St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[OneSheep]

Just wanted to clarify where I’m coming from on “sin.”

That works. I also like the concept of sin being alienation, that is, there is a separation somewhere.

IOW, a person in a power-relationship to me has a certain expectation that they are looking for me to comply with. If I refuse or hesitate, an attempt to coerce my behavior ensues. But, all this really is is a competition of wills. Would this also lead to shadow-formation, seeing the world as fundamentally competing wills?

Shadow formation involves the dynamic where a certain behavior is idealized (and praised), and another behavior (and the person exhibiting it) is condemned. If the coercion is internalized in such a way that the person i.e. incorporates in his conscience “If I do not comply, it is shameful, and I am of bad character” (something negative) then there is probably some shadow involved. The shame is triggered by the conscience itself, which depends on the shadow for its formation. Gut reactions, including shame, are really beautiful, they happen faster than the frontal lobes can “catch” them!

I can’t help but be struck by the conflict of “being ok with some clinging” and the spirituality advocated by Jesus. Perhaps you simply mean, “all in God’s timing,” is that the gist?

I think the Buddhists also are a bit relaxed about shedding attachments. If we are striving to do so, then that itself is something that can be addressed or explored. A person could be overly scrupulous about shedding attachments, but the most important attachment might be the underlying desire for something that needs to be detached from. It could be a fear, an insecurity, that is causing a striving.

So yeah, it’s “God’s timing”, but a person involved in patient prayer relationship will be the beneficiary of some earlier timing, at least that is what I observe. Prayer (meditation, reflection, journaling, etc.) does enhance the process, which I’m sure is your experience also.

 

[OneSheep]

As in the spirituality of Christ is the goal, but it’s a lengthy process to get there?

Well, if a person is in process, they are already “there”, right? If a person is seeking, repentant, and open in relationship, open in mind and heart, it seems like they have already taken on a spirituality of Christ. This shadow stuff is really just a side show, I think. There is so much more mystery than the shadow; at least the “dark part” of the shadow can simply be exposed to light, and then a person can move on.

What we are doing in this thread is seeing what aspects of the shadow Augustine had not exposed to light.

It seems to me that at least one aspect of what bothers him so much about this is the pride it fostered and emboldened. “…loving the honour of victory in the matches, and to have my ears tickled with lying fables, in order that they might itch the more furiously — the same curiosity beaming more and more in my eyes for the shows and sports of my elders.” It seems he’s identified pride as being embedded into his fascination with this “play.” Am I reading too much into that?

While I agree that pride was an underlying part of his shadow, “pride” itself is such a complex concept that it is fruitful to break it down into its parts, i.e. desire for power, status, dominance, autonomy, etc. While some or all of these component parts were part of Augustine’s shadow when he wrote Confessions, I think that for the moment we could address the surface stuff, disobedience itself.

I think it is pretty clear in the writing that Augustine thought that he should have been obedient and felt ashamed that he had not been. It is possible that Augustine did not have disobedience itself in his shadow, such that “it is always wrong to be disobedient to authority”. Like I said, he is not specifically saying in the chapter that his disobedience is evidence of his “wretchedness” or being “evil in the eyes of God”, but he seems to be ashamed and has not forgiven himself in a deeper way.

So, can we go to the “pride” he mentioned after we touch on disobedience? If so, I can think of two important questions:

1. Did Augustine reconcile, forgive himself, for his disobedience? If not, what are the means by which he could have?
2. What would it have taken for Augustine to integrate his own capacity for disobedience, i.e. seeing human capacity for disobedience as a gift from God?

 

[Magnanimity]

Well, if a person is in process, they are already “there”, right? If a person is seeking, repentant, and open in relationship, open in mind and heart, it seems like they have already taken on a spirituality of Christ.

I think I understand what you mean. In other words, to-be-in-spiritual-process is to be “there.” I assume you’re addressing the paradox of the already-and-not-yet, and, in that sense, I agree. But, when we take a close look at the kenotic spirituality taught by Christ and the apostles, I often have the sense that being a “good person” and regularly participating in the sacraments just won’t get you there. It won’t get one to the radical self-emptying advocated by Jesus’ teachings. As in, when I look at the spirituality of the Sermon on the Mount, I’m keenly aware of the “not yet” moreso than the “already” in my own life (e.g., I will not yet give my cloak and my tunic too).

