Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry.

Saving the Appearances is a book I have meant to read for about thirty years. It is a very useful discussion of "modern" thinking, though some of the issues addressed have been "solved", at least partially by "post-modern" approaches. Nevertheless, the book is an excellent marker of the road western thought has traveled in the last fifty years.

One of the most unduly under-appreciated books of the second half of the 20th century.

I finish this book thinking that it might have changed my life; if it has, I might not know it, since I don't understand lots of it, but I find my mind going back to play with the concepts, like an emerging tooth, probing just where my ignorance hurts, trying to tug the sure worthwhile thing out of the sting.

Barfield writes a history of consciousness from undifferentiation to differentiation. At first, humanity perceived themselves at one with all things (he names it, eventually, pantheism). Then, humans began to separate items out of that indiscriminate morass and think about them. Next, humans began to compile these various meditations into patterns. This necessarily separates the humans themselves from the things they analyze. We feel alienated from the world, individual. This is about where we are presently on the history of consciousness.

Barfield proposes, as best I understand it (and I write this review for myself as well, to nail these things to my memory), that only by the imaginative capacity, the creation of meaning (from within the human by the Spirit of God), can we achieve full participation in and unity with what we perceive around us, a mature participation of true knowledge, not the blind instinctive participation of the older time. We are evolving toward this final, spiritual participation--the sanctified imagination. At the same time, we fight off the tendency to create dead perceptions of reality and call them idols.

Those who object to this prescription as an element foreign to Barfield's more religiously innocuous historical commentary would do well to consider why Barfield believes humans originally participated with the world--we and nature are both perceptions of the Divine, and therefore related.

The terms are rather hazy in the book; this isn't my discipline, and I was still trying to decipher some bedrock vocabulary by page 127 (which is a very good page and clarified some things for me, although I spent a disproportionate amount of time on it). It's a mercilessly difficult read. Barfield does crack a joke in the second chapter; see if you can find it. Otherwise, matters are a bit murky, chiefly because of his terminology, which for definition relies on an equally opaque context.

Questions which remain for me: what exactly are idols? I'll have to read the book again sometime to find out. I understand (better) how the human race has evolved in consciousness as we relate to the world around us---how does this theory apply to our social relationships with other humans (and God)?

At any rate, this metanarrative carves a tremendous amount of sense from ancient, medieval, church, Romantic, scientific, and modern worldviews, and in some ways anticipates the postmodern, although I do not think Barfield would have predicted it or considered it an evolutionary advance. Consciousness is perhaps the fundamental issue of human existence. This book, despite its difficulty, explains consciousness better than anything else I've seen (which, I admit, may not say much for my outside reading).

I first read this book in college, having already read the author's "Poetic Diction" (and having had an experience reading it like the author's experience of awakening from a spell on first reading Romantic poetry). "Saving the Appearances" was stranger and even more thrilling, but I think I wasn't really able or willing to take it in at that time. Later, after reading Norman O. Brown's astonishing "Love's Body," and finding references to it, I went back to "Saving the Appearances" with more peace of heart and sat with it for longer periods.

Nothing could have seemed weirder or more exotic at that time than the suggestion that Catholic Christianity--Anglican, Roman, Eastern Orthodox or otherwise--had something profound and urgent to teach our generation, something quite different from what Buddhism had to teach, something about a dimension of reality about which Buddhism had not chosen to speak. It seemed to me then, as it still does now, many years later, one of the handful of truly important books published in the last century on the topic of "Christology," the heart of Christian existence.

Did he owe these insights to Rudolf Steiner? To the circle of Charles Williams, C. S. Lewis, and J. R. R. Tolkien? To his own spiritual experiences? I never followed up on these questions, though the book still seems to me a great treasure.

It taught me a perspective which I think we've scarcely yet begun to understand, although Norman O. Brown (and UC Santa Cruz) & others before him and after him have tried to bring it before our spaced out attention and to map its landscapes--a perspective through time, through history, a history of "geist" or "consciousness."

Is that mysterious time two millennia past merely a late entry in the unfolding of the axial age? Or was it the earliest sign of another age, a first light too long hid beneath a "sacred" bushel that we still have not entirely lifted and set aside? Did Jesus set in motion the gradual arrival of something like a second axial age? an age of incarnational mysticism? a trinitarian age?

I feel grateful to Owen Barfield for this small book that helped to light a path for me through dark times to some recovery of a hope in love & love's body. And to some recovery of trust in the world-shattering, world-disclosing emancipatory power of words.

I first ran across this book in a seminary course back in the mid -70's. I realized then that it gave me an intellectual handle on the basic religious thought process. It became foundational for me in my understanding of how we religious folk see our world and function in it. I think it is a terrific book for introducing people to one of the most basic principles of "religious thinking," if not to one of the most basic principles of cultural and social thought. It does have its drawbacks. I mean the author was English and has a fairly definite "Western" world-view, but once you get past that his basic approach is very useful as an introduction to what makes religious people "tick!" I highly recommend it!