St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[OneSheep]

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

“Destruction” can come in the form of identification and integration, that is, the purpose of getting things in control, steering the part of our self away from its “non-extreme intention”. If you go down to John Rowan section of this page, you can find a means of dealing with archetypes or parts of ourselves. Identification is really important.

“What does this part of me want?” is a really good question.

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.

Ah, now I am hearing a bit less of the “destruction” language, and more of an integrative approach. I’m kinda at a loss to comment, bc “psychological element” can mean a lot of different things.

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.

It would be great if you could present an example, and we could see how Augustine might address the same circumstances.

Did you know that as a Bishop, Augustine spent most of his time as a judge/arbitrator? I don’t know how he had time to write!

 

[White_Tree]

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?

This was a typo on my part. I meant to say, “A gut-level emotional reaction to something harmful or negative might actually be something helpful.” I tried to correct it, but by the time I noticed it, I had already passed the edit window and was not allowed to edit my post. My apologies!

The “goodness” is in the intent, what was wanted. Did you read where we discussed book 2, chapter 5, or have you read it?

I read Book 2, Chapter 5, and part of the discussion on this thread. Though my take on Augustine is that he’s saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

He recognizes that even actions with seemingly “good” motives are sin.

Ah, now I am hearing a bit less of the “destruction” language, and more of an integrative approach. I’m kinda at a loss to comment, bc “psychological element” can mean a lot of different things.

By “psychological element” here, I mean anything that falsely conditions our perception. Take, for example, ambition. When our perception is conditioned by ambition, we believe the acquisition of worldly status or power will lead to happiness. This is delusional, because such things are hollow and ephemeral, but conditioned by ambition, we perceive worldly status as desirable, rather than perceiving it as it truly is.

Like Augustine says in Book 2, Chapter 5: " For truly they are beautiful and comely, although in comparison with those higher and celestial goods they be abject and contemptible." Objectively, the pleasures of this world are “abject and contemptible,” but we incorrectly perceive them to be “beautiful and comely” because our perception is obscured, or conditioned, and we do not perceive God.

We clear the obscurity when we untie the knot in our perception, not by repressing or condemning it, but by examining it, and identifying why we perceive that way, and recognizing the false conditioning of our perception for what it is–delusion–as Augustine describes doing in Book 2, Chapter 6, in which he breaks down the delusional nature of a number of sins.

But it’s not enough to recognize it intellectually. Augustine was pointing us in the direction we need to go, but he cannot walk the path for us. We need to work through the false conditioning of our consciousness and subconsciousness through prayer and meditation in order to free ourselves of the delusions that cause us to sin.

 

[White_Tree]

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?

Haha. Well the Bible also uses similar language for describing this process. See, for example, Exodus 17:8-13. Though, as I was describing, and as you pointed out as well, the actual process of destruction is not one of resistance or oppression, but rather of identification, observation, and comprehension.

And I actually haven’t heard of Richard Schwartz or IFS, though I took a look at the IFS link you provided. It looks like a useful system for therapy, though I’m not sure how effective it would be for religion (though I will admit I didn’t study it thoroughly). The goal of religion is the re-binding (“re-ligare”) of ourselves to God. For that to be possible, we need to eliminate the mental obstructions that prevent us from loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Luke 10:27). That requires some very deep cuts into our psychology, because there is a lot within us that puts other loves before God.

It would be great if you could present an example, and we could see how Augustine might address the same circumstances.

This might actually be a good place to put what I was going to include in my last post, which I was unable to provide due to the length restrictions. Here’s what I had originally written:

White_Tree:

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?

I think “evil” in this context is better understood in functional, rather than emotional terms.

The intention, I would argue, is actually a good one. To quote Anna Kingsford:

God called him Satan the Adversary, because matter opposeth spirit, and time accuseth even the saints of the Lord.

[…]

And the Deceiver, for he maketh the false appear true, and concealeth the real under the mask of Illusion.

And the Tempter, for he setteth snares before the feet of the elect: he beguileth with vain shows, and seduceth with enchantments.

Blessed are they who withstand his subtlety: they shall be called the Sons of God, and shall enter in at the beautiful gates.

