St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[Magnanimity]

“I could not discern the clear brightness of love from the fog of lustfulness.” Honestly, I think St Augustine is on a roll here. He wants to make a (to my mind, very valid) distinction between love as it is in itself–willing the good of the other for her own sake–and lust, which sees her good inasmuch as it’s a source of pleasure for me but may not extend beyond that.

He then goes on to describe how he strayed further and further from God and that (surprisingly to me) he believes that God simply let him stray. “I boiled over in my fornications, and Thou heldest Thy peace, O Thou my tardy joy! Thou then heldest Thy peace, and I wandered further and further from Thee.” This reminds me a little of how Mother Theresa affirmed that for many years she felt God to be silent, even though He had been so verbal in His calling of her to mission earlier in her life.

It is interesting to me that one can have a theology that suggests that God can be “silent” and allow one to stray away. I know that, phenomenologically, life can certainly seem to suggest His silence at times. But, actual silence from God? I’m not really clear what that would even mean, but maybe he’s just speaking existentially–what it seemed like, from his perspective.

And wow, how many men (especially young Catholic men) have had this next thought pass through their minds? “Oh! that some one had then attempered my disorder, and turned to account the fleeting beauties of these, the extreme points of Thy creation! had put a bound to their pleasureableness.” As I understand him, he sees the beauty of female humans as examples of the extreme exemplars of beauty within the creation. Is that how you understand him here? I do rather agree with him. Female humans can some times rival sunsets and flower gardens and architecture and sonatas in their exemplification of beauty.

 

[OneSheep]

At the very least, we desire to “control” our children, at least when they are young, right?

I think that is fairly universal, yes. However, how “controlling” a parent will be will depend on a number of factors, including the parent’s own feeling of power/powerlessness. It’s like the kid who gets picked on at school and then comes home and kicks the dog.

I like how he begins by saying, “And what was it that I delighted in, but to love, and be loved?” This shows the underlying good of any and all conjugal love, I imagine.

Yes.

…and I wandered further and further from Thee.” This reminds me a little of how Mother Theresa affirmed that for many years she felt God to be silent, even though He had been so verbal in His calling of her to mission earlier in her life.

Yes, I don’t see any evidence of roadblock here. He is not condemning some part of himself. It still stands possible that through the Spirit he is seeing that everything that exists is good. “Fornications” do not exist, they occur. They are bad choices. He isn’t explicitly condemning sexuality or even lust in the sentences you quoted.

But, actual silence from God? I’m not really clear what that would even mean, but maybe he’s just speaking existentially–what it seemed like, from his perspective.

Yes, it was his experience at the time, I think.

female humans as examples of the extreme exemplars of beauty within the creation…I do rather agree with him.

Of course, as long as we are talking objective philosophy, I see that you have a firm grasp of the facts.

So, I’m seeing that you are having as much trouble as I did in finding roadblocks concerning sexuality. However, I think that his reference to desire for sex as an “invisible enemy” is at least somewhat endorsing the view that sexual desire is not something good, and since sexual desire is part of our existence, it serves at least as a potential roadblock for Augustine, and certainly many of the faithful.

So what do you think? Is desire for sex part of the beauty of being human? Or is it a “bad part” of our nature? Or, perhaps, is there an existing aspect of desire for sex that is “bad”?

Note: I’m not talking about choices or manifested behaviors, those are a different application of the word “exist”. I am coming from a position that programming exists, including the program for automatic blindness occurring when a person is overwhelmed by desire (perhaps it is a subroutine? ). For example, is the capacity for triggered blindness bad?

 

[OneSheep]

Dear Readers:

So I’m discovering that this approach is compatible with Internal Family Systems, IFS, in terms of addressing the “parts of ourselves” which can be experienced as “thoughts, feelings, sensations, and images”: The Internal Family Systems Model Outline | IFS Institute

So far, we have covered these “parts”: Desire for control, desire for status, capacity to lie, and several other “parts”, and now we are addressing desire for sex. The Jungian approach to these “parts” is definitely one of addressing these as images, specifically as “archetypes”, which can be gleaned from much of the myths and stories through the ages.

