We seek the life of God, which moves among us, a life that is not ours but of which a living face, a living landscape, a living work, gives us a faint but eloquent sign.
How much more joyful are the biblical ways of speaking of God, compared with what theology can invent! The Bible is enough to convince us that God is marvelously other, infinitely beyond our intelligence, and that human language, in counting off his attributes, must not lead us to suppose that his justice, for instance, would be an oversize version of our own. As for God's being, which it is not appropriate to confuse with all the other beings that enter our experience, including ourselves: Does it not present itself to us precisely as a Life, which loves, which creates, which redeems, which judges, which draws near to and moves away from us? Instead of extracting an idea of God from the Bible, in regard to which one poses questions of theological philosophy by deploying a discourse that separates us from the "God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob" (as Pascal put it in the "Mémorial" of his late 1654 vision of the Lord), shouldn't we accept the ways of speaking of God that come to us from a civilization very different from our own? Shouldn't we nourish ourselves with each of these "names" of God, together if we can, but above all separately and in their biblical context, so as to encounter more and more intimately the Unnamable who condescended to be named? - Michael Edwards, The Bible and Poetry
Thanks. I share your deep longing to live in full harmony with the living world around me. I have to admit that I am sometimes sad that the world began in a garden and will end in a city (even though I'm told it will be a really beautiful city). Couldn't it be the other way around? Couldn't it end as a garden? That just appeals to me so much more...
Loved this one, AA! That description of you holding your son outside and the tree poem are poignant. I have not had as much time to read on Substack this summer, but I have been better inhabiting the ideals of this essay: finding stillness in the trees, lulled by the waves, seeing my sons get excited about birdsong and the phases of the moon. There is so much good magic around us.
Great meditations on very important themes. Have you read classical Stoic ideas about the unity of the cosmos, in particular Marcus Aurelius's Meditations? He writes about natural phenomena, even confronting ones, as beautiful, simply because they contribute to the great cosmic arrangement: 'The same goes for ears of wheat bending downwards; a lion’s frown; the foam dripping from a wild boar’s mouth, and many other things. They are hardly graceful on their own, but as arising from nature, they contribute to its beauty and attractiveness. So to a sensitive person with a deep enough understanding of the whole of nature, almost nothing will fail to appear, even while a contingent outcome, as a pleasing component of the whole arrangement' (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 3.2, my version).
your words are like breaths of fresh air. i love your ending conclusion. to accept that we are made in the Creator’s image would be to accept a larger responsibility, and not all of us feel ready. your poem “treeborn” is absolutely lovely and nostalgic. trees that are in places close to us tend to have an impact on us. there’s something about them.
Hey – interesting! Thanks. I hope you don’t mind me cordially dissenting on a couple of points off the top of my head?
Lewis and the argument for desire – I think that problem is dealt with easily by evolution; we desire because it is useful for our species to desire, or we desire as a side effect of something which is useful, or we desire as a kind of penalty for something which is useful ... in any case, it has to be evolutionary in origin (which is not to say it is simple, by any means, but it is explicable without God).
Do we need to posit a creator, like the Christian God, to be in communion with the entire universe? I suggest not. I feel that love, that awe, and I do not consider myself religious.
In terms of primordial man, I think we should be wary of romanticising the past. I was reminded of a brilliant passage in the David Deutsch book The Beginning of Infinity, which I read last year. This is from p48 of the paperback:
“Nearly the whole of the Earth’s biosphere in its primeval state was likewise incapable of keeping an unprotected human alive for long. It would be much more accurate to call it (this planet) a death trap for humans rather than a life-support system. Even the Great Rift Valley in eastern Africa, where our species evolved, was barely more hospitable than primeval Oxfordshire … (it) lacked a safe water supply, and medical equipment, and comfortable living quarters, and was infested with predators, parasites, and disease organisms. It frequently injured, poisoned, drenched, starved, and sickened its ‘passengers’, and most of them died as a result”
I actually think the Enlightenment has started to cure those ills, which come from the fact of us being mammals dependent on this planet, evolved with this planet (and religion never has solved those ills, and they are not trivial).
