Paper on entelechy

My paper on entelechy as a measure of health is complete and published on scribd.com.
I have one last paper to do this term on group dynamics. I'm not sure of the precise topic yet, perhaps theological / philosophical implications of scapegoating with Jung's concept of archetypal inflation.

Paper on Jungian psychology

My term paper on Jungian psychology and Thomism is finished. It's available on scribd.com at the above link.
My next writing project I believe will be focused on entelechy as a measure of health.

Americanism

In another place, a poster remarked:
"You are right that the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are core to the "American dream" and political philosophy"

Truer words are rarely spoken.
My reply:
Let's see how un-Christian this philosophy is

1. life - βιος or ζωη ?
Life, as construed by the founders and modern Americans consists in freedom from unjust death. This corresponds to the first Greek word - meaning biological life. The state of animation. This is base and far inferior to ζωη, which is life in the Christian sense. Eternal, spiritual life. (cf. John 6:35)
The former can be lost, indeed will be lost inevitably.
"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell"(Matt 10:28).
ζωη cannot be affected by any human, or demonic power unless we allow it.
(cf. Matt 18:8).


2. liberty
Freedom. Negative or positive. The former is the dominant definition in modernity. To be free from compulsion, to determine one's own behavior.
It's opposite is slavery - to be owned by another and have one's actions determined by outside agency. This is rooted in the concept of dominium and the social contract as defined by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.
This has nothing to do with Christianity. Arguably it's the very essence of original sin. Non serviam (cf. Jer 2).
Christian freedom is positive - to be free to fulfill one's duties in life. To be free to seek the truth. It's opposite is slavery to sin, to be compelled by internal force (i.e. concupiscence) (cf. John 8).
This is the freedom St. Paul speaks of to slaves because no outside force can threaten it (cf. Gal 4:31).

3) the pursuit of happiness
What is happiness is the key here.
Happiness to the modern mind is satisfaction of desire (typically base, essentially Epicurean).
Freud defines happiness as lack of stimulation, a "nirvanic principle"(the decidedly pagan (Stoic) notion of divine απαθεια ) .
The English word "happy" derives from the Old English "hap", meaning "chance" (as in "happenstace")
None of these definitions is acceptable to Christianity.
Jesus Christ defines happiness as beatitudo (Matt 5:3-11):

beati pauperes spiritu quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum
μακαριοι οι πτωχοι τω πνευματι οτι αυτων εστιν η βασιλεια των ουρανων

beati mites quoniam ipsi possidebunt terram
μακαριοι οι πενθουντες οτι αυτοι παρακληθησονται

beati qui lugent quoniam ipsi consolabuntur
μακαριοι οι πραεις οτι αυτοι κληρονομησουσιν την γην

beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam quoniam ipsi saturabuntur
μακαριοι οι πεινωντες και διψωντες την δικαιοσυνην οτι αυτοι χορτασθησονται

beati misericordes quia ipsi misericordiam consequentur
μακαριοι οι ελεημονες οτι αυτοι ελεηθησονται

beati mundo corde quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt
μακαριοι οι καθαροι τη καρδια οτι αυτοι τον θεον οψονται

beati pacifici quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur
μακαριοι οι ειρηνοποιοι οτι αυτοι υιοι θεου κληθησονται

beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum
μακαριοι οι δεδιωγμενοι ενεκεν δικαιοσυνης οτι αυτων εστιν η βασιλεια των ουρανων

beati estis cum maledixerint vobis et persecuti vos fuerint et dixerint omne malum adversum vos mentientes propter me
μακαριοι εστε οταν ονειδισωσιν υμας και διωξωσιν και ειπωσιν παν πονηρον ρημα καθ υμων ψευδομενοι ενεκεν εμου


The Greek is μακαριοι. This is the Greek understanding of happiness, a better word would be blessedness. For instance, in Homer, Achilles is "μακαριοι" (blessed) because his mother is Thetis and he is favored by Hera, a minor goddess and queen of the gods respectively.
This is the poetic form. To the Greek, happiness meant ευδαιμονια; "good guardian spirit", literally. The Greeks believed one is born with a destiny and a spirit ( δαιμον ) to guide one to it. For instance Socrates, through the pen of Plato, talks of a spirit which warns him not to do certain things. To break down the word, ευ = good; δαιμονια =spiritual; ια= a lasting state.
Aristotle speaks of ευδαιμονια through αρετη. The life of virtue. One must be good to be happy. It comes only through a moral life.
St. Thomas demonstrates that happiness comes only through αρετη by addressing the most commonly sought objects of happiness - wealth, pleasure, power, and health (I think there are two others but they escape me at the moment).
When we put these together we get an awfully unChristian picture.
Pursuit of biological life, negative freedom and the satisfaction of desire.