And while IFS is a psychological approach, it has its own internal philosophy, and like all philosophies it is grounded in human experience. I’m finding IFS, as psychologies and philosophies go, particularly in sync with the gospel, but that will be a different thread. IMO, much of psychology and philosophy can fall under a more all-embracing term: Spirituality.

In the mean time, moving right along, what do you think? Is desire for sex part of the beauty of being human? Or is it a “bad part” of our nature? Or, perhaps, is there an existing aspect of desire for sex that is “bad”?

 

[OneSheep]

He then goes on to describe how he strayed further and further from God and that (surprisingly to me) he believes that God simply let him stray. “I boiled over in my fornications, and Thou heldest Thy peace, O Thou my tardy joy! Thou then heldest Thy peace, and I wandered further and further from Thee.” This reminds me a little of how Mother Theresa affirmed that for many years she felt God to be silent, even though He had been so verbal in His calling of her to mission earlier in her life.

In this line, too, St. Augustine does not seem to condemn some part of himself, he may still be seeing the Spirit in himself, even as one prone to fornication at that time he reflected upon.

Shall we move on to something else?

 

[Magnanimity]

So what do you think? Is desire for sex part of the beauty of being human?

Maybe in this way—desire for sex can often have an intensity that rivals desire for the most delicious food/drink when we are famished! It is a fascinating aspect of some of our desires (like for sex, food) that the intensity level of the craving can be through the roof some times! Perhaps there is something teleological in this crazing-intensity. As in, our final end (God), if we only knew how much he corresponds to our deepest desires, we could experience cravings similar to that of sex and food?

 

[OneSheep]

Perhaps there is something teleological in this crazing-intensity.

Yes, this makes sense especially since we share the craze with the rest of higher animals.

Again, I think we are looking at a secondary cause, right? The craze is so that we keep on making kids.

As in, our final end (God), if we only knew how much he corresponds to our deepest desires, we could experience cravings similar to that of sex and food?

Well… in my experience, the “craving” for God is in part a craving for wholeness, and I don’t get the neurological/physiological charge out of such wholeness. Do you? For example, when I forgive someone, I feel much better, but it more of a warm-fuzzy “all is good now” than neurological zap from an appetite being satisfied.

Augustine spent his entire adult life fighting off charges of “crypto-manichaeism”. I wonder if @White_Tree has something to add about the gnostic influence? The Manichees certainly allowed their contempt for crazing appetites to influence their cosmology, forming the dualistic model.

Some label Augustine as the means by which gnosticism entered Catholic theology, especially concerning sexuality, so perhaps discussion of this particular roadblock should involve a little bit of the Manichaean aspect. Those Manichees had some major issues about sex!

 

[White_Tree]

I wonder if @White_Tree has something to add about the gnostic influence?

It’s difficult to know how much of Augustine’s theology was influenced by Gnosticism, as opposed to how much of his time with the Manichees was instead driven by Augustine.

The idea of Augustine as a “crypto-Manichee,” and similar criticisms against him, are based on the notion that we come into the world as a blank slate and are passive receptacles of religious ideas. But often we are drawn to particular ideas because we have within us an innate predisposition towards a particular type of thought.

I know in myself, for instance, I had a tendency to understand scriptures in terms of symbols and spiritual archetypes almost as far back as I can remember. I certainly didn’t learn it from my teachers or parents, since I would disagree with them on matters of theology all the time. And I certainly didn’t have access to any books that taught me how to see scriptures that way.

It wasn’t until later in my life that I found teachers and books that could help me build upon that understanding. In a sense, I was choosing certain teachers and joining certain groups not because I was being influenced by their ideas, but rather because I already had those ideas in me, and my choice to associate with them was merely an external manifestation of what I already was inside.

Part of me suspects something like that might have been happening with Augustine, too. Something about the Manichees attracted him enough to make him want to spend a decade of his life with those people. It’s hard to believe that he simply “drank the Kool-Aid” and was duped into believing a flawed theology for 10 years because of a charismatic leader or a well-worded argument. Rather, it seems more likely that he was drawn to the Manichees because they spoke to something within him that he already innately knew (or at least felt) to be true.