Unless I am misunderstanding your argument (please correct me if so), I do not agree with your assertion, which I know is a religious one, that there was a perfect time in the past when, as you say, “man’s mind was one with creation”, because I see no evidence to support that assertion (if you are going to Genesis, we will agree to disagree).
I also do not agree entirely with your life/non-life distinction. I am not a physics expert (understatement of the year) but I know that waves and forces and particles are what everything is made of, whether that is a star or the cat on my terrace. Biological life having a distinction: yes, of course. But we're really talking about levels of life, aren't we? Or a very human-centric way of thinking about life (which is justified, and inevitable, I add).
I have also been interested in Buddhism for a few years and I have also learned that this false distinction between life/non-life is a source of alienation/suffering, as is the notion that we humans are in some way separate from nature (the positing of supernatural Gods helps to keep us separate, one could argue). Of course we are not separate. We are part of nature. Just as you state the power of metaphor in Buddhism (the waves in the ocean etc), I think the notions found in the OT and NT (Christianity happens to be the religion I know about, having grown up on England and gone to Christian schools) can only reasonably be understood as metaphors. I don’t think Zen implores us to be “static”; I think it implores us to notice what is real (and I confess I am also no expert on Zen BTW).
I think you slightly misrepresent the Enlightenment. My understanding of the main urge of the Enlightenment (influenced a lot by reading Pinker, for example) is not that we should become “tools”, but that we should use reason to access reality as best we can (explanations, Deutsch calls them).
I totally agree, though, with your rejection of the “humans are a cancer” (“plague” is another popular anti-human word) narrative. We are no more a plague than any other feature of the natural world (or, indeed, universe). Our cities and stories are as much an emanation of nature as a tree or a rock. There is no hierarchy for me: I will no more claim human beings are "superior" to pigs than I will claim human-beings are "inferior" to dolphins.
Okay well I'll do my best to respond to what I can! In the spirit of friendly conversation with an intelligent reader of course...
So I think Lewis's argument from desire is his attempt to point beyond basic evolutionary biology. Basically that because he longs for a heaven or a saviour or a perfect God, that implies such a thing exists.
Do we need God in order to be in communion with nature? Probably not, the animistic religions of the world all seem to get this part without a singular God (though you would be surprised how many indigenous religions do have a creator God in their mythos, I've come across more than a few in my travels and research).
Good point re primordial man. I am probably being overly romantic. But I do think there are still traditional indeigenous cultures whom are more tuned in to the natural world because of how they live, and so I'm extrapolating backwards to a time when my primordial 'Adam and Eve' maybe got a break from all the misery of survival and got to enjoy their communion and mastery of creation.
I am also an imperfect student of Buddhism and Zen Buddhism, but from my reading and experience visiting Japan a few times, there is a 'deadness' which is a desire for stillness which, when reading The Snow Leopard, struck me as antithetical to what it means to be, as you say part of the natural world. I find it to be more alienating than, say, believing a Creator God fashioned humanity from the same particles of this natural world with the intention of humanity as stewards of creation. But, of course, to each his own.
As much as we all enjoy many of the fruits of the Enlightenment, I do think it has led to a commodifcation, exploitation, and disrespect of nature and our intended place in it. And also lays the groundwork for the overcorrection the other way, where we are somehow a plague on the world. The concept that makes more sense to me is that we are part of nature, but given our higher faculties and abilities, charged with a responsibility for it.
Hope that helps clarify a little! Thanks for the in-depth read and measured and respectful response.
Yes, I actually think we agree on most of that (man vs nature angle, humans are not a plague, we have a responsibilty etc) but ... I am not a believer in a creator God, which I think you are ...
I still do not buy the Lewis argument (if I understand it correctly) that our longing for something means that that something therefore exists ...
I don't think you can lay the blame for commodification, exploitation and disrespect for nature at the door of the Enlightenment, any more than you can blame God for priests raping children or suicide bombers or baby girls being murdered because they are not boys ... humans with bad ideas contrary to Enlightenment ideals did those things ... usually very religious people ...