Did Augustine reconcile, forgive himself, for his disobedience?

Maybe not. He appeals to God later in the chapter. He writes, “Look down upon these things, O Lord, with compassion, and deliver us…” Those who believe that people do the things that their level of consciousness allows them to (at the time) do not self-blame. Their understanding is deep. But, that attitude is a mature one. Do you think that St. Augustine thought like that?

What would it have taken for Augustine to integrate his own capacity for disobedience, i.e. seeing human capacity for disobedience as a gift from God?

I’m not sure that he ever would have. That would cast disobedience itself in a very positive light (“gift from God”). But, he did seem to have the capacity to see evil as an absence of the good. And inasmuch as he could identify whichever constituent parts of the disobedience were actually good, perhaps he could have taken that route. So, it’s not all-or-nothing for Augustine. It doesn’t have to be a horrible thing for which only the forgiveness of God can make right again (as in, I have full culpability) but nor does it need to be cast so positively as a “gift from God.” Is there a middle ground?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning,
I’m away from my book, so my responses will be pretty limited for a week.

I often have the sense that being a “good person” and regularly participating in the sacraments just won’t get you there.

Sounds like some definitions might help. What is “there”?

It won’t get one to the radical self-emptying advocated by Jesus’ teachings… (e.g., I will not yet give my cloak and my tunic too).

If this is the “there”, I think His teachings stand as a call to movement. He is calling us to shed the identification and security we find in possessions, to see that it all comes from God, on “loan” so to speak.

A story: once upon a time, a priest came to be pastor of our parish and basically wanted to turn the decor upside down. Out with the old - in with the new. There was an absolutely gorgeous old table in the rectory, at least 125 years old with claw feet, it was beautiful. Someone told me about it, that it was consigned in an antique store. I went to it, and I loved it, and it would work great in my house, and my own antique table needed a lot of work. It was going to cost as much to fix my table as to buy the one from the rectory, which was still in fairly good condition.

I recognized that I was sort of “possessed” by the table. I could have just bought it and stored it, and I even considered that. At the end, before someone else bought it, I decided to resist my desire, that someone else would enjoy the table as much as I, and I needed to “spiritually” let go.

Guess what happened? We got our table fixed, but the people who did it turned out to be crooks, they did a terrible job, and they demanded more money when they finished. God goes so far to challenge me with an additional reason to wish I had purchased the rectory table! When I look at my table, I long for the other. Transcendence, for me, means looking at my original desire to buy the rectory table, looking at my desire to be free of that desire, looking at my desire to do what was “right”, looking at my disappointment at what the crooks did, looking at my wife’s disappointment and upset about the condition of the table and my own reaction to that (it is one of those sore subjects that we generally avoid), and seeing all these things as not part of the silence within. It is meditation, it is prayer, it is process, a process that is in a real way already “there”, because looking at all of these things brings me into the silence, freeing me from them.

 

[OneSheep]

Those who believe that people do the things that their level of consciousness allows them to (at the time) do not self-blame. Their understanding is deep. But, that attitude is a mature one. Do you think that St. Augustine thought like that?

I think it takes some prayer and reflection to see that we “do the things that their level of consciousness allows them to (at the time)”. We have our gut-level reactions, and then it takes some time to come to this understanding you are referring to as part of reconciling with oneself and God.

I think that when Augustine had the grace to open himself in that way, then he did come to that point of reconciliation. In the case of the disobedience he is referring to though, I don’t think he was able to enter into his level of consciousness when he made the poor choices. He blamed, as we all do, he felt guilty, and he remained feeling guilty even though he mostly let it pass, he did not dwell on it.

I’m not sure that he ever would have. That would cast disobedience itself in a very positive light (“gift from God”).

Are you saying that “disobedience itself [is] (“gift from God”)” necessarily follows “seeing human capacity for disobedience as a gift from God”?

What I am looking at is the question “Why would God create, as part of our nature, the capacity for disobedience?”. Let’s face it; despite all the assertions otherwise, Jesus was very often disobedient - to the leaders of the temple. Yes, He was obedient to the Father, but there would be those who condemn disobedience so forcefully as to condemn the human capacity for it; and then deny that Jesus was ever disobedient. (The reason for the “forcefulness” is that they have incorporated the capacity for disobedience as part of their shadow, underlying the conscience. Ideal: loyalty, condemned part of nature: capacity for disloyalty)

And then, we can look at all the other creatures in the world that have capacity for disobedience.