It is plain that this document and the ideology that spawned it has nothing to do with Christianity and is fact opposed to its essential principles and teachings.
The society that does not engage in παιδεια cannot expect happiness. Happiness comes only through αρετη and αρετη comes only through παιδεια.
We, in the modern West, are only interested in instrumental education. That is the "leading out" of skills. We are in full rebellion to the very essence of εκπαιδεύστε as it was understood for 1900+ years and we are reaping what we sow.

For love shall be the lord of all

And then he took the cross divine,
Where the sun shines fair on Carlisle wall,
And died for her sake in Palestine;
So Love was still the lord of all.

Now all ye lovers, that faithful prove,
(The sun shines fair on Carlisle wall)
Pray for their souls who died for love,
For Love shall still be lord of all!
-Sir Walter Scott
The English Ladye and the Knight


I don't do apologetics. Or rather I don't do it very well. Primarily because I view it has a thoroughly modern project. Apologetics appeals to a "universal reason" in an attempt to prove a faith commitment. This cannot be done. I was reminded of this last week in a discussion with a peer at my seminary. We ended up discussing authority and obedience in the Church. As he is a protestant its a given we don't share the same ecclesiology but as it turns out this peer does not believe in the divinity of Christ or the inerrancy of the scriptures. At that point I realize that we are not going to get to any sort of resolution in our disagreement, we don't share the same first principles.

In any given narrative there are first principles which cannot be demonstrated. Each narrative is a (largely) coherent logical structure built from those first principles.
A second problem is the modern contamination of dialogue with nominalism (exacerbated by postmodern deconstructionism) . As soon as I attribute a name to my narrative, Christian for instance, many someones will immediately challenge my use of the term. Narratives are of course shared and therefore must possess something of a universal character, when I reserve the right to redefine words for myself I have abandoned the possibility of dialogue.

Today over at Ignatius Insight they posted a few paragraphs excerpted from the Holy Father's newly published (but not newly written) book Faith and the Future

"Today at the most sensitive points of society, that is in literature and its portrayal of man, we are beginning to find an unexpected verification of the gruesome visions of Dostoyevsky of a world without God, and of how that world turns into a madman's dream.

The man who wants to limit himself to what is knowable in exact terms is caught up in the crisis of reality: he beholds the withdrawal of truth. Within himself he hears the cry of faith, which the spirit of the hour has not been able to stifle, but has only made all the more dramatic. There is a cry for liberation from the prison of positivism, as there is, too, for liberation from a form of faith that has allowed itself to become a burden instead of the vehicle of freedom.

This brings us at last to the point at which the question can be put: How is such a faith to be created? First let us remark: faith is not a diluted form of natural science, an ancient or medieval preparatory stage that must vanish when the real thing turns up, but is something essentially different.

It is not provisional knowledge, although we do use the word in this sense also when we say, for example, "I believe that is so." In such a case "believing" means "being of the opinion." But when we say, "I believe you," the word acquires quite another meaning. It means the same as, "I trust you," or even as much as, "I rely upon you."

The you, in which I put reliance, provides me with a certainty that is different from but no less than the certainty that comes from calculation and experiment. And it is thus that the word is used in the Christian Credo. The basic form of Christian faith is not: I believe something, but I believe you. Faith is a disclosure of reality that is granted only to him who trusts, loves, and acts as a human being; and as such it is not a derivative of knowledge, but is sui generis, like knowledge, although it is indeed more basic and more central to our authentically human nature than knowledge is.