The fact those three evils (commodification, exploitation and disrespect for nature) were arguably more widespread before the Enlightenment is worth considering (and I am sure that rampant, unchecked capitalism tied to rampant, unchecked consumerism is much more to blame than the Enlightenment; China has never really enjoyed all the fruits of the Enlightenment and yet is plagued with commodification, exploitation and disrespect for nature).
I don't feel it is alienating to feel I am a human experiencing reality without a creator God. I can feel beautifully connected to this planet, to all life, and the universe.
But it is interesting that I think we agree on a lot, the only difference being the small matter of a creator God!
I think it's no coincidence that the beginning of your deeper dive into desire intensified in that moment you experienced with your infant son on your chest. There's something about those sacred quiet moments with our miracles of co-creation resting with us. It's like a small glimpse, an echo of the beautiful existence we're meant for. Loved reading every bit of this!
Have you read any Jen-Luc Marion? He writes in the phenomenological tradition but in “God Without Being” speaks of several themes in this essay. Thank you for the essay!
Beautiful piece, brother. Same page.
Standing on your shoulders my man
Great piece and amazing poem. Thanks!
You are my quickest reader! Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed
Your posting schedule aligns perfectly with my lunch break
We seek the life of God, which moves among us, a life that is not ours but of which a living face, a living landscape, a living work, gives us a faint but eloquent sign.
How much more joyful are the biblical ways of speaking of God, compared with what theology can invent! The Bible is enough to convince us that God is marvelously other, infinitely beyond our intelligence, and that human language, in counting off his attributes, must not lead us to suppose that his justice, for instance, would be an oversize version of our own. As for God's being, which it is not appropriate to confuse with all the other beings that enter our experience, including ourselves: Does it not present itself to us precisely as a Life, which loves, which creates, which redeems, which judges, which draws near to and moves away from us? Instead of extracting an idea of God from the Bible, in regard to which one poses questions of theological philosophy by deploying a discourse that separates us from the "God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob" (as Pascal put it in the "Mémorial" of his late 1654 vision of the Lord), shouldn't we accept the ways of speaking of God that come to us from a civilization very different from our own? Shouldn't we nourish ourselves with each of these "names" of God, together if we can, but above all separately and in their biblical context, so as to encounter more and more intimately the Unnamable who condescended to be named? - Michael Edwards, The Bible and Poetry
Beautiful! Another book to add to my list
Thanks. I share your deep longing to live in full harmony with the living world around me. I have to admit that I am sometimes sad that the world began in a garden and will end in a city (even though I'm told it will be a really beautiful city). Couldn't it be the other way around? Couldn't it end as a garden? That just appeals to me so much more...
Maybe it will be a garden city? Here's two of us hoping at least
Loved this one, AA! That description of you holding your son outside and the tree poem are poignant. I have not had as much time to read on Substack this summer, but I have been better inhabiting the ideals of this essay: finding stillness in the trees, lulled by the waves, seeing my sons get excited about birdsong and the phases of the moon. There is so much good magic around us.
Thank you my friend! Keep enjoying your summer
Great meditations on very important themes. Have you read classical Stoic ideas about the unity of the cosmos, in particular Marcus Aurelius's Meditations? He writes about natural phenomena, even confronting ones, as beautiful, simply because they contribute to the great cosmic arrangement: 'The same goes for ears of wheat bending downwards; a lion’s frown; the foam dripping from a wild boar’s mouth, and many other things. They are hardly graceful on their own, but as arising from nature, they contribute to its beauty and attractiveness. So to a sensitive person with a deep enough understanding of the whole of nature, almost nothing will fail to appear, even while a contingent outcome, as a pleasing component of the whole arrangement' (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 3.2, my version).
I have not read much Aurelius! But that is a very beautiful passage so I’ll have to check it out
your words are like breaths of fresh air. i love your ending conclusion. to accept that we are made in the Creator’s image would be to accept a larger responsibility, and not all of us feel ready. your poem “treeborn” is absolutely lovely and nostalgic. trees that are in places close to us tend to have an impact on us. there’s something about them.
Thank you Eugenia! You absolutely got what I was going for here. May we keep being drawn up and in toward being stewards of Creation.