Indeed, our species very existence depended on tribal-structured protection. That humans have the capacity, and the instinctual drive, to be loyal to leadership is part of our survival. On the flip side of that, if a male tribal leader proclaims that all the females belong to him, then only the members who have a capacity for disobedience will father offspring (other than the leader, of course). And then, if it is only this leader who has offspring, is this “naturally selecting” for empathy, for capacity for conscience? Certainly not! Do you see the beauty of our nature in this, God’s hand in it?

The question is, did Augustine integrate his own capacity for disobedience? … Do you see that as a separate question from something like the assertion “all disobedience is good”? The latter is surely an untruth. Maybe “all disobedience is understandable” works, but not “all disobedience comes from God” or something like that. We are, after all, the unwitting sources of our own actions and choices.

 

[Magnanimity]

Guess what happened? We got our table fixed, but the people who did it turned out to be crooks, they did a terrible job, and they demanded more money when they finished. God goes so far to challenge me with an additional reason to wish I had purchased the rectory table! When I look at my table, I long for the other. Transcendence, for me, means looking at my original desire to buy the rectory table, looking at my desire to be free of that desire, looking at my desire to do what was “right”, looking at my disappointment at what the crooks did, looking at my wife’s disappointment and upset about the condition of the table and my own reaction to that (it is one of those sore subjects that we generally avoid), and seeing all these things as not part of the silence within. It is meditation, it is prayer, it is process, a process that is in a real way already “there”, because looking at all of these things brings me into the silence, freeing me from them.

This is an amazing story (history) @OneSheep! Wow! Talk about a multi-layered reality!!

We have our gut-level reactions, and then it takes some time to come to this understanding you are referring to as part of reconciling with oneself and God.

I don’t think he was able to enter into his level of consciousness when he made the poor choices. He blamed, as we all do, he felt guilty,

It is true. Those of us who engage in spiritual practices to deepen our connection with God and to further our awareness of reality still struggle with this or that scar from our pasts. There are many things I am able to “let go” of. And there are no small number of events that I am not able to let go of. So, in acknowledging this fact, it is good to stand in solidarity with the great saint in this way.

What I am looking at is the question “Why would God create, as part of our nature, the capacity for disobedience?”

You may find my response here trite, but I see this question of yours above as a very specified instance of the entire category of “why would God allow [some bad/negative thing] to occur?” And, also possible trite, I think the only possible answer is that the allowing of it will “bring about a greater good.” Hope is embedded in humans. They can’t help themselves from hoping, even despite all odds sometimes.
But, I don’t think this greater-good answer is so off-kilter. Humanity regularly longs for some greater good. The greater-good concept is not a hard sell to most people. The only place where it gets difficult is in specifying it. As in, when someone asks, “So, how does my 1 month old dying in the crib from SIDS bringing about a ‘greater good?’” The challenge is in the concrete questions based on our real experiences. Would you agree?

 

[Magnanimity]

That humans have the capacity, and the instinctual drive, to be loyal to leadership is part of our survival.

I think we’ve swam in this “survival vs. thriving” river together before. I admit that I have something of a knee-jerk reaction to “survival” paradigms. They kind of make my blood boil with their reductive tendencies. Not because I have any issues with evolution but because Modernity, by generally throwing out the Aristotelian formal and final causes, can only look at the universe in terms of material and efficient causes. And such an attempt will only produce a woefully inadequate picture of everything. Survivalist paradigms, as if that’s all that nature is ever trying to do (that’s the epitome of life) is so meh as to almost make my eyes roll. Nature tends toward thriving, and on a regular basis. That is the goal. Yes, survival is a necessary constituent of thriving. But, nature provides plenty of evidence (even outside of humans) of a desire for thriving.

On the flip side of that, if a male tribal leader proclaims that all the females belong to him, then only the members who have a capacity for disobedience will father offspring (other than the leader, of course). And then, if it is only this leader who has offspring, is this “naturally selecting” for empathy, for capacity for conscience? Certainly not! Do you see the beauty of our nature in this, God’s hand in it?