For Satan is the doorkeeper of the Temple of the King: he standeth in Solomon’s porch; he holdeth the Keys of the Sanctuary;

[…]

For Satan is the Spirit of the Fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom.

 

[White_Tree]

[…]

Stand in awe of him and sin not: speak his name with trembling; and beseech God daily to deliver thee.

For Satan is the magistrate of the justice of God: he beareth the balance and the sword,

To execute judgment and vengeance upon all who come short of the commandments of God; to weigh their works, to measure their desire, and to number their days,

For to him are committed Weight and Measure and Number.

And all things must pass under the rod and through the balance, and be fathomed by the sounding-lead.

Therefore Satan is the minister of God, Lord of the seven mansions of Hades, the angel of the manifest worlds. [cf. 2 Cor 4:4]
[…]

The glory of Satan is the shadow of the Lord: the throne of Satan is the footstool of Adonai.

Twain are the armies of God: in heaven the hosts of Michael; in the abyss the legions of Satan.

These are the unmanifest and the manifest; the free and the bound; the virginal and the fallen.

And both are the ministers of the Father, fulfilling the Word divine.

– The Perfect Way; Or the Finding of Christ

We can see from the Book of Job that Satan is among the Sons of God, and does only that which God commands him.

Nevertheless, to actually listen to Satan is folly. His lies are “evil” in that if we believe them, we fall into the abyss. Similar to what I was saying before, it’s fine to recognize that there is “goodness” or a purpose behind those lies, as Kingsford explains. But we should still treat them as what they are. Lies.

So Satan is evil, but is also good.

God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. But they needed to eat it in order to fulfill God’s plan. As Paul tells us, God’s end goal for man is something greater than Adam:

It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. – 1 Cor 15:42-45

Although what God said is true, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” (Gen 2:17), death is needed for the resurrection (1 Cor 15:36, John 12:24).

And the last Adam, having eaten the fruit, will be like God, knowing good and evil (Gen 3:5).

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning,

I hope you find my lack of prompt response at least tolerable. I’m a bit overwhelmed with tasks lately!

This was a typo on my part. I meant to say, “A gut-level emotional reaction to something harmful or negative might actually be something helpful .”

A gut level emotional reaction to something harmful is, as far as I can see, always helpful, at least in innate function. Can you think of a counterexample?

I read Book 2, Chapter 5, and part of the discussion on this thread. Though my take on Augustine is that he’s saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

So, the focus of this thread is not on “sin”, but on Augustine’s “Through the Spirit, we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good”. The question we are pursuing is "what are the roadblocks encountered by Augustine (and all of us) in seeing this goodness in all that exists?

Objectively , the pleasures of this world are “abject and contemptible,” but we incorrectly perceive them to be “beautiful and comely” because our perception is obscured, or conditioned, and we do not perceive God.

Hmm. I notice that you added the word “objectively” to Augustine’s statement. This is a very key part of the discussion. As Chenu observed, people see God’s goodness, but then they also have what they hold in contempt. The contempt, the emotional perception of something in a negative light (not behaviors, but what underlies them, such as intent or motive), is exactly the emotion to guide us to where the roadblocks are. Contempt is not an ingredient of objectivity, but a trigger for a subjective negative perception. The influence of contempt is unconscious.

Augustine wrote, “For truly they are beautiful and comely” and he could say this because he had either addressed all of his own roadblocks concerning, i.e. desire for power and status, or those had never been a roadblock for him in the first place. He was not saying that their beauty and comeliness were delusional, but only comparatively less beautiful. This is right in line with Plato, correct?

Do you find something contemptible about desire for power? Or status? Notice that I’m not talking about behaviors, I am talking about the desires themselves, and the outcomes desired.

in order to free ourselves of the delusions that cause us to sin.

I do hope we can focus on the roadblocks. In a sense, the roadblocks themselves alienate us from an inner reconciliation, an alienation which is by some definitions “sin”, albeit inadvertent sin, a sin that is so natural that one can hardly resent it. Indeed the process of conscience formation involves formation of the shadow, so the development of roadblocks is in itself essential. The addressing of those roadblocks is an adult process, it involves integration of what we reject without reversing the gut-level reactions to bad behavior. The focus here is on what opens the path to inner reconciliation and growth.