This was a stunning read, thanks for sharing! Feeling inspired to go touch some grass 🌱
best way to get in touch with creation is to literally touch creation!
Have you read Owen Barfield at all? His philosophy of consciousness resonates with much of your writing here. I loved his book “Poetic Diction”
I’ve only ever come at him obliquely (often through @Ross Byrd). I need to sit down and read him directly sometime…
Yeah, the beginning of your piece, especially the bit about the bear, has some major Barfield vibes. Love it.
so what's your favorite jhāna?
Fifth obvs (but no Jhana in Zen m'boy, Zen is the dhanya)
such a good post, full of insight
why thank you hambeans
when I grow up I wanna be like you
I think you're well on your way to be something greater!
:')
Looking forward to reading this.
Looking forward to you reading this.
Hey – interesting! Thanks. I hope you don’t mind me cordially dissenting on a couple of points off the top of my head?
Lewis and the argument for desire – I think that problem is dealt with easily by evolution; we desire because it is useful for our species to desire, or we desire as a side effect of something which is useful, or we desire as a kind of penalty for something which is useful ... in any case, it has to be evolutionary in origin (which is not to say it is simple, by any means, but it is explicable without God).
Do we need to posit a creator, like the Christian God, to be in communion with the entire universe? I suggest not. I feel that love, that awe, and I do not consider myself religious.
In terms of primordial man, I think we should be wary of romanticising the past. I was reminded of a brilliant passage in the David Deutsch book The Beginning of Infinity, which I read last year. This is from p48 of the paperback:
“Nearly the whole of the Earth’s biosphere in its primeval state was likewise incapable of keeping an unprotected human alive for long. It would be much more accurate to call it (this planet) a death trap for humans rather than a life-support system. Even the Great Rift Valley in eastern Africa, where our species evolved, was barely more hospitable than primeval Oxfordshire … (it) lacked a safe water supply, and medical equipment, and comfortable living quarters, and was infested with predators, parasites, and disease organisms. It frequently injured, poisoned, drenched, starved, and sickened its ‘passengers’, and most of them died as a result”
I actually think the Enlightenment has started to cure those ills, which come from the fact of us being mammals dependent on this planet, evolved with this planet (and religion never has solved those ills, and they are not trivial).
Unless I am misunderstanding your argument (please correct me if so), I do not agree with your assertion, which I know is a religious one, that there was a perfect time in the past when, as you say, “man’s mind was one with creation”, because I see no evidence to support that assertion (if you are going to Genesis, we will agree to disagree).
I also do not agree entirely with your life/non-life distinction. I am not a physics expert (understatement of the year) but I know that waves and forces and particles are what everything is made of, whether that is a star or the cat on my terrace. Biological life having a distinction: yes, of course. But we're really talking about levels of life, aren't we? Or a very human-centric way of thinking about life (which is justified, and inevitable, I add).
I have also been interested in Buddhism for a few years and I have also learned that this false distinction between life/non-life is a source of alienation/suffering, as is the notion that we humans are in some way separate from nature (the positing of supernatural Gods helps to keep us separate, one could argue). Of course we are not separate. We are part of nature. Just as you state the power of metaphor in Buddhism (the waves in the ocean etc), I think the notions found in the OT and NT (Christianity happens to be the religion I know about, having grown up on England and gone to Christian schools) can only reasonably be understood as metaphors. I don’t think Zen implores us to be “static”; I think it implores us to notice what is real (and I confess I am also no expert on Zen BTW).
I think you slightly misrepresent the Enlightenment. My understanding of the main urge of the Enlightenment (influenced a lot by reading Pinker, for example) is not that we should become “tools”, but that we should use reason to access reality as best we can (explanations, Deutsch calls them).
I totally agree, though, with your rejection of the “humans are a cancer” (“plague” is another popular anti-human word) narrative. We are no more a plague than any other feature of the natural world (or, indeed, universe). Our cities and stories are as much an emanation of nature as a tree or a rock. There is no hierarchy for me: I will no more claim human beings are "superior" to pigs than I will claim human-beings are "inferior" to dolphins.
