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.

Recent Historical Pressure on the Family: Damage and Hope

An individual can go along in life for a time without many apparent temptations. A change in life can increase the number and pressure of temptation. So too with times in social history. This article is simply intended to review some recent historical changes that have made family formation more difficult. Yet we should not forget that human family life was first disrupted by our first parents who gave in to the original tempter. Evil is boring because it is the deprivation of good – no new sins have been invented, only the rags they wear.

Marriage is a public act and institution. When a man and woman publicly vow fidelity for life they create a new society called family. Even if the couple cannot bear the obvious physical fruit of children they are already a family. Child-rearing or other contributions to the society as a whole was seen as a desired or natural consequence of family. In recent times we are subjected to thinking that would make a divorce between marriage and family, reducing marriage to a mere going public with a private friendship or relationship.

The Industrial Revolution

The history of civilization is largely in the context of agriculture. During historical times most humans have farmed. When a couple married it was with the ready-made family business of attempting to grow crops. The Industrial Revolution began in England with the disruption of traditional farming. As it increased it furthered the decline of farming. But it was not the invention of technology in itself that pressured the family. The way the modern industrial system developed was injurious. Instead of families, clans, monasteries, or villages owning the capital necessary to efficiently use the new technology, private individuals were able to hire those they had no personal connection with or responsibility for in order to do the work of their “private enterprise”. Human beings were on their way to being sexless replaceable parts.

Malthus

His “Essay on the Principles of Population” was published in 1798. He spent his years in the 19^th century retracting or adding to this work. He started with basic premises that he readily admitted were unoriginal: population can rise 2-4-6-8 but agriculture can only rise 1-2-3-4 to a set limit. Therefore the only real check on “overpopulation” is malnutrition. Agreement and opposition to Malthus marked economic thinking for the rest of the 19^th century. Arnold Toynbee (not his nephew Arnold J. Toynbee) in his small but important “Lectures on the Industrial Revolution in England” devotes a whole chapter to Malthus. The Lectures were the pinnacle of Toynbee's thinking, published in 1884, a year after his death. What is of special interest for our topic is the following quote:

“I wish to speak of one more remedy, which Malthus himself repudiated, namely, that of artificial checks on the number of children. It has been said that such questions should only be discussed 'under the decent veil of a dead language.' Reticence on them is necessary to wholesomeness of mind; but we ought to face the problem, for it is a vital one. These preventive checks on births excite our strong moral repugnance. Men may call such repugnance prejudice, but it is perfectly logical, because it is a protest against the gratification of a strong instinct while the duties attaching to it are avoided...It is wrong to consider this question from the point of wealth alone; we cannot overrate the importance of family life as the source of all that is best in national life...Above all, it must be remembered that this is not a purely economic problem, nor is it to be solved by mechanical contrivances. To reach the true solution we must tenaciously hold to a high ideal of spiritual life. What the mechanical contrivances might perchance give us is not what we desire for our country. The true remedies, on the other hand, imply a growth towards that purer and higher condition of society for which alone we care to strive.

{pp 85 – 87; Beacon Press, The Industrial Revolution, Arnold Toynbee, published 1956}

1930

In spite of the very English sentiment expressed by the above quote, the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops removed the ban on artificial contraception in 1930.

Kinsey Report of 1948

The Kinsey report on “male sexual behavior” was published in 1948. This “report” was used for at least the next thirty years to claim unnatural sexual behavior as really not far from the norm. Some historical cultural sense is needed here: what kind of American male in the 1940's would sit and answer 500 personal questions about their sexual acts asked by the Kinsey “researchers”? The problem with the Kinsey reports (a female version was produced in 1953 and the question asked above becomes even more pointed) was not only the culturally abnormal population used for the statistics but the very notion that statistics can be used to argue for unhealthy behavior. What percentage of the population in the United States used tobacco in 1950? Since almost all of us have some unhealthy behaviors in other areas of life perhaps rather than trying to change those behaviors society should accept them or even promote them. Yet the morally anchorless world not only accepted the Kinsey facade of numbers but through the educational system set about to conform social reality to those numbers.

Technology and Medicine

All of the preceding is joined with the general developments in machinery and medicine that make the average life easier and longer. But this has been mostly a 20^th century event. When Queen Victoria died in 1910 the average life expectancy for American men and women was just under 49 and 52. Which was not much more than during the Roman Empire. That meant that at 25 or 26 half your expected life was over. As discussed elsewhere in this blog, this puts off maturing to a later time in life and puts us in greater disconnect with our biological potential.

1960 Hormonal Contraceptive Pill

The FDA approved the first contraceptive pill in 1960 and many women since have been harmed by this “treatment”. It took over twenty years for the profit makers to lower the dosage enough to remove the most obvious side-effects.