 

[OneSheep]

The goal of religion is the re-binding (“re-ligare”) of ourselves to God. For that to be possible, we need to eliminate the mental obstructions that prevent us from loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Luke 10:27). That requires some very deep cuts into our psychology, because there is a lot within us that puts other loves before God.

Thank you so much for adding that to this thread. Yes, we have mental obstructions to loving much of creation, because we have those roadblocks! Where we see goodness, our love flows freely. Where we see goodness, we are seeing God.

because there is a lot within us that puts other loves before God

So this thread is about seeing God in “all those other loves”, even though they do not in themselves lead to a deeper relationship.

The intention, I would argue, is actually a good one. To quote Anna Kingsford:

I’m hoping you can present something specific. Can you come up with a specific falsehood, and we can examine the intention? St. Augustine is sure to have addressed it in some manner.

I hope to reply to your last section later today.

 

[OneSheep]

Nevertheless, to actually listen to Satan is folly.

I do get the gist of the statement: there is a wisdom to be gained when making choices that lead to harm… we learn that they are harmful! Hopefully we can learn from others (before we make our own mistakes!) that certain choices are dangerous and cause harm.

What I have determined “has come from satan” (or my gut decided! ) I am already holding in contempt. It is very fruitful to examine an idea, to discern from where it comes. As you missed out on the section where we discussed falsehoods, I am hoping that you can present an example that we can examine!

We can keep in mind that Gnostic spirituality involves relegating a great number of things to satanic motion. Monotheism is a transition away from seeing with eyes of contempt.

Here are some important verses that are also relevant, but a little too strongly worded to be directly applicable. Again, if a source of an idea exists, which there always is, then it is through the Spirit that we see that it is a good source. This may sound absolutely ridiculous, but the proof is in the actual examination.

 

[White_Tree]

Hmm. I notice that you added the word “objectively” to Augustine’s statement. This is a very key part of the discussion.

I added it, but I think it is implied already in what he wrote there. A subjective view would be one that we hold based on our own, limited, personal perception. An objective view is one that is unconstrained by the limits of our perception, based only on the facts.

Augustine says, “For truly they are beautiful and comely, although in comparison with those higher and celestial goods they be abject and contemptible.” Meaning, the only time such things appear beautiful and comely is when our vision of the celestial goods is obscured. An objective point of view is one in which our own inability to perceive celestial goods does not condition our understanding. Therefore, from an objective standpoint, such things are abject and contemptible.

That said, I do understand what you mean here:

The contempt, the emotional perception of something in a negative light (not behaviors, but what underlies them, such as intent or motive), is exactly the emotion to guide us to where the roadblocks are.

And I largely agree with your assessment. That type of gut-level contempt that we often have towards particular behaviors or people is very often indicative of a “roadblock,” as you put it. It is a knot in our psychology, a part of ourselves we have not yet come to terms with.

Though when I read that passage from Augustine, I didn’t see it as emotional contempt that he was referring to. I saw it as merely indicating, in a hyperbolic fashion, that such things were undesirable.

That could be my own particular blindness acting there. We have a tendency to project our own emotional state into the things we read. (As an aside, I think that unfortunate habit shares a large part of the blame for why people have become less understanding of each other in this age when so much more communication is happening through screens rather than face to face.) So when I read that, I saw it more as the way Paul talked about putting away childish things (1 Cor 13:11). He didn’t despise such things; he just matured out of them.

Speaking of which…

Do you find something contemptible about desire for power? Or status?

Personally, no. But I see them as among the “childish things” Paul refers to in the verse I just cited. The Atlantic had an article discussing this about a year ago.

Your Work Peak Is Earlier Than You Think - The Atlantic

It talks about the different stages in our lives, and how chasing after worldly rewards is something we do when we’re young. But as we grow older, we are supposed to mature out of that, and start focusing on spiritual rewards. Someone who remains attached to power or status has become stunted in their personal growth, and remains spiritually impoverished as a result.

 

[White_Tree]

It’s the same conundrum presented by Martha and Mary.

Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word. But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. – Luke 10:38-42

Martha is engaging in a “good” service, but as Jesus points out, there is only one thing that is important, and it’s not what Martha is doing.