'This insight has important consequences; and these can be liberating, if taken seriously. For this means that faith is not primarily a colossal edifice of numerous supernatural facts, standing like a curious second order of knowledge alongside the realm of science, but an assent to God who gives us hope and confidence. "

Faith (πιστις) is always transitive in the New Testament, it is faith in someone - Jesus Christ. Either I believe Him or I do not. Either He is the way, the truth and the life or He is not. The choice to believe is primary, from there the Christian (Catholic) narrative can be demonstrated but absent that principle it cannot be. This is why the Holy Father, in another context, said "Inter-religious dialogue per se is not possible". I cannot "dialogue" with a Muslim or a secularist to the point where I compromise my assent to Christ or I am no longer speaking out of my own narrative.
How do these narratives participate in truth? The deconstructionist answer is they don't - there is no truth or it is unknowable. For the Christian, this is unacceptable - we do know the truth, it is a person.
However, this is not to claim the truth as my personal property or even the exclusive property of the Catholic Church. St. Paul writes " We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known. And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity." (1 Cor 13:12-13)
All the different levels of teachings in the Church participate (in the Platonic sense) in Truth. Of these, the dogmas have the greatest participation - by the authority given to Her by Christ, the Church has declared there is no better formulation of this particular truth and to deviate from it is error. That doesn't mean that the dogma completely encapsulates the Truth. All analogies are limping. For example, God is three persons in one substance is dogma - meaning to differ from it is error but that doesn't mean that these words encapsulate the reality that is God - no words could do so. They are simply the best we can do given the data of revealation.
Truth is controvertible with beauty, therefore, the path to Truth is through beauty, - the object of love.
This what St. Paul means - "the greatest of these is charity (caritas)". If I may borrow an idea from process theology, God lures one to Truth through beauty. Not because He is not omnipotent as the process theologians contend but because He is but power is only one predicate. We also assert that God is love and love is incompatible with force.
So rather than apologetics, we do evangelization. As Christians we lure people to Truth through its beauty and the most beautiful thing on Earth is a saint.

Annotated Bibliography for Paper on Jungian theory

I've uploaded my bibliography for a paper I am going to prepare this month on Jungian theory.


I choose to view postmodernism not as threat but rather as an opportunity. It’s an opportunity to undercut and dispose of the edifice of modernity, which for the Christian faith (and the human race), as been a disaster. This is the project of Radical Orthodoxy. RO is a postmodern, Thomistic theology. It’s primary exponent is John Milbank, an anglo-Catholic theologian at the University of Durham (U.K.). He runs the Centre for Theology and Philosophy . Other writers in this “school” of theology are Conor Cunningham, Catherine Pickstock and James K.A. Smith.
A central argument found in Milbank’s work is the denial of a global, “secular” reason. He argues the secular was “imagined” into being in the late Middle Ages, early Renaissance. He deconstructs secular reason and traces its origins in heretical theology in his systematic theology, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason .
Unfortunately, Milbank is not an easy read. He’s an academic theologian writing to other academic theologians. The breadth and depth of his thought is pretty intimidating for the lay person. Probably the best introduction to RO can be found in James K.A. Smith’s Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology
Since it denies the existence of a “universal” secular reason, part of the RO project is to restore the proper order of science, as envisioned by the Scholastics. Theology is queen and all other sciences are sub-altered to it. What this means is that a sub-altered science takes its presuppositions from the conclusions arrived at by its parent science (using a Thomistic definition of “science” here of course). So for example, if Theology is at the top of the pyramid, ontology would take its basic assumptions from theology. If we work our way down the pyramid, we find that epistemology is sub-altered to ontology and psychology is sub-altered to epistemology. The main effect of this is that the natural sciences, such as psychology, are predicated on true theology rather than theology having to adapt itself to the allegedly more basic or “proven” findings of the natural sciences.
One way of looking at this is through the lens of “weltanschuung”. This views natural science, not as something objective and above cultural and zeitgeist but within it. This is a postmodern approach in the philosophy science you find in several places. One book I’d recommend is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn or as an application of this thinking, Cosmos and Transcendence by Wolfgang Smith (a traditionalist Catholic theoretical physicist and Thomistic philosopher) . My favorite quote from him sums up what RO is trying to say pretty well