Damage

When family formation is no longer seen as the reason for marriage, shifts in society take place. Rather than union and procreation as the meaning of the marital act, the reassurance of companionship and sexual satisfaction are intended. That means, in other words, the marital act becomes merely a private pleasurable experience between companions. The entire biological structure of reproduction is defaced. Why even need public marriage?

Then why should anyone, even “married” men and women, resent or object to homosexual couples who are doing under the temptation of their mental health problem the same as they – engaging in bodily acts solely to produce sexual pleasure and re-enforce the ties of companionship?

In this unnatural view of human sexuality pregnancy becomes an “unwanted outcome”. Those brainwashed by our diseased cultural attitudes then continue to deny the biological reality of the presence of another human being. Shortly after the legalization of hormonal artificial contraception, nation after nation in the 1960's began to legalize abortion.

Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae – Guidance Now and Hope for the Future

When the Anglican Lambeth Conference approved artificial birth control in 1930 the Catholic Church had an immediate response. Pope Pius XI by the end of that same year issued the encyclical Casti Connubii. In this apostolic letter he re-affirmed the constant Christian teaching that anything that deliberately tried to remove procreation from the act of marriage was immoral. Thirty years later hormonal artificial contraception was embraced by the society that gave us trench warfare, atheistic communism, nazi concentration camps, the conventional and nuclear mass burning of Japanese civilians. Humanae Vitae in July 1968 was issued in the face of much misunderstanding and opposition. Even loyal members of the Church thought the new invention of the hormone pill could be viewed as a “regulation” of the menstrual cycle and not as a direct intervention in the marital act. Pope Paul VI with the help of the Holy Spirit saw clearly through this mistake. His encyclical has provided a guide for all subsequent Church teaching in the medical revolution we have been subjected to.

Throughout the Church's history challenges to faith and morals have been met by true and inspired prophetic teaching. Pius XI's Casti Connubii and Paul VI's Humanae Vitae are in that Tradition. They give us a blueprint and hope for the future. When our present culture is swamped by history these encyclicals will remain. Just as St. Augustine's thought in “The City of God” in the fifth century as the Roman Empire collapsed shaped the culture of Europe in the Middle Ages, so will these and other Church documents help us to survive and flourish as this culture passes away.

Addendum
This article was published April, 2013. On July 11, 2013 The Catholic Light of the Diocese of Scranton published a column by Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, Ph.D in which he highlights the perversion of marriage and the role of contraception. He includes an apropos quote from Sigmund Freud: "The common characteristic of all perversions...is that they have abandoned reproduction as their aim. We term sexual activity perverse when it has renounced the aim of reproduction and follows the pursuit of pleasure as an independent goal."

Stephan Hawking's Mistake III But...

Stephan Hawking went to Caltech to tell them we don't need a "God" to explain the origin of the universe. This blog contains two responses to previous statements by Mr. Hawking in 2010 and 2011. But this time I want to point to the more positive side of his views.

He plainly states the Judeo-Christian view of creation - creation came out of nothing. The traditional philosophical term for this is "ex nihilo". He says that the early attempts to explain the universe as a "steady-state" or a cyclical "expansion and contraction" have been discredited. But like most atheists he really rejects the word with the letters g, o, d because of some personal emotional or spiritual misunderstanding or problem. Again, nothing gives nothing. And again, Aristotle humbly faced this logic and simply said that there must be an "uncaused cause".

The Rules We Live By

“Therefore all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them...”

The traditional title for this saying of our Lord Jesus found in Mt.7:12 and Lk.6:31 is “The Golden Rule”. In the Old Testament and in nearly every other major culture was the rule: do not do to others what you do not want done to you. This older rule is what most of us try to or imagine we live by.

In actual day to day life most of the time we fall even lower than this rule of avoiding evil in our standard of treating others. We employ the law of talion – the retaliation of an eye for an eye.

And there is a more insidious rule we use. It is a clawing and rending wolf in sheep's clothing. It is a version of the law of talion pretending to be a helpful version of the Golden Rule - “I will treat others the way I have been treated”.

Once, when I went to the playground as a young parent, I noticed another father with a very young son. As the boy was riding his little bike he fell off and started crying. His father immediately started laughing loudly. As a father I intuited right away that the man was not simply being senselessly cruel. He was trying to train his son that life is sometimes cruel and there is no one to feel sorry for you. “Life has made me tough and that's good- I want that for you.”

Nothing in Scripture or the Liturgy can be taken out of the context of the Church's Faith and still be effective. The words of consecration have no effect outside the intention to offer the Holy Sacrifice with the intention of the Body of Christ. So too with the Golden Rule in the Bible. It is clear from the rest of Scripture, especially in St. Luke, that our Lord wants us to do positive good to others not just to avoid evil. And he wants us to do it even for, and especially for, those who cannot repay us or who have done evil to us. Our charity does not depend on time – not how they treated you in the past, how they treat you now or how they could treat you in the future.