I’m hoping you can present something specific. Can you come up with a specific falsehood, and we can examine the intention?

I’m not entirely sure what sort of answer you’re trying to coax out of me here.

I mean, I gave the example of slavery described by Lincoln. And I will add, that when Lincoln was saying that God ordained that slavery should exist, he was referring specifically to American slavery, based on racism, greed, and a complete disregard for the liberty or humanity of our fellow man, not the “merciful” kind.

And I gave the example of Satan himself, the originator of evil. Though, to avoid confusion, as I have a habit of sliding too fluidly into symbolic language, I will reiterate what I said earlier in the thread, that Satan is an element within our own mind that tempts us.

Though I think the principle of there being good in everything evil and evil in everything good is so universal that there is no end to the potential examples. As I pointed out, God’s command to Adam was “good” but if Adam had obeyed it, it would have thwarted God’s ultimate plan of salvation (hence, the evil in the good).

Christ’s teachings are light and life, but have been used by many to spread darkness, death, and pain. And for many who don’t understand him, his words become a prison, preventing them from correctly perceiving even basic facts about their own reality… the evil in the good.

If you want to see the good in the evil… well, pick your poison. There’s plenty of evil to choose from.

Avarice, envy, and competition leave the losers of capitalism impoverished, hungry and imprisoned in an endless cycle of economic slavery, while the winners get trapped in the illusion of accomplishment and wealth, when all they really possess are empty shells. And yet, these forces have led to economic development all over the world.

 

[White_Tree]

Lust has driven people into loveless marriages, has destroyed homes and families through adultery, has shattered the minds of young men and women everywhere through the crushing addiction of pornography, and has blinded countless generations to the light of God (cf. Judges 16:21). And yet, because of lust, there are many more human organisms on this earth, and many more people who have the opportunity to aspire to the riches of the spirit.

(As an aside, on adultery, I actually know of several cases in which bad marriages were broken by adultery, and both partners ended up in happier, more fulfilling relationships as a result… after, of course, a very painful transition.)

Fear has led to murder, genocide, and wars. But it also keeps people alive.

And we also have to consider that some of the goodness to be found in evil is in the pain itself, or more specifically, in the wisdom to be acquired from that pain, as I was describing earlier.

Have you read Kahlil Gibran’s The Prophet? He provides a beautiful, poetic description of this. This is from the chapter titled, “On Pain”:

And a woman spoke, saying, Tell us of Pain.
And he said:
Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.
Even as the stone of the fruit must break, that its heart may stand in the sun, so must you know pain.
And could you keep your heart in wonder at the daily miracles of your life your pain would not seem less wondrous than your joy;
And you would accept the seasons of your heart, even as you have always accepted the seasons that pass over your fields.
And you would watch with serenity through the winters of your grief.

Much of your pain is self-chosen.
It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self.
Therefore trust the physician, and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility:
For his hand, though heavy and hard, is guided by the tender hand of the Unseen,
And the cup he brings, though it burn your lips, has been fashioned of the clay which the Potter has moistened with His own sacred tears.

So even pain has a purpose in the Divine plan.

As you missed out on the section where we discussed falsehoods, I am hoping that you can present an example that we can examine!

I think I covered that this time around. Though I thought I had addressed it before. So if I’m still misunderstanding you, perhaps you could provide a little more guidance as to what you’re looking for.

 

[OneSheep]

A subjective view would be one that we hold based on our own, limited, personal perception. An objective view is one that is unconstrained by the limits of our perception, based only on the facts.

Even my view of the facts is constrained by my own, limited, personal perception. There is a humility to be found in acknowledging my limitations! If you see a way out of this, let me know. I have a very narrow scope for what I am willing to call “objective”, and even it is suspect. I have been humbled too many times.

Augustine says, “For truly they are beautiful and comely, although in comparison with those higher and celestial goods they be abject and contemptible.” Meaning, the only time such things appear beautiful and comely is when our vision of the celestial goods is obscured.

Are you sure you aren’t editorializing a bit there?

That type of gut-level contempt that we often have towards particular behaviors or people is very often indicative of a “roadblock,” as you put it. It is