Obviously, later in his life, he disavowed them, because clearly they took some of those fundamental truths and extended them beyond their reasonable, truthful implications. Yet, even if he disavowed the Manichees, I wouldn’t expect him to disavow the fundamental understandings about the nature of life and the human person that led him to join them in the first place. I’m not even sure he could do that, because such understandings would likely seem so innate and basic to him that rejecting them would seem ludicrous.

So I’m not sure whether it’s possible to tell how much of Augustine’s “crypto-Manichaeism” is really the influence of the Manichees, and how much of it is raw Augustine, simply expressing his own understanding of life and truth.

 

[OneSheep]

It wasn’t until later in my life that I found teachers and books that could help me build upon that understanding. In a sense, I was choosing certain teachers and joining certain groups not because I was being influenced by their ideas, but rather because I already had those ideas in me, and my choice to associate with them was merely an external manifestation of what I already was inside

Thanks for responding. It is my understanding that part of the local tribal mentality was one of “demons in the desert” in North Africa, so that likely had some effect, but I agree, not only is there an archetypal dimension, but also a conscience-formation dimension that makes dualism very attractive, even the “default” way of seeing the world, IMO.

I was choosing certain teachers and joining certain groups not because I was being influenced by their ideas, but rather because I already had those ideas in me, and my choice to associate with them was merely an external manifestation of what I already was inside.

There is not much new “under the sun” in this regard. I think some great questions to ask are ones like “Why is this way of looking at the world attractive to the human?” These are great questions to ask regarding all the “heresies”. There can be an underlying truth that is being shunned, or perhaps an archetype that is being rejected, or just a matter of individuation.

Something about the Manichees attracted him enough to make him want to spend a decade of his life with those people

Yep, my thoughts exactly. Augustine’s father and mother had such different ideas about sexuality, and its likely that the dynamics of those relationships had something to do with it also. He stuck to Manichaeism because of the teachings that the sexual exploits would be sort of erased when he died, and he did not see that in mainstream Christianity.

His sexual life was a burden to him, you think?

 

[OneSheep]

Yet, even if he disavowed the Manichees, I wouldn’t expect him to disavow the fundamental understandings about the nature of life and the human person that led him to join them in the first place. I’m not even sure he could do that, because such understandings would likely seem so innate and basic to him that rejecting them would seem ludicrous.

Marie-Dominique Chenu observed that one of the core influences on any theology is contempt. We have contempt for the parts of ourselves that seem to be out of control or “push” our thoughts and behaviors in the wrong direction, in an unconscionable direction.

Augustine observed that “Through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good”, which is so very insightful, but like all of us, that “seeing” is not automatic or accessible when there is the specter of what we hold in contempt. This thread is about identifying those aspects of human nature that were stumbling blocks for Augustine, as those “roadblocks” to seeing are experienced by everyone, though the specific content of what is held in contempt about our own nature will be as varied as there are individuals, of course.

So I’m not sure whether it’s possible to tell how much of Augustine’s “crypto-Manichaeism” is really the influence of the Manichees, and how much of it is raw Augustine, simply expressing his own understanding of life and truth.

One of the beautiful things about Augustine was that he tried to be true to the tradition of Christianity (short as it was) as well as some tenets of Platonism, and had the wherewithal and confidence to preach and guide the flock. His life was grounded in prayer, and he had the freedom to “be himself”, I think, to individuate, to self-contradict, to lead in what appears to be a very humble manner (for the most part!).

Have you had a chance to read the OP of this thread? What is your opinion of this effort?

 

[White_Tree]

I think some great questions to ask are ones like “Why is this way of looking at the world attractive to the human?” These are great questions to ask regarding all the “heresies”. There can be an underlying truth that is being shunned, or perhaps an archetype that is being rejected, or just a matter of individuation.

I think you’re right. Gnosticism is very, very old, and remarkably persistent. I find this quote from the Catholic Encylopedia very telling:

The beginnings of Gnosticism have long been a matter of controversy and are still largely a subject of research. The more these origins are studied, the farther they seem to recede in the past.

It predates Christianity, and despite all attempts to stamp it out, it still exists today. A religion with that much staying power must speak to something innate within the human person.

His sexual life was a burden to him, you think?

Perhaps. Though there is another way of looking at it.

