Thinking

There are quite a few authors and researchers today who say that our self-awareness is an illusion. They say that a critical mass of advanced human brain neurons and cultural mental tools such as language and mathematics co-evolved to produce a sense of self.

I thought it might be helpful to share a kind of intellectual “selfie” about my mistakes in thinking about consciousness and the immaterial or spiritual. Fr. Conrad Dietz, a professor of Metaphysics and Epistemology, once told his students that it is most difficult to think abstractly. In other words, not just to use images but to think. Ironically, most, if not all, my mistakes in thinking about consciousness and the immaterial was a failure to think abstractly.

When I was teaching high school religion in the 1980's I wanted to give some “proof” to my students of a non-material or spiritual aspect to human life. They were asked to imagine a picture. Then I declared that no chemical or surgical process could “find” that picture in their brain. I was wrong. 

The image we call to mind is as physical as the object imagined. If you dissect a computer's memory storage you will not see the images stored. If you have the right connection to a display monitor you will see the image. Research with brain imaging techniques such as MRIs detail how certain areas of the brain become active in correspondence to an image. As an aside, with this type of investigation, they have discovered that so-called vegetative patients can communicate by thinking of an image.

Having realized what St. Thomas Aquinas already taught in the 1200's (memory is physical), I tried to refine my example. Confidently admitting my earlier teaching error, I proposed a new comparison. On one hand, here is a computer and a monitor that is displaying an image. On the other hand, once more call to mind a picture. Different equipment but a comparable result. Then I delivered the mental “punch line”: Who is looking at the image on the monitor or who is looking at the picture in your brain? A subject must be viewing the images.

I mentioned my new improved image to Charles DeCelles, a retired professor from Marywood University in Scranton, Pennsylvania. His response was basically that yes, we call something to mind AND THEN WE THINK ABOUT IT. Slowly, I realized that he had freed me from an illusion.

Do not animals see images displayed by the optic nerve? (I am reminded of another foolish forgetting of basic Catholic wisdom, again back in my 1980's teaching. A young student said animals have souls. I defensively jumped to the conclusion that she was elevating animals to the moral level of human life – which some people do – and I quickly answered that they did not. Yet Catholic theologians have held that animals do have souls – a mortal physical soul that ceases by death.) Professor DeCelles threw me back to my earliest training by Professor Dietz – we must think abstractly.

As humans we experience with our senses but we think about the universe with our intellect. Cats and humans can both be physically awake or conscious. Consciousness is not the same as thinking. Self-consciousness or self-awareness differs from merely being awake. And self-awareness is necessary for the process that you are now engaged in – reflection. And self-reflection is necessary for what I hope we are now engaged in – thinking. Thinking is not calling images to mind or even the review of past experience. Thinking occurs when we abstract from experience to arrive at a principle. If someone says that there is no intellect and free will in Man then they are using that intellect to abstract a principle.

Our spiritual intellect and free will depends on the body for information and mental tools. But as spiritual we can make a judgment about reality and a resolution to act according to that judgment. In City of God, book XI, #26 (italics mine) St. Augustine not only dismisses doubt about our existence but affirms our individual soul: “But, without any delusive representation of images or phantasms, I am most certain that I am, and that I know and (I) delight in this. In respect of these truths, I am not at all afraid of the arguments of the Academicians who say, What if you are deceived? For if I am deceived, I am... And, consequently, neither am I deceived in knowing that I know. For, as I know that I am, so I know this also, that I know. And when I love these two things, I add to them a certain third thing, namely, my love which is of equal moment.”

A Context for the Family Synod Discussion

Elizabeth Dias wrote in Time Magazine on 10/13/14: “The style that Pope Francis lives is one

that starts with a spirit of embrace, of mercy, and not with sin. It begins with figuring out at what points embrace is possible before determining the points at which it is not.”

Jesus in St. John 8:3-11 puts mercy first. He does not go along with the religious crowd and condemn the woman caught in adultery. He begins by rescuing her from the mob. But he remains Just: “Go thy way, and from now on sin no more.” He does not judge the person and condemn but loves and gives moral correction.

But what of a more modern complicated family situation? Jesus in St. John 4:16-18 gives the Samaritan woman no excuses about her relationship: “Jesus said to her, 'Thou hast said well, 'I have no husband,' for thou hast had five husbands and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband. In this thou hast spoken truly.”

The wonderful context that Jesus gives us for thinking about family is St. Matthew 19:4-6. The ending of man-made divorce passes away with a merciful renewal of Creation: “Have you not read that the Creator, from the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? Therefore now they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

When I was in St. Joseph's Seminary we received a thorough course in the Sacrament of Matrimony from the late Monsignor Daniel J. Flynn. Perhaps most instructive was his personal story concerning himself, the birth control pill and Humanae Vitae. Before the encyclical was published in July, 1968 he admitted that he was in favor of the new hormonal pill seeing its contraceptive aspect as part of a regulation of a woman's menstrual cycle. But Blessed Pope Paul VI saw through the moral problem and courageously and prophetically declared the chemical pill taken for contraception to be just that – artificial contraception: something always forbidden by the Church's moral instruction. Did Msgr. Flynn complain and dissent? No, he studied the pronouncement as a faithful member of the Church, accepted it and taught it. But the Church had gone through a dangerous time. Between the close of the Second Vatican Council in 1965 and Humanae Vitae in 1968 there were those who wanted to remake the Church according to anything they desired. They could not accept this reaffirmation and explanation of constant Church teaching but with the connivance of too many bishops publicly justified their dissent. The local churches throughout the world have never fully recovered from this pastoral disaster.

