Notes on Marilynne Robinson's, When I was Child I read Books
Apophatic--knowledge of God obtained through negation (who knew there was a word for this!). I'm not sure however that I know what that means. KNowledge of God through what he is not?
She states, "the unnamed is overwhelmingly present and real for me" (p. 20). What does that mean? How can "the unnamed" be present? She says we "live on the island of the articulable, which we tend to mistake for reality itself" (p. 21). So perhaps, what she means is that much of the world is unknown to us but that is not the same as unnamed. We live in the world of the named, I would agree and I would also agree there is a world that is not named but not because we don't have the names for it but because we don't know it to name. But she seems to be suggesting she does know this unamed world. . .
There is no value but what we value (p. 55). What do we make a conscious choice to value? Money? How are we marking value? How are we transmitting value?
Argues that Calvinism in a "general sense" is largely responsible for liberal Protestantism (p. 65). And by liberal here she means "nonjudgmental, nonexclusive generosity" (p. 65)
"I am vehemently grateful that, by whatever means, I learned to assume that loneliness should be in part pleasure, sensitizing and clarifying and that it is even a truer bond among people than any kind of proximity" (p. 89)
"The significance of every human destiny is absolute and equal" (p. 90)
"Sylvie. . . expresses that fact that human nature is replete with nameless possibilities and, by implication, that the world is accessible to new ways of understanding" (p. 93)
"For one thing, we have no way of knowing the true nature of the reality in which we are immersed, of the substance of which we are composed" (p. 192). God is clearly a leap of faith for her since there is no way to know. However, we do know the substance of which we are composed. . .
Her work is most salient to me when she is not defending Christianity. Why not argue for her goals and leave behind what we believe in order to get there.
She states, "the unnamed is overwhelmingly present and real for me" (p. 20). What does that mean? How can "the unnamed" be present? She says we "live on the island of the articulable, which we tend to mistake for reality itself" (p. 21). So perhaps, what she means is that much of the world is unknown to us but that is not the same as unnamed. We live in the world of the named, I would agree and I would also agree there is a world that is not named but not because we don't have the names for it but because we don't know it to name. But she seems to be suggesting she does know this unamed world. . .
There is no value but what we value (p. 55). What do we make a conscious choice to value? Money? How are we marking value? How are we transmitting value?
Argues that Calvinism in a "general sense" is largely responsible for liberal Protestantism (p. 65). And by liberal here she means "nonjudgmental, nonexclusive generosity" (p. 65)
"I am vehemently grateful that, by whatever means, I learned to assume that loneliness should be in part pleasure, sensitizing and clarifying and that it is even a truer bond among people than any kind of proximity" (p. 89)
"The significance of every human destiny is absolute and equal" (p. 90)
"Sylvie. . . expresses that fact that human nature is replete with nameless possibilities and, by implication, that the world is accessible to new ways of understanding" (p. 93)
"For one thing, we have no way of knowing the true nature of the reality in which we are immersed, of the substance of which we are composed" (p. 192). God is clearly a leap of faith for her since there is no way to know. However, we do know the substance of which we are composed. . .
Her work is most salient to me when she is not defending Christianity. Why not argue for her goals and leave behind what we believe in order to get there.
Comments
Post a Comment