Thanks again for the interesting read!
Okay well I'll do my best to respond to what I can! In the spirit of friendly conversation with an intelligent reader of course...
So I think Lewis's argument from desire is his attempt to point beyond basic evolutionary biology. Basically that because he longs for a heaven or a saviour or a perfect God, that implies such a thing exists.
Do we need God in order to be in communion with nature? Probably not, the animistic religions of the world all seem to get this part without a singular God (though you would be surprised how many indigenous religions do have a creator God in their mythos, I've come across more than a few in my travels and research).
Good point re primordial man. I am probably being overly romantic. But I do think there are still traditional indeigenous cultures whom are more tuned in to the natural world because of how they live, and so I'm extrapolating backwards to a time when my primordial 'Adam and Eve' maybe got a break from all the misery of survival and got to enjoy their communion and mastery of creation.
Re Life vs Non-Life, I'm mostly drawing on the concept of negentropy, and how Life is particularly unusual in our big universe of physics equations. There’s a decent Atlantic article on this which I found fascinating: The Truth Physics Can No Longer Ignore - https://www.theatlantic.com/science/2025/12/physics-life-reductionism-complexity/685257/?gift=nKPU7QN7Z88ulNd5xl9tdoaaaMuAxu9ZtqBycW3mNzE&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
I am also an imperfect student of Buddhism and Zen Buddhism, but from my reading and experience visiting Japan a few times, there is a 'deadness' which is a desire for stillness which, when reading The Snow Leopard, struck me as antithetical to what it means to be, as you say part of the natural world. I find it to be more alienating than, say, believing a Creator God fashioned humanity from the same particles of this natural world with the intention of humanity as stewards of creation. But, of course, to each his own.
As much as we all enjoy many of the fruits of the Enlightenment, I do think it has led to a commodifcation, exploitation, and disrespect of nature and our intended place in it. And also lays the groundwork for the overcorrection the other way, where we are somehow a plague on the world. The concept that makes more sense to me is that we are part of nature, but given our higher faculties and abilities, charged with a responsibility for it.
Hope that helps clarify a little! Thanks for the in-depth read and measured and respectful response.
Thanks for the response to the response!
Yes, I actually think we agree on most of that (man vs nature angle, humans are not a plague, we have a responsibilty etc) but ... I am not a believer in a creator God, which I think you are ...
I still do not buy the Lewis argument (if I understand it correctly) that our longing for something means that that something therefore exists ...
I don't think you can lay the blame for commodification, exploitation and disrespect for nature at the door of the Enlightenment, any more than you can blame God for priests raping children or suicide bombers or baby girls being murdered because they are not boys ... humans with bad ideas contrary to Enlightenment ideals did those things ... usually very religious people ...
The fact those three evils (commodification, exploitation and disrespect for nature) were arguably more widespread before the Enlightenment is worth considering (and I am sure that rampant, unchecked capitalism tied to rampant, unchecked consumerism is much more to blame than the Enlightenment; China has never really enjoyed all the fruits of the Enlightenment and yet is plagued with commodification, exploitation and disrespect for nature).
I don't feel it is alienating to feel I am a human experiencing reality without a creator God. I can feel beautifully connected to this planet, to all life, and the universe.
But it is interesting that I think we agree on a lot, the only difference being the small matter of a creator God!
I think it's no coincidence that the beginning of your deeper dive into desire intensified in that moment you experienced with your infant son on your chest. There's something about those sacred quiet moments with our miracles of co-creation resting with us. It's like a small glimpse, an echo of the beautiful existence we're meant for. Loved reading every bit of this!
Have you read any Jen-Luc Marion? He writes in the phenomenological tradition but in “God Without Being” speaks of several themes in this essay. Thank you for the essay!
I have not, but it sounds like I need to! Adding to my list...
1. these paintings are gorgeous
2. a kookaburra having a "chainsaw laugh" is SO accurate
Thank you my friend, glad it gets your antipodean stamp of approval
which part was the most simplistic do you think
maybe you didn’t read all the way to the end
this seems unnecessarily rude
how about you read it again and see if you can find the word buddhism or zen