Sex is inextricably intertwined with religion. God’s covenant with Abraham was a covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:10-14). The Ark of the Covenant, representing the covenant He had with the Israelites, contained the rod of Aaron and the cup of manna, in addition to the tablets (Heb 9:4), suggesting they were central to the Covenant, and it’s not hard to see the sexual symbolism in a cup and a staff. Paul put sexual sins in a completely separate category from all other sins (1 Cor 6:18), and I can make a fairly reasonable argument that Jesus did as well, but it tends not to be very popular around here, so I will refrain. When the woman at the well asked Jesus for the living water, he told her to go get her husband (John 4:15-16). According to John, the first miracle Christ performed was at a wedding (John 2:11). Before “re-Christening” Jacob with the name of Israel, the angel of the Lord struck Jacob in the hollow of his thigh (right next to the genitals) (Gen 32:25). And God gave Moses two commandments about sex (6 and 9) and only one about killing, which is suggestive of the types of things that are important to Him.

Even outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition, Vajrayana Buddhism teaches that the secret method to attain complete enlightenment in a single lifetime involves tantra, or sex. So there is something really deep and fundamental going on here regarding the relationship between sex and religion.

It’s one thing to see that in scripture, but it’s another thing to have experiential knowledge of the impact our sexual behavior has on our spiritual life.

Augustine’s years of promiscuity might have been a burden for him, though I suspect he also learned a lot from those years about the impact sex had on his relationship with God, and that knowledge was reflected in his later works.

 

[White_Tree]

Do I think his understanding on these matters was complete (e.g. at the level of Moses or Jesus)? Probably not, and in that sense, perhaps his sex life made him aware of the spiritual damage wrought by unchecked sexual desire but not the full potential of its opposite polarity. That said, I certainly don’t think he overdid it on warning about the dangers of concupiscence.

Have you had a chance to read the OP of this thread? What is your opinion of this effort?

I took a look at the OP, though I haven’t read the whole thread, so it’s possible this idea has already been discussed before. It’s not clear to me that the quotes you juxtaposed necessarily represent a contradiction or a roadblock.

Take concupiscence, for example. Clearly he felt it was evil, and to be avoided, but it does have a purpose, like I was just describing. If he hadn’t engaged in that behavior in his youth, he may never have come to an awareness of its true nature.

As Christ tells us,

When [the devil] speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. – John 8:44

Our mind is afflicted by temptation because we are under the false impression that happiness and completion can come from the satisfaction of our (sensory) desires. That is the lie told to us by the “devil” (our mind). As long as we believe it, we can never truly choose God, because (at least subconsciously) we continue to believe that the pursuit of sensory satisfaction can bring us genuine fulfillment.

While the fulfillment of those desires may not bring happiness, it can bring awareness, as was the case of Augustine. Many people pursue their desires and get lost in an abyss of confusion and darkness, ultimately being consumed by the same desires they sought to satisfy. But Augustine (like other holy men) had enough consciousness of himself to ultimately realize that the sensory pleasures he sought were empty. And then he could choose God with all his heart.

If he had never experienced the inherent emptiness of those pleasures, he might have continued to live in the illusion that they could bring him happiness. Maybe he would have chosen God with his thinking mind, but dedication to holiness would be incomplete, because there would still be a part of him that believed the lie.

In that sense, “whatsoever exists in any way is good” (or at least, can be good), if it used to bring us to choose God more fully, rather than as a stumbling block. Though it’s not a stretch to see how the lies of the devil are also evil.

 

[OneSheep]

A religion with that much staying power must speak to something innate within the human person.

Arguably, a person could find dualism in every world religion. To me, shadow formation is an essential part of forming a conscience. “Gnosticism”, though, is a super-broad term, right?

So there is something really deep and fundamental going on here regarding the relationship between sex and religion.

You make a good case for that!

It’s one thing to see that in scripture, but it’s another thing to have experiential knowledge of the impact our sexual behavior has on our spiritual life.
Augustine’s years of promiscuity might have been a burden for him, though I suspect he also learned a lot from those years about the impact sex had on his relationship with God, and that knowledge was reflected in his later works.

Yes. But the roadblock-possibility remains:

“my invisible enemy trod me down and seduced me, for I was easy to seduce.”

