> Panentheism exists in Narnia. Not only is it a land overflowing with natural beauty, but its talking trees, talking beasts, fauns and centaurs are on par with its humans. It is easier to sense the divine in animals and trees that can converse with you. The landscape is stunning: the crystal-like purity of the winter snow, the deep blue of the sea, the panorama of mountains and valleys and forests spread beneath you when you are up in the sky astride a flying horse.
'Pantheism' is the belief that everything is God. C.S. Lewis was an outspoken Theist. He believed there was a clear separation between the creator and the creation. The creation simply reflects the beauty of God. If I had to explain it I would say it's like the relationship between Johny Ives and the iPhone. An iPhone is beautiful because it was designed by a master, not because the iPhone is actually Sir Johnathan Ives in disguise.
C.S. Lewis did not intend for his books to be read through a Hindu worldview. I can't imagine he would intentionally create a pantheistic world. Does that make this interpretation meaningless?
> C.S. Lewis did not intend for his books to be read through a Hindu worldview. I can't imagine he would intentionally create a pantheistic world. Does that make this interpretation meaningless?
Did God intend to create a pantheistic world? Does that make Shintoism meaningless?
I'd say the interpretation is more interesting than the intention behind works of art. While the artist matter, once something is published/viewed etc, it also belongs to the beholder.
> C.S. Lewis did not intend for his books to be read through a Hindu worldview. I can't imagine he would intentionally create a pantheistic world. Does that make this interpretation meaningless?
The connection between Christ and the myth of Dionysus is an undeniable embarrassment; and many other pagan stories and motifs find expression in the lives of the saints and the works of Christian artists. The artist is often but a cipher; driven by a combination of emotion and aesthetics and idealism to use certain symbols, but not comprehending the depth thereof, despite extensive training and firm beliefs. This suggests that symbols really stand on their own.
One sees evidence of this not only in the history of Christianity but also in the cross-cultural relevance of the Aarne-Thompson types. The comparative method -- which places substantial weight on the symbolic content of the stories themselves -- seems to be the best way to understand how stories fit together and why they resonate with people the way that they do.
The artist doesn't get to choose how people react to their art.
C.S. Lewis takes on the issue of subjectivism in his book "The Abolition of Man". He takes a pretty close look at the ethical repercussions of moral subjectivity. It's a fairly quick read and I think it's even available online because it's out of copyright.
It's not by any means a direct rebuttal of your comment, but right at the beginning of the book I think there's an example that's germane to this current conversation. You may find it interesting.
After skimming a few pages, I don't read it as a critique against all subjectivism -- more of a critique of simple subjectivism. Lewis holds up some books as examples of "true" art, and so holds his subjective view as superior to the schoolbook example he disparages. Just as there is crap art, there is crap critique.
> C.S. Lewis did not intend for his books to be read through a Hindu worldview. I can't imagine he would intentionally create a pantheistic world. Does that make this interpretation meaningless?
This argument could be extended to any work of literature written more than, say, a century ago. Nobody writing before World War I would expect their writings to be read by people well-versed in postmodern[0] or postcolonial philosophy, even though any sophomore English major in college is more than familiar with these schools of thought.
It is not meaningless, because works of literature can serve a purpose beyond that which the author originally intended. (Taken to the extreme, once can say that "the author is dead" - once the work has been put out into the world, the person who wrote it figuratively ceases to exist as an agent[1].)
[0] By definition, the Modern era was still in full swing at the time
[1] This assumes a discretized model of literature, which is decreasingly applicable today[2], but the general line of thinking is still useful[3].
[2] This phrase was first used by a post-structuralist - the post-structuralism movement is still technically going on, but most of its original thinkers are now dead (most recently Umberto Eco), so it's being superseded by other ways of thinking.
[3] Which, incidentally, proves the original point - a work of literature can be useful when viewed from a lens that would have been anachronistic (or anatopistic) for the original author.
'Pantheism' is the belief that everything is God. C.S. Lewis was an outspoken Theist. He believed there was a clear separation between the creator and the creation. The creation simply reflects the beauty of God. If I had to explain it I would say it's like the relationship between Johny Ives and the iPhone. An iPhone is beautiful because it was designed by a master, not because the iPhone is actually Sir Johnathan Ives in disguise.
C.S. Lewis did not intend for his books to be read through a Hindu worldview. I can't imagine he would intentionally create a pantheistic world. Does that make this interpretation meaningless?