I do. But, I would want to press you on the why of those “disobedient” actions. I wouldn’t consign it to happenstance or dumb luck. There is a thought that underlies the disobedient male in your example. What might it be? Could it be an implicit acknowledgement of this imago dei that we referred to earlier in the examples of the toddlers? That is, the disobedient one might think to himself, “yeah, he’s the leader of our tribe. But, what makes him the only one deserving of copulation? On some level, he has the same dignity that I do. So, why shouldn’t I have privileges to engage in conjugal love?” Or, something along those lines, right? As with the toddler example above, there is a desire for fairness and a recognition (on some level) of human equality-of-dignity that underlies the disobedient conjugal love here. What do you think?

 

[Vico]

…
What I am looking at is the question “Why would God create, as part of our nature, the capacity for disobedience?”
…

To be a partaker of the divine nature, mankind must be capable of expressing love. That we creatures have the ability to love requires free will, and free will also permits malice.

Catechism

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. …

 

[OneSheep]

There are many things I am able to “let go” of. And there are no small number of events that I am not able to let go of.

I think it depends a little upon what “letting go” looks like. Sometimes, it is simply a matter of “I’m not going to worry about that”, and that is good enough. Often it is fruitful to examine from where the reaction comes, which is what this thread, in part, is about. “From where does that reaction come?” It is a matter of gaining self awareness. I think you agree, as you express much of the same.

I see this question of yours above as a very specified instance of the entire category of “why would God allow [some bad/negative thing] to occur?”…
The challenge is in the concrete questions based on our real experiences. Would you agree?

It’s all challenging, I think, but the questions are generally unrelated IMO. What we are working on in this thread are Augustine’s roadblocks, specifically the roadblocks he encountered to fully realizing and experiencing “Through the Spirit, one can see that all that exists is good.”

Does walking exist, or does it occur? We use the word “existence” pretty loosely, but when it comes down to it, what creates the roadblocks is something about our own existence, something about our individual and genetic makeup that reacts to what occurs. The conscience, though its formulation is fairly dynamic, is part of our existence, would you agree?

I don’t see that Augustine ever says “all that occurs is good”, nor does he even attempt to go there. I think we can agree that pain and suffering are not good (my son’s dissertation is on this very topic), and it really is a different topic, even though it might be more attractive than encountering our shadows! The difference between the questions is in the outcome. The shadow (the “dark part”, anyway) is finite, one can get to the end of it. There is no final, satisfactory answer as to why God allows some bad things to occur, only the “human freedom” answers sort of cover many occurrences.

But, I would want to press you on the why of those “disobedient” actions. I wouldn’t consign it to happenstance or dumb luck.

Me neither.

 

[OneSheep]

There is a thought that underlies the disobedient male in your example. What might it be? Could it be an implicit acknowledgement of this imago dei that we referred to earlier in the examples of the toddlers? That is, the disobedient one might think to himself, “yeah, he’s the leader of our tribe. But, what makes him the only one deserving of copulation? On some level, he has the same dignity that I do. So, why shouldn’t I have privileges to engage in conjugal love?” Or, something along those lines, right? As with the toddler example above, there is a desire for fairness and a recognition (on some level) of human equality-of-dignity that underlies the disobedient conjugal love here.

I think we can start with sexual appetite. If it weren’t for that, then it would be like “he wants all the dames for himself, who cares?”. Of course, there is much more to it than that, there is the desire for loving companionship. But yes, the desire for fairness (which can be seen to be somewhat grounded in sibling rivalry) definitely becomes part of the equation. The child experiences what it is like to be left out of getting something good, the child experiences being scolded when not sharing, and these experiences help develop the normal conscience. The shadow contains a hidden image of unfairness, and if one chooses to transcend this, one must “shine the light” upon it, and come to reconcile with his own capacity, all the aspects of his own nature, that make his own unfair actions possible. We have not addressed this part of the shadow yet in our survey of Confessions, but it is sure to come up. As I write this, I am wondering if your mind is going to a place of “rationalizing unfair actions” or something like that, but that would be entering the “occurrence” rather than the “existence”. Do you see that there is a discipline to sorting out what is “occurrence” and what is “existence”? It is (generally speaking) a focus on the nouns rather than the verbs. It’s an easy distinction to make, our minds create language based on the distinction.

I think imago dei is too deep (and more all-encompassing) a concept to be an immediate factor in decisions involving things like desire for fairness or sex. That we are made in God’s image is, in my experience, what we come to know through relationship, in coming to see the infinite goodness and beauty of all that exists.

