Chapter 10
As Casaubon
discusses his young cousin’s search for a vocation, the language sounds to me
like 21st century jargon for a kind of New Age spirituality:
Genius, he held, is necessarily intolerant of fetters: on the one hand it
must have the utmost play for its spontaneity; on the other, it may confidently
await those messages from the universe which summon it to its peculiar work,
only placing itself in an attitude of receptivity towards all sublime chances.
Does this language
sound familiar? Await the messages from
the universe. I hear people today talk about how “the universe” is leading
them; or asking “the universe” for help. It’s a substitution for theistic
language. So many folk these days have trouble talking about “God” as a Being
up there somewhere. Theistic language sounds too childish or like belief in a
fantasy. So a more scientific and blurry term is used: universe. I did not know
this terminology was used in the 19th century. Casaubon goes on:
The superadded circumstance which would evolve the genius had not yet
come; the universe had not yet beckoned.
An added dimension.
“God” is replaced, but like God, the universe “beckons.” So, the call of God is
now the call of the universe. Eliot hangs on to a notion of “calling.”
Will [Casaubon’s cousin] saw clearly enough the pitiable instances of
long incubation producing no chick, and but for gratitude would have laughed at
Casaubon, whose plodding application, rows of note-books, and small taper of
learned theory exploring the tossed ruins of the world, seemed to enforce a
moral entirely encouraging to Will's generous reliance on the intentions of the
universe with regard to himself.
Now the universe has
“intentions.” Sounds like “the will of God” rewritten to assuage anti-theistic
prejudices. Is this Eliot’s own view? That the universe has “intentions” and
“calls” people to their purpose in life?
Two hundred years
before Eliot was writing this great novel, the philosophers Leibniz and Spinoza
were offering two different concepts of God. Spinoza’s God was Nature itself.
All Substance was God, and God was all Substance. We call this view pantheism. This was probably the view
that Albert Einstein held too. Leibniz, on the other hand, argued for the more
traditional God—a God who has a mind and a will. A God who makes choices; a
personal God.
It appears that
George Eliot and 21st century folk are trying to have it their cake
and eat it too. “The universe” indicates a non-personal reality—a kind of
substitute for a theistic God. Yet, if the universe has intentions for us, some kind of theistic notion slips back in. Make
up your mind. Is there an Ultimate Intelligence (Mind) that relates to life, or
is life a meaningless roll of the dice? I think those are the only two
alternatives.
On page 83 is the a
clear mention of the historical context.
For in that part of the country, before Reform had done its notable part
in developing the political consciousness, there was a clearer distinction of
ranks and a dimmer distinction of parties…
The country is in
transition. Reform is taking place. Distinctions and ranks are being broken
down. A more democratic spirit is arising. The old feudal class system is
eroding.
No comments:
Post a Comment