Still more necessary context is the rest of the above quote of Mt.7:12 ...for this is the law and the prophets”. When Jesus again speaks about our neighbor in Mt.22:34-40, He tells us the two greatest commandments. “And on these two depend the whole law and the prophets.”

And Mt.7:13 tells us what happens to us when we fail to try to follow the Golden Rule.

The Present Fence

A recent interview with Dean Koontz by Raymond Arroyo on EWTN prompted me to return to a teenage daydream: how to be a writer. In the late 1960's I wrote a high school English essay entitled “The Present Fence”. (When our teacher handed back our papers he called mine “the present tense”.) As an avid science-fiction reader I had made the point that authentic writing was either about the past or the future. The present is always sliding one way or the other.

In the fleeting present of 2012 I realize even more why writers are attracted to science-fiction. If this was 1812 the stage which a writer would use was fairly stable in human moral and technological terms. All the wars and revolutions would simply be a vehicle for plot and character development. As the 19^th century proceeded inventions physically changed the human stage – steam, rail, telegraph, biology, telephone. At the turn of the 20^th century these physical changes, pardon the pun, picked up steam and accelerated. Change that had taken forty years, twenty-five, now came at a pace of twenty, fifteen, ten and less.

As communication and transportation became easier and more rapid and even daily labor became comparatively more efficient and easier, there was a real psychological effect on human personality. An “easier" life means later and fewer confrontations with the mortality of life. This results in slowed moral development – less maturity, less moral responsibility. What adolescents had decided at fourteen to sixteen years of age during most times in human history now begins to be put off twice as long or deferred indefintely.

So the writer now has the moral and physical stage deeply changed and still changing. “Let me skip trying to grasp the present and project my writing onto another time.” But this brings back my first concern about authentic writing. Can a person of 2012 write honestly a novel about 1812? We are not discussing history – it is reasonable I think to use historical fact and present perspective to write history. But is it possible to walk among the characters of 1812? It seems to me that I don't have any personal experience of that world or stage. The same could be said of 2112.

Yet there is one vital difference between historical fiction and a certain type of science-fiction. While a person of 2012 cannot live in 1812 neither can they live in their own past. We must live in the precious time called “now” and build on the good and try to repair the evil. But there is a legitimate human activity in the present for the future - preparing: using some of our now to plan the building and repairing. The best science-fiction prepares for the future. It projects human characteristics into the future to see what we may face. It is thinking about consequences, good and evil. It is a kind of prophetic literaure or cautionary tale..

Lets think about the future. One ironic aspect of our condition is that while we have been given many new tools to use, our moral capacity to use them properly has declined.

Another aspect, and an even more dangerous one, is that while we mature psychologically more slowly, our bodies don't. This disharmony cascades. The chronic immature marry and break their public vows, leaving the fruit of their union to be even more challenged in living responsible adult lives. “Children playing with matches” and “children having children” are phrases that are not unfair as a quick shorthand for our situation.

Science-fiction strives to imagine the effects of change on people in the future. But another irony: those who would imagine the future are likely to be morally immature or ignorant. Who is morally mature? The one who accepts responsibility to do good at the cost of self-denial and who blames no one but themselves for the evil they do. In order for this moral adulthood to survive and not lead to corruption requires a spiritual foundation. If I do not believe in God, I may want “dignity” or “the fullness of my humanity” by living a life of “existential good faith”. But why should I? “I don't want to live a life where I am ashamed of myself – that is what existential good faith means!”

Fine. Why would anything I do make me feel ashamed? What is good and what is evil?

What is the objective way that you determine good and evil? There are many attempts at non-theological morality. Is your measure of right and wrong the practical? The efficient? Art? Human life? Emotional sentiment? And even if you can naturally approximate a real morality, why follow your own rule? After all is said and done, its yours. You are master. There is no ultimate punishment for my lie, my adultery, my war of aggression, my “mercy”-killing.

An objective morality must be based on reality. Did the universe pop itself into existence? Without reasoned belief (intellect and free will) in the Creator, our concept of reality goes around in a circle. It becomes only my perception. I cannot stand firm on only my ego. There is a telling piece of dialogue in George Orwell's “1984”. (A cautionary tale for Orwell's time of 1948.) The captive protagonist is in love. Big Brother asks, “Do you believe in God?” He responds, “No.” With no real ground for his love it is no surprise that he is tortured into not only giving up his love but wanting to have her tortured in his stead. Of course, some will protest that this is only a fictional drama. Yet good drama highlights aspects of life that need examining.

Which brings us back to Dean Koontz. In the interview he said literary people are not just accidentally confusing good and evil, they are not just transposing them for the sake of a story, they are consciously inverting good and evil. They reject the very notion of evil. They straddle another Fence. But there is no neutral ground between what is good and what is not.