Something to be “teased out”: how we have immediate reactions to unfair situations, such as when one hatchling gets some food that a nest-mate misses out on, and it stretches its bill higher and makes more noise. We are just as reactive as this, yet we can also come to be cognizant of an underlying imago dei.

Even the most abusive psychopath (with no concept of the value of “God’s image” has a notion of fairness when it comes to someone else getting a better deal.

 

[Magnanimity]

It’s all challenging, I think, but the questions are generally unrelated IMO. What we are working on in this thread are Augustine’s roadblocks, specifically the roadblocks he encountered to fully realizing and experiencing “Through the Spirit, one can see that all that exists is good.”

As my train of thought continued, it eventuated in the “to bring about a greater good” line of reasoning. That’s possibly much too general for your likes within this thread. But, let me know if the greater-good motif gets us anywhere.

We use the word “existence” pretty loosely, but when it comes down to it, what creates the roadblocks is something about our own existence , something about our individual and genetic makeup that reacts to what occurs . The conscience, though its formulation is fairly dynamic, is part of our existence , would you agree?

Oh, I’m right beside St John Henry Newman on this one. In a way, he’s a man after my own heart, and especially in the area of conscience. He says, “I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards” because conscience is the “aboriginal vicar of Christ.” The role of the conscience, in my mind, could not be any more critical to what unites all minds together (Creator with creature, this human to that other human, etc). The conscience has primacy. In some ways, as a result of our finitude, it has ultimate primacy. It is the final court of appeal within each and every individual and is simultaneously that to which we make appeal when trying to unite minds and hearts together between disparate humans.

I don’t see that Augustine ever says “all that occurs is good”, nor does he even attempt to go there.

So, earlier I believed you were trying to frame disobedience itself in the language of “gift from God.” Can you flesh out what you were getting at a little more in a manner consistent with your line above?

 

[OneSheep]

As my train of thought continued, it eventuated in the “to bring about a greater good” line of reasoning.

Yeah, that brings us into purpose, which is a great topic, but that would take us beyond the “roadblocks” theme.

The conscience has primacy. In some ways, as a result of our finitude, it has ultimate primacy. It is the final court of appeal within each and every individual and is simultaneously that to which we make appeal when trying to unite minds and hearts together between disparate humans.

But you mean a well-formed conscience, right? And then, conscience formation is a life-long endeavor. Would you say, though, that the conscience is part of our existence?

So, earlier I believed you were trying to frame disobedience itself in the language of “gift from God.” Can you flesh out what you were getting at a little more in a manner consistent with your line above?

I think you may have been reading too quickly:

The question is, did Augustine integrate his own capacity for disobedience? … Do you see that as a separate question from something like the assertion “all disobedience is good”? The latter is surely an untruth. Maybe “all disobedience is understandable” works, but not “all disobedience comes from God” or something like that. We are, after all, the unwitting sources of our own actions and choices.

Key word: capacity

So, do you observe that St. Augustine had not integrated his own capacity for disobedience? Did he see thoughts of disobeying, for example, as coming from a “bad place” within?

 

[OneSheep]

But you mean a well-formed conscience , right? And then, conscience formation is a life-long endeavor. Would you say, though, that the conscience is part of our existence?

It’s been awhile @Magnanimity , so I want to clarify the meaning of this question. I am contrasting what one “is” vs what one “does”. When we are addressing morality, that is, what behavior is appropriate, that is a different discussion than what people “are”. Morality is about what we do.

In my own observation, we are talking about what “is” in this look at roadblocks, not what “occurs”. Augustine’s roadblocks are concerning aspects of human nature.

Many specific actions are immoral and hurtful, and these we can probably all agree on (with a bit of discussion), but where shadow work comes into play is when a person (automatically, subconsciously, in conscience formation) goes from rejecting certain actions to rejecting a part of his (and humanity’s) existence.

I think that St. Augustine, when he stated “It is through the Spirit that we can see that whatsoever exists in any way is good”, he was not saying that murder and other sins are good. He was talking about what is, he was talking about the physical world as well as created aspects of our nature. When he stated that people always seek to gain some good, he was talking about this desire, part of our existence, not the means used to gain the good, which are occurrences. Do you see the distinction?