“[S]cientists have promulgated philosophic opinions of the most dubious kind as established scientific truths, and in the name of science have thrust upon an awed and credulous public a shallow world-view for which in reality there is not a shred of scientific support. Having gained the trust and admiration of society through the technological wonders which they have engineered, I maintain that scientists as a class have usurped their authority by predisposing the public against the high truths of religion. “
“The Plague of Scientistic Belief” (Homiletic and Pastoral Review Apr, 2002)


In this vein of thought Milbank and Pickstock wrote Truth in Aquinas, which unfortunately is the most difficult text I’ve ever tried to read, partly because of the mode of expression (very technical language) and partly because of the radical nature of its contents. Their argument is that the “epistemological problem”, which has dominated modern philosophy, can be overcome by dispensing with the representation epistemology which spawned it. We can dispense with it for the most obvious reason, it’s horribly wrong. They argue that St. Thomas as been misread by Enlightenment and later interpreters such as Cajetan and many of the Neo-Thomists of the 19th and 20th centuries. He was misread through a Scotist lens of univocity and the representational epistemology that follows from univocity in ontology was read into him. There’s a little book by Ralph McInerny that is an important aide in understanding this, Aquinas and Analogy.
The implications for psychology are vast, if the epistemology which underlies modern psychology is wrong, then much of modern psychology is wrong (we already knew that though didn’t we?) Our project should be therefore, to rewrite psychology on the basis of a true, Thomist epistemology which flows from a true Thomist theology.
The first shot at this has been taken by a Catholic fellow at the Centre for Theology and Philosophy, Marcus Pound. He wrote Theology, Psychoanalysis and Trauma in which he reads Lacanian analysis through Kierkegaard and St. Thomas. The book contains enough of an introduction to both Lacan and Kierkegaard for the reader unfamiliar with them to follow the discussion. Unfortunately he doesn’t get that far into the epistemological issues. He focuses on the higher level considerations of reinterpreting Lacanian methods and theory through an orthodox Catholic anthropology and theology of the Eucharist.

I’m going to attempt to do something like this with Jungian analysis. I think Jung already has a basis in a transcendent understanding of man and Jung himself flirted with some related ideas in his essay on “Synchronicity”. Basically I want to look at Jung’s notion of archetype in light of an epistemology of methexis [μεθεξις] (participation in Platonic forms). The paper I have for this semester will enable me to lay out some of this and help me to frame my ideas for my thesis.

Hyper-modernity

Hyper-modernity is a term used by John Milbank et. al. to denote one stream of thought within the post-modern project. Specifically, it refers to a tendency in some “post-modern” philosophy to deepen the radical autonomy of the self which became characteristic of modernity, this tendency starts with the Protestant reformation with its emphasis on private interpretation. 500 years later you get absurdities such as the Casey v Planned Parenthood decision in which the majority opinion wrote:

“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. “

Of course the Christian knows that it is God, who is Truth and who defines existence, meaning, the universe and the mystery of human life. As John Paul II wrote :

“The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light … Christ, the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling. “ (Redemptor Hominis [The Redeemer of Man], 1979)

Hyper-modernity is a deification of “choice”, something no one really believes or lives else all would be chaos. If it’s my “right” to “define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. “ then I could choose to commit mass murder or rob a bank or do any number of other anti-social acts and no one could do anything about it. Even embracing this philosophy in part results in a restructuring of society so that he with the most guns wins. Ironically it requires precisely what its advocates say they want to prevent i.e. “imposing my truth on others”. If laws are no longer rooted in objective right and wrong then they can only be justified by power. This is precisely what is meant by Benedict XVI when he wrote:
"Absence of obligation and arbitrariness do not signify freedom, but its destruction."

Or as he called it in the homily he gave after his installation as Pope, “the dictatorship of relativism”.

You’ll hear, some talk about how in post-modernity we realize there is “more than one truth”, which is just as absurd as the above for if there is more than one truth, there is no truth at all and education, discussion, research, speculation or any other rational process is meaningless. It’s a self-refuting philosophy – if there is no objective truth then the sentence “there is no objective truth” is itself devoid of truth and therefore meaningless. Ergo, we are just a bunch of apes grunting at each other.
This philosophy breaks one of the “three laws of thought” defined by Aristotle – these are the three laws, without which, all rational discussion is impossible:

non-contradiction (contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true)
excluded middle (of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate) [ this one is harder to define and therefore is disputed more often]
law of identity (a=a, a thing is what it is)

There’s a funny statement in Aristotle’s Metaphysics where he writes “He who asks for a proof of the law of non-contradiction proves himself to be no different than a plant”.
The denial of the intelligibility of truth amounts to a denial of divine revelation as well as the efficacy of the facility of human reason.