Our hope is based on the Word of God. The teaching of Christ in His Church consoles us and strengthens us to follow Him. The light of Casti Connubii, the doctrinal reaffirmation of Vatican II, the works of Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Catechism will in Divine Providence not be extinguished. Yet from now to October 2015 or whenever there is clear moral guidance from the Papacy, we are again in a time of great danger. We have faith in God – the boat of Peter will not sink.  

The Contradiction of Jesus

In philosophy there is the approach to the mystery of God called the “via negativa”. We come closer to “understanding” God by denying what He is not. God is not created, not material, not a body, not limited. In Hindu writings there is a way to wisdom that uses the expression “neti, neti”. It translates as “not this, not that”.

Jesus does not engage in either method. He is not here to simply enlighten. He comes to save us from ourselves.

“Behold, this child is destined for the fall and for the rise of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be contradicted.” (St. Luke 2:34)

Jesus' whole Divine presence as Man among us is a contradiction. His vertical intersects and uplifts our horizontal view.

When his human life flowers into his public ministry he openly contradicts us:

“Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” (St. Matthew 4:17)

“The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel.” (St. Mark 1:15)

Repent – you “fall” first in sorrow for sins and then you “rise” to a new life.

As he continues his ministry he speaks in ways that are so contrary to our ways that his words seem immediately contradictory in themselves. Jesus says

“Even so let your light shine before men, in order that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.” (Mt. 5:16)

and then

“Take heed not to do your good before men, in order to be seen by them; otherwise you shall have no reward with your Father in heaven.” (Mt. 6:1)

But here is the heart of all of our Lord's statements that appear on the first glance to be at odds with themselves: “...in order to be seen by them...”. It is not just the appearance of what we do but the intention underlying our acts, our reason for doing them that can make the difference between doing lasting good and being a whitewashed sepulchre. St. Matthew 5 and 6 come together and tell us not to hesitate to do good before men, not for our glory but for the praise of God. I quickly mentioned above the Hindu saying, “not this, not that”. While Jesus does not use this approach, personally I envision Him using the “on the one hand, and on the other” method of instruction. There is a real left-right symmetry in much of our Lord's teaching. On the one hand, do good openly and unashamedly for the glory of the Father. On the other hand do not do good publicly for your own glory.

Another example is St. Mark 9:39 (and St. Luke 9:50) where our Lord says

“For he who is not against you is for you”.

Yet in Lk. 11:23 he states

“He who is not with me is against me; and he who does not gather with me scatters” (and Mt. 12:30).

It is the context that brings out the meaning. The first words are spoken to the apostle John when John tells Jesus that they forbade a man casting out devils in our Lord's name. Here is a man not formally with the group but doing the work of the group – casting out evil. The second quote is in reference to those who blaspheme Jesus and who smear his casting out demons. They oppose the work of the Lord.

If different people with varying personalities hear the same speech and later report a particular thought from that speech, you know it made a great impression. All four gospels give this contra-diction of our Lord:

Mt. 10:39 “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake, will find it.”

Mk. 8:35 “For he who would save his life will lose it; but he who loses his life for my sake and for the gospel's sake will save it.”

Lk. 9:24 “For he who would save his life will lose it; but he who loses his life for my sake will save it.”

St. John 12: 25 “...He who loves his life, loses it; and he who hates his life in this world, keeps it unto life everlasting.”

Once more it is our purpose not only for single acts but for our entire life that can make it worthy.

All of Jesus' teaching is understood in context. In that context it will not be self-contradictory but it will still always contradict us. The early Church (and so does the Church today) had an immediate knowledge of Christ. When a Christian (St. Paul) said that Jesus was a man like us in all things but sin, we know he was not denying Christ's divinity. When a Christian (St. John) said the Word was God, we know he was not denying his true humanity. What very many of us Christians today do not fully appreciate – and I speak about scholars, clergy and laymen – is that any part of Scripture must be understood in relation to all of Scripture. And all of Scripture must be understood together with all of Sacred Tradition (Ecumenical Councils, Creeds, etc.). And in turn all of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition must be received from the teaching office (the magisterium) of the Body of Christ, the Church. So when we listen to the words of Jesus spoken by His spotless Bride, this is how we will be delivered from error and hear the truth about His love for us.

Finally, a note of caution concerning listening to preaching today. There are times I wonder why a preacher seems compelled to try to recap the entire catechism in a single sermon. Perhaps it is simply that he does not want what he says to be seen out of context. Yet shouldn't we take the attitude suggested above and grant with good will the other times a preacher has spoken as giving the full context to what is said? This would apply to both Popes and pastors.