So, not need to respond to this note, this is a clarification of my previous post.

 

[Magnanimity]

specifically the roadblocks he encountered to fully realizing and experiencing “Through the Spirit, one can see that all that exists is good.”

All that exists is good, quite right. But, we know that all-is-not-well in this present life. So, the distinction to be drawn is between considering the act of existing (of a particular being) and the manner in which something exists. For example, existing as a man who generally indulges in his desire for wrath (becoming overly-angry) would be to live, in Aristotle’s words, viciously (in vice). You have mentioned that capacity for jealousy and disobedience can be “gifts of God.” And I think that what you have been getting at is that without jealousy or disobedience certain goods would not obtain in human life. Have I got that right? If so, then what specifically intrigues me is contemplating what is good/true in all human behavior, even in jealousy or disobedience. As in, I want to ask, “what is the good being sought (or acknowledged) in a jealous or disobedient act?”

I think imago dei is too deep (and more all-encompassing) a concept to be an immediate factor in decisions involving things like desire for fairness or sex. That we are made in God’s image is, in my experience, what we come to know through relationship, in coming to see the infinite goodness and beauty of all that exists.

There is a growth in understanding of all the most meaningful aspects of our existence as life unfolds. An atheist, who acknowledges her own intrinsic and inalienable worth and value admits (without knowing it) this imago dei reality. And, I believe a young child does the same. There has to be something good that underlies jealous feelings. I mentioned fairness too, but I don’t think fairness can fully account for it. An acknowledgement of one’s own intrinsic dignity must also be present, I think. Without this imago dei rudimentary understanding, there would be nothing to move you to an argument of fairness against the alpha-male getting all the mates. He is, after all, stronger/smarter/more handsome than other males around him. So, there is physical inequality between him and the other males. And you’d have to leave it at that if fairness were the only consideration. The universality of human dignity/worth is what moves a person to say, “why not me too? I deserve this too…”

It’s been awhile @Magnanimity , so I want to clarify the meaning of this question. I am contrasting what one “is” vs what one “does”. When we are addressing morality , that is, what behavior is appropriate, that is a different discussion than what people “are”. Morality is about what we do.

I see what you’re getting at, but “ought’s” are derived from “is’s.” There is no where else to get an “ought” but from observing what is considered morally/socially praiseworthy in culture. But, admittedly, some ought’s are possibly counter-cultural (e.g., humility might be).

 

[Magnanimity]

When he stated that people always seek to gain some good, he was talking about this desire, part of our existence, not the means used to gain the good, which are occurrences. Do you see the distinction?

Maybe. You’re trying to draw a distinction between existing and things occurring? The thing is, following Aristotle and St Thomas, we call a man courageous when we repeatedly observe his behaving courageously. So, in a way, we are what we repeatedly do. Humans are in act. Action is their most fundamental mode and contemplation is derivative. So, doing is fundamental to being human. Would you agree? We only arrive at a consideration of human nature/essence by observing (and experiencing firsthand, of course) what it is to be a human, how they behave and how they think.

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning friend

There is a growth in understanding of all the most meaningful aspects of our existence as life unfolds. An atheist, who acknowledges her own intrinsic and inalienable worth and value admits (without knowing it) this imago dei reality.

While they would be hesitant to use “imago dei”, I agree, they are realizing something very universal.

Without this imago dei rudimentary understanding, there would be nothing to move you to an argument of fairness against the alpha-male getting all the mates.

Evolutionarily, though, an overbearing alpha male would not only shrink the gene pool, but his aggression would work against the cooperative social structure that keeps the tribe alive. Fairness is a matter of tribal survival, is it not? When nestlings watch each other and try to stretch higher and peep louder than their siblings, they are helping their genes continue to exist. I know, that sounds awfully “materialistic”, but that label does not take away from beauty or mystery, at least not the deeper mystery of our own existence as autonomous beings and other spiritual aspects of being.

The universality of human dignity/worth is what moves a person to say, “why not me too? I deserve this too…

Realistically, though, the nestlings that I mentioned above are likely not to be thinking about the universality of i.e. “blue jay dignity/worth”. Something emotional/biological is triggered. I’m not saying, though, that an examined life does not arrive at this higher place you refer to.

You’re trying to draw a distinction between existing and things occurring?

Well, there is a distinction, right?