You’ll find this philosophy espoused in both philosophy and theology.
It comes in one of two forms that I’ve seen – either a outright denial of the existence of objective truth or a denial of our ability to know objective truth – either of which comes to the same thing really. This is what James K.A. Smith called the “modern prejudice against prejudice”. Stated another way, in the words of Rene Descartes, “De omnibus dubitandum est” [we must doubt everything].

Subjectivity is fine in the context of psychotherapy, St. Thomas defines truth as “the adequation of the intellect to reality” and that process of “adequation” contains a great deal. However to take the reality that many people disagree about the content of the truth and make it into a principle that says there is no truth or that it’s completely unknowable is absurd and undermines the entire structure of rational discourse.

Milbank and others in the Radical Orthodoxy project, and I agree with them, argue that any truly “post-modern” philosophy / theology must confront all the assumptions of modernity, not deepen its prejudices and become absurd.

Christianity and Islam, part II

My first post was some quick thoughts on a movie, "Islam: What the West Needs to Know". Going over that post I see where I may have not been totally clear.
I stated my post was not a apologia for liberalism / modernism. My starting point is that of an orthodox Roman Catholic. What I object to in the neo-right's critique of Islam is their assertion that Christianity is tolerant, Islam is not. That's bunk, liberalized, watered-down, modernist "christianity" is tolerant in the modern sense.
A robust and healthy orthodox Christianity is not. I'm arguing for that robust and healthy Christianity not for its decayed, modernist form.

I did not mean to imply that Islam and Christianity are somehow the same. They have historical and theological links but they are very different in more ways that I could even begin to list. My point was Christian societies had only slight more "tolerance" for heresy, blasphemy and immorality than Islamic societies do. This may shock the modern mind but I find no problem with it at all. There are many things I would criticize Islam for but not for actually believing something. If the West actually believed in Christianity any more, we wouldn't have half the problems we do. I think Muslims are right to regard the decayed and degenerate West with contempt. One of the reasons I would not identify myself as a "conservative" is that there is nothing left to conserve. Western society needs to be radically remade. Call me a counter-revolutionary or whatever.

Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman I think it was wrote, "Lord, save us from the freedom to err." This Catholic sentiment is totally opposed to the entire modernist project, particularly in the concept of "freedom of speech". No such right can exist in the natural law. The purpose of speech, in whatever form, is communication of the truth. There can be no "right to be wrong", that's a logical absurdity. This doesn't mean you go around shooting people who say things you don't like but there is no "right" to teach error.
The "freedom of speech" is rooted in a false epistemology which is in turn rooted in a false anthropology. The epistemology says that if you present a spectrum of views, the truth will naturally win out. The anthropology is that man is innately good. This anthropology is the anthropology of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Neither assertion has anything to do with Christianity.
Christianity says that though man was created good, he has become corrupted. His intellect is darkened by sin. All else being equal, falsity is more likely to be accepted than truth. For this reason the Catholic Church maintained an "index" of banned books until the middle of 20th century. It has fallen into disfavor in part because of the modernism that has been dominant in the Church since Vatican II and in part because it would be simply impractical at this point. A list of all the books that contradict Catholic teaching and/or morals would be impossibly large. It would be much easier to maintain a list of good books!(which is in part to the purpose of obtaining an "imprimatur" on a work, unfortunately these are handed out like candy by modernist bishops).
Truth is the adequation of the intellect to reality [veritas est adaequatio intellectus ad rem](St. Thomas Aquinas). To "know" something falsely is not to know it at all! This is common sense, if you child "knows" 2+2=5 then he doesn't know what 2+2 is and if you child's teacher insisted on her "right" to teach 2+2=5 you would be rightly outraged and probably not a little bit perplexed.
For all it's faults, Islam understands this, we've largely forgotten. We've relativized truth, "whats true for me may not be true for you", which is completely absurd.