Confessions Book 2, ch 3, para 8

He was referring to his sexual desire. He was possibly seeing his desire as something not “good”, but possibly not. If nothing else, though, his statement endorses (if inadvertently) looking at sexual desire as coming from somewhere not good.

I think we have to admit that labeling something in a negative way begins with emotional underpinnings, a gut-level reaction. So when something is labeled as “evil” or “enemy”, anything like that, if the emotional underpinnings are not specifically addressed, the label stands as an endorsement, even a promotion, of the emotional reaction. So even if Augustine did not intend to endorse the emotional negative, there are plenty of readers who will buy-in to the suggestion (or simply agree through their own experiences) and the dualistic model of human nature is upheld and subsequently projected onto the cosmos.

I hope to get to your second post later today.

 

[OneSheep]

That said, I certainly don’t think he overdid it on warning about the dangers of concupiscence.

Agreed.

I took a look at the OP, though I haven’t read the whole thread, so it’s possible this idea has already been discussed before. It’s not clear to me that the quotes you juxtaposed necessarily represent a contradiction or a roadblock.

Yes, not necessarily, but since he did not rule out or address a dualistic interpretation of what he said, we are investigating the possibility. Dualism begins with an emotional reaction to some aspect of existence, and we are looking at identifying, and possibly integrating, those parts of our nature we resent.

If you have seen a discussion of this idea, I would love to see it! I don’t recommend reading the whole thread here, but if you are unfamiliar with his foundational Platonic approach, you might want to browse the first part of the thread.

To summarize the rest, so far we have explored his possible roadblocks to integrating natural human desires for status, power, dominance, and capacities for jealousy, disobedience, and lying (though I might have missed something). We have addressed them in the order that they arise in Confessions. The latest one we are tackling here is desire for sex, but his language indicating non-integration is actually much lighter for the most part. He addresses his sexual desires in more of a lamenting way than a condemning way.

Take concupiscence, for example. Clearly he felt it was evil, and to be avoided, but it does have a purpose, like I was just describing. If he hadn’t engaged in that behavior in his youth, he may never have come to an awareness of its true nature.

Are you saying that the purpose of his behavior was the coming to awareness? I didn’t see a description of the purpose of concupiscence. We should probably try to define “concupiscence”.

we continue to believe that the pursuit of sensory satisfaction can bring us genuine fulfillment.

Yes, this is a lack of awareness.

Maybe he would have chosen God with his thinking mind, but dedication to holiness would be incomplete, because there would still be a part of him that believed the lie.

The word “lie” indicates a contempt for a false statement or thought. We discussed lies earlier in the thread, you might want to take a look. False thoughts come from a place of lack of awareness. When we resent or hold contempt for the motives behind the lie, those motives, though part of our being, are not seen as “good”, they have not been integrated in a way that we can see that all of our nature comes from God.

 

[OneSheep]

In that sense, “whatsoever exists in any way is good” (or at least, can be good)…

Well, saying it can be good is already saying it isn’t good now, correct? This is what this thread is investigating, the parts of ourselves that we do not see as good, but we are following Augustine’s Confessions as a structure for that effort.

Though it’s not a stretch to see how the lies of the devil are also evil.

Do you see that it depends on how we see the intention behind a particular falsehood that leads to the labeling of the falsehood in a contemptuous way?

 

[fhansen]

The word “lie” indicates a contempt for a false statement or thought. We discussed lies earlier in the thread, you might want to take a look. False thoughts come from a place of lack of awareness. When we resent or hold contempt for the motives behind the lie, those motives, though part of our being, are not seen as “good”, they have not been integrated in a way that we can see that all of our nature comes from God.

Integrity comes from God. Falsehood comes from failing to be integrated or aligned with His will. No evil can be consistent with our created natures but rather involves, at some point, a choice to stray away from them. Free will allows for that possibility. We’re more or less culpable for embracing falsehood, for whatever reasons, to the extent that we possess knowledge of the truth of the matter.

 

[OneSheep]

Integrity comes from God.

Exactly. And integration is a process that begins with various modes of prayer. So if we take what we have labelled from somewhere as a “lie”, if we are not giving it the nuanced “white lie” or some other less-condemning label, then integration involves, in part, an investigation of the motives behind the lie.

Falsehood comes from failing to be integrated or aligned with His will.