The thing is, following Aristotle and St Thomas, we call a man courageous when we repeatedly observe his behaving courageously.

Yes, we judge essence based on behaviors. This is the way the conscience works, right? There are idealized behaviors and condemned behaviors. When we see the behaviors, our gut tells us the characteristics of their essence.

What we can see is that all people are of beautiful essence, of infinite value; “It is through the Spirit that we can see that whatsoever exists in any way is good”. However, when we have roadblocks, we cannot see this, even though we are dedicated to the concept in principle.

 

[OneSheep]

So, doing is fundamental to being human. Would you agree? We only arrive at a consideration of human nature/essence by observing (and experiencing firsthand, of course) what it is to be a human , how they behave and how they think.

I don’t know about “fundamental”. We certainly, naturally, see essence based on how we see people behaving. What is more fundamental than behavior, though, are the natural wants, desires, appetite, and capacity of the human himself, which are not really “actions”. It’s more of a programming, our being is written in a certain way, compelled to make certain decisions that lead to actions. Those decisions are heavily influenced by what a person knows and assesses about the world from their own (limited) experiences. We are prone to shortfalls in awareness, and these shortfalls play such an impactful role in our (poor) decisions that the subsequent behaviors turn out to be very superficial means of determining a person’s essence, right?

Seeing what a person thinks gets a little closer to seeing their essence, but even our thoughts can be distorted by want and are subject to varying experiences that create misperception.

Do you see that behaviors and thoughts are more like manifestations of being (and phenomenology, experience, etc), not being itself?

And I think that what you have been getting at is that without jealousy or disobedience certain goods would not obtain in human life. Have I got that right?

Well, the “obtaining” would be less likely to happen, especially in the climate of competition.

If so, then what specifically intrigues me is contemplating what is good/true in all human behavior, even in jealousy or disobedience.

It might not be good and true in behavior. I think your next question is more to the point:

As in, I want to ask, “what is the good being sought (or acknowledged) in a jealous or disobedient act?”

Yes, this is the question that will reveal something. Want to give an example of a situation? (not sure about the “acknowledged” part, that would need further defining)

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep:

…
What I am looking at is the question “Why would God create, as part of our nature, the capacity for disobedience?”
…

To be a partaker of the divine nature, mankind must be capable of expressing love. That we creatures have the ability to love requires free will, and free will also permits malice.

Catechism

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. …

Can you elaborate a bit on this Vico? For example, a person who chooses God because, i.e. if he does not, he is banished from his village is hardly making a “free” choice. Arguably, a person who chooses God because he fears that God will hurt him if he does not is also subject to coercion. Yet, even in these cases some degree of unity exists between the person and Father who chooses out of fear . The relationship is at some level flawed, but it is a beginning, perhaps.

In addition, a person could indeed choose God without having the capacity for disobedience. Indeed, disobedience itself is merely a surface phenomenon, as the heart of man truly wishes to be in union.

And then, disobedience is certainly not limited to relationship between God and man. People can be disobedient and disloyal to tribal leaders, and that is the phenomenon I am addressing. Why did God give us the capacity to be disloyal or disobedient to tribal leaders or an human authority, especially when group cooperation is a matter of tribal survival?

 

[Vico]

…

Human authority may be unjust, and there is a need to develop the conscience, which when certain is to be obeyed, even though there may be loss of one’s life in favor of the spiritual life.

A choice made from fear can bring about a process through which sin may be forgiven.

Inability to disobey in moral matters means lack of free choice of charity which is the subject of moral choices. Without that choice there is no journey and no crowning in victory.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.” 26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts. 27

1453 The contrition called “imperfect” (or “attrition”) is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin’s ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance. 52

311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. 176 He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:

For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself. 177

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” 66 Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.” 67

 

[OneSheep]

Human authority may be unjust

Yes, this is very much what I am thinking. In order to have a world where leaders rule in a just manner, God gave us the capacity to disobey authority.

What God did not do is implant in us an infallible ability to distinguish a just ruler from an unjust one. So man does sometimes err, we defy a benevolent authority, we challenge orders when they do not seem to have reasonable purpose.

As a result, we have a species that is compelled to good, but has a real handicap in terms of actual knowledge. Part of the compulsion to do good is to challenge rules by authority that appear to inhibit freedom in some way.

Do you see what I mean?