In The Master and His Emissary, a book which challenges both popular misconceptions of hemispheric differences in the brain and the reactionary academic position that there is no difference, Iain McGilchrist argues that all we know is ultimately rooted in metaphor, and that metaphor is rooted in the body.
Very interesting. I certainly agree with your premise, but I must disagree with your conclusion. I think what this means is that God is essentially unknown. However, the mechanism of metaphor does allow us access to knowledge of things beyond our tangible experience. One is not born with knowledge of democracy; one acquires it by means of metaphors building on metaphors. So it is with God, and more so. We come into the world knowing nothing of God, but the things in this world teach us about God by analogy, so we can get to know him better and better.
Because God designed this world, he is able to put in it exactly the points of comparison we need to increase in knowledge of him. And we know that he has indeed done this, because he designed a world capable of containing his very image. Breath is an apt metaphor for spirit because it is one that God himself chose. In this, he did not create breath and then decide fterwards that it was a half decent metaphor for himself. Rather, he designed it to point to himself from the start.
In Christ, God has translated his fullness into human categories, without remainder. This does not mean that any man can ever fully comprehend God, but rather, I think, that there is nothing about God which cannot in principle be understood by a man.
'One is not born with knowledge of democracy; one acquires it by means of metaphors building on metaphors.' - Agreed, but the point here that McGilchrist makes is that eventually the metaphors will come to rest on tangible, physical things - here, the individual and other individuals.
I'm not at all saying that our analogical knowledge of God is untrue - God's metaphors are his and well-chosen. Rather, that since all our metaphors eventually become physical, and God isn't physical, he remains unknowable until the incarnation. And maybe still.
As for your last remark, I'll leave Augustine to reply: 'Si comprehendis, non es Deus.' If you understand it, it is not God.
Very interesting. I certainly agree with your premise, but I must disagree with your conclusion. I think what this means is that God is essentially unknown. However, the mechanism of metaphor does allow us access to knowledge of things beyond our tangible experience. One is not born with knowledge of democracy; one acquires it by means of metaphors building on metaphors. So it is with God, and more so. We come into the world knowing nothing of God, but the things in this world teach us about God by analogy, so we can get to know him better and better.
Because God designed this world, he is able to put in it exactly the points of comparison we need to increase in knowledge of him. And we know that he has indeed done this, because he designed a world capable of containing his very image. Breath is an apt metaphor for spirit because it is one that God himself chose. In this, he did not create breath and then decide fterwards that it was a half decent metaphor for himself. Rather, he designed it to point to himself from the start.
In Christ, God has translated his fullness into human categories, without remainder. This does not mean that any man can ever fully comprehend God, but rather, I think, that there is nothing about God which cannot in principle be understood by a man.
'One is not born with knowledge of democracy; one acquires it by means of metaphors building on metaphors.' - Agreed, but the point here that McGilchrist makes is that eventually the metaphors will come to rest on tangible, physical things - here, the individual and other individuals.
I'm not at all saying that our analogical knowledge of God is untrue - God's metaphors are his and well-chosen. Rather, that since all our metaphors eventually become physical, and God isn't physical, he remains unknowable until the incarnation. And maybe still.
As for your last remark, I'll leave Augustine to reply: 'Si comprehendis, non es Deus.' If you understand it, it is not God.