Again, I agree. We all begin with positions of unknowing and grow in wisdom and awareness, as Jesus did. Integration is a process. Note: for the most part I am talking about integration of the parts of the self that we resent/condemn, but since this process is part of the entire growth towards wholeness, I think we can use the word “integration” in a very broad sense.

As Augustine demonstrated, we can integrate our desires for power, status, and other human instincts.

No evil can be consistent with our created natures but rather involves, at some point, a choice to stray away from them. Free will allows for that possibility.

What might be the motives for choosing to stray away?
What does the individual want?

Do you see that these are the questions that we are asking in this thread? Augustine said so beautifully, “through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good”. Motives have an existence; they are part of the programming of our created nature, and even though Augustine made the statement, he still held in contempt parts of his own nature.

And what we hold in contempt, we are going to find difficult (if not impossible) to integrate.

 

[White_Tree]

“Gnosticism”, though, is a super-broad term, right?

More so than most people realize!

Yes. But the roadblock- possibility remains

Absolutely. Augustine certainly had them. We all do. Except maybe Jesus, though he was a special case.

I think we have to admit that labeling something in a negative way begins with emotional underpinnings, a gut-level reaction.

I think you might be right here, but the question is whether it is the emotional reaction or the thing we are reacting to that is “not good.”

A gut-level emotional reaction to something harmful or negative might actually be something harmful. If we are rejecting sin or harmful influences with only our thinking mind, we will ultimately fail. Our desire for holiness needs to go deeper than that.

We have to think about why “whatsoever exists in any way is good.” I’m reminded of Christ’s parable about the sower of the seeds.

And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. – Matthew 13:3-9

All of those seeds have a purpose in nature. Birds also have to eat, for instance. Yet Jesus is clearly suggesting here that being a seed that grows into a tree is a superior purpose, and being bird food is to be avoided.

Lincoln also had a good discussion of this paradox of how reprehensible things can be considered “good” in his second inaugural address. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses for it must needs be that offenses come but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which in the providence of God must needs come but which having continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

Slavery is a horrible institution. Yet, Lincoln is asserting here that it had some purpose in God’s plan, and God allowed it to exist. As to what that purpose was, we can only speculate. From that perspective, slavery was “good” (in the spirit of the quote from Augustine). Nevertheless, as Lincoln (quoting Christ) tells us, “woe unto that man by whom the offense cometh” (Matthew 18:7).

 

[White_Tree]

So even though slavery was “good,” the type of “good” that it was is not what we commonly understand the word “good” to mean. That is, it served some function ordained by God, but the people who participated in the performance of that function (such as the slaveholders), and even those who reluctantly suffered it to exist (such as those in the North), paid for that offense with blood.

To summarize the rest, so far we have explored his possible roadblocks to integrating natural human desires for status, power, dominance, and capacities for jealousy, disobedience, and lying (though I might have missed something).

I’ve read through a portion of the thread, and I’m still not entirely sure what you mean by “integrate” in this context. It sounds to me that you’re referring to a practice of coming to accept those “natural human desires” as part of ourselves.

I think that process of acceptance is important, but only as a prerequisite to eliminating those psychological tendencies. It’s fine to recognize that certain natural tendencies have a purpose ordained by God, but also recognize that those same tendencies need to be destroyed.

I actually saw an excellent illustration of this principle this past weekend. A man in my area reached out to me because he believed he was possessed and thought he needed an exorcism, and he wanted to discuss his situation. After reviewing some of the facts, we were able to determine that the entity afflicting him was not an external demon that had entered into him, but was actually a repressed aspect of his own psychology.

In his desire for holiness, he had eliminated certain harmful activities from his life, but because he had only eliminated them from his physical life and was pushing them out of the surface levels of his mind, this psychological element continued operating in his subconsciousness, and was producing many undesirable effects in his life.

I won’t go into all of the details, but obviously this psychological element is wicked, and needs to be destroyed. If it is allowed to continue to exist, it will drag him into the abyss. Regardless of what “good” function it might have originally served in God’s plan, an aspect of ourselves that mimics the effects of demonic possession is not something we want to keep around.

