of hand the possibility that there can be 'good' religion as well as 'bad'. He really does seem to be one of those who see poetry more generally as 'the merely decorative word' and not as a mode of exploratory thinking not necessarily available yet to him. Cornwell is good at pointing this out and investigating Dawkins' sources, which often bear a different meaning from the one he supposes. He is also good on death.

4 comments:

David Robjant said...

I liked this:

'Dawkins [...][is] one of those who see poetry more generally as 'the merely decorative word' and not as a mode of exploratory thinking not necessarily available yet to him.'

Because I think good deal about Iris Murdoch, it brings to my mind what she has to say about metaphor. I take it that her point about the metaphorical mode of thinking is more radical than the one you and Cornwell are after here. For her metaphor is 'fundamental' to thinking, for you merely 'available'. One way she has been taken is as exaggerating the point in order to defend availability, but I don't think that is entirely right.

I meant to thank you for an encouraging word at Gregynog which has lately produced results.

Has Murdoch come into your reading at all? David Cockburn, mentioning your Orkneying, sends his regards (and might forward my address).

Michael McGhee said...

David, greetings, it's been a long time! I'm sure I would want to go with Murdoch, who I know you have been working on. How is all that going? But my talk of availability is compatible with what she says, I think, hope ...

Anonymous said...

I'm so sorry, I left the room without a by your leave. And what an odd conversation this is, at intervals of years - at the time I was hoping you'd pick up my email address from DAC and further the metaphor question offblog. The work on IM goes rather well, from the point of view of publishing lots, but there is the little matter finding myself a job, before the age of 40, that doesn't involve a broom handle. some of my multiplying murdoch papers are listed here: http://philpapers.org/profile/24088 - on the metaphor question I recommend 'Nauseating Flux' forthcoming at the european journal of philosophy, also vaguely relevant 'The Earthy Realism of Plato's Metaphysics' in the current Philosophical Investigations - Good Orkneying to you

Michael McGhee said...

Thanks, David, I'm looking at this blog too rarely! David C came up and we had some good philosophy sessions, mentioning you and Murdoch. Will access the papers you mention ... hard times for jobs, alas