A former student of mine has been coming into the ASC where I work, and in the process of conducting research for her senior thesis, she has been giving me the wonderful opportunity to discuss all things Chesterton, and Chesterton like (or as she would say, Chestertonian). Anyways, she recently responded to one of my older posts, and in responding to her response, I wrote something I thought I would share as a post. So, I give you the following…
Rachel – Thanks for the line from Chesterton. I think it very much gets at the heart of what I am saying in this post.
Again and again, I am struck by the idea that there is another way of looking at the world, a way that goes beyond the reach of reason, particularly discursive reason. I think it’s appropriate to call this way the mystical, but I resist this designation, because it has connotations that I eschew. Generally, the mystical conjures up ideas of something that is fuzzy, or insubstantial, or it is viewed as a term we merely hang upon phenomena we don’t understand. Along with resisting this term, I resist speaking about my intuition regarding this matter as I cannot rationally support it. I am one who values intelligence, and in our culture rational capacity has co-opted what it means to be intelligent. I realize that this resistance is grounded on my pride, and that what I need is not rational proofs to support my intuition, but rather the courage to speak it. I need the courage to stand with God whose foolishness confounds the wise.
In the end, I acknowledge that reason is a powerful gift of God, but as Lewis says, the greater the angel, the worse a demon when it falls. When reason functions as god, it absolutely wrecks everything, but when it functions as an obedient angel, it can gloriously explicate the world. In light of all this, I will throw my lot in with the Lord, who said that the Kingdom is wide open for those who are willing to become as little children.
The quote from Chesterton that Rachel gave is:
There is a line from the eye to the heart that does not pass through the intellect.
And, the original post is “The Meaning of Color”