That psychological element is what it is. Viewing it as “evil” and repressing it might have changed the way it behaved, but its fundamental character or nature were constant. And its fundamental character is that of something that needs to be destroyed if we aspire to salvation. Its (spiritually) dangerous nature may have been revealed by the repression, but it was always there.

 

[White_Tree]

The “dualistic” error here is not in recognizing the fundamental nature of this psychological element as something that needs to die, but rather that in perceiving through the (false) dualistic lens of good and evil, this element was deemed to be something “evil” without fully comprehending the totality of what it was. The perception of “evil” obscured the correct perception of this psychological element, and the desire to flee from, or rid ourselves of “evil” inhibited the proper investigation and understanding of that aspect of his psychology. Basically, it was judged without a trial.

It might be more accurate to say that nothing is fully good or fully evil. We need to be able to perceive the good in the evil, and the evil in the good. When we look at the universe and ourselves through the lens of duality, it inhibits our perception. But it is perfectly acceptable to clearly perceive something for what it is, and recognize that thing needs to be destroyed (e.g. the institution of slavery, or the psychological element that was tormenting this man).

Are you saying that the purpose of his behavior was the coming to awareness? I didn’t see a description of the purpose of concupiscence. We should probably try to define “concupiscence”.

By concupiscence here, I was meaning desire, though specifically sexual desire. You’re right–it was his behavior that led to the awareness, not the desire itself. The concupiscence drives the behavior. It’s a proximate cause.

The word “lie” indicates a contempt for a false statement or thought.

Possibly. Though that is really an emotional association we have with the word, not a meaning inherent in the word itself. I think it’s possible to recognize a statement or thought as a lie (because it objectively is one), but not have that recognition obscure our perception of that statement through contempt or resentment.

Well, saying it can be good is already saying it isn’t good now, correct?

Haha. I suppose you’re right. Though that presumes a separation of cause and effect.

Another way of looking at it might be that because all effects are already contained within their causes, having the potential for goodness is goodness itself…

(Note: I had more written, but it won’t allow more than 3 consecutive posts. Someone else needs to post before I’m allowed to post again.)

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks for responding! I am glad that @Magnanimity suggested I invite you.

Absolutely. Augustine certainly had them. We all do.

Well, we have roadblocks until we identify and integrate them. Roadblocks are finite in number!

A gut-level emotional reaction to something harmful or negative might actually be something harmful.

Is this a gut-level reaction to certain gut-level reactions? If so, are there certain cases that you can identify? I am thinking that these reactions occur from the activity of the conscience itself, and that maybe you are referring to a misinformed conscience?

Slavery is a horrible institution. Yet, Lincoln is asserting here that it had some purpose in God’s plan, and God allowed it to exist. As to what that purpose was, we can only speculate.

When one tribe defeated another in battle to acquire their lands, enslaving the women and children was seen as a more merciful alternative than murder. The “goodness” is in the intent, what was wanted. Did you read where we discussed book 2, chapter 5, or have you read it?

The “good” wanted by those who bought slaves in the 19th century was cheap labor, a means to greater wealth. They were blind, but that was the intent.

I’ve read through a portion of the thread, and I’m still not entirely sure what you mean by “integrate” in this context. It sounds to me that you’re referring to a practice of coming to accept those “natural human desires” as part of ourselves.

As a good, functionally beautiful part of ourselves. And not just desires/drives/motives, but capacities also.

I think that process of acceptance is important, but only as a prerequisite to eliminating those psychological tendencies.

Destroying the archetypes, destroying parts of ourselves? That sounds like letting the “warrior” take over. Can’t we all just get along? Have you read much of Richard Schwartz, IFS?

I get what you mean, though, there is a need to get our desires and capacities under control. There is an inner harmony to be found, though. Augustine seemed to integrate many of his “tendencies” as you can see in Book 2 ch 5.

After reviewing some of the facts, we were able to determine that the entity afflicting him was not an external demon that had entered into him, but was actually a repressed aspect of his own psychology.

Yes, he may have been subconsciously trying to destroy that part of himself. I am wondering if we are talking about a coping mechanism, not an instinct or capacity. Coping mechanisms have their own “good intents”, but can also be destructive in the long run. I’ll never forget the book I read on co-dependency, written by a woman who came to realize that her self-medicating as a teenager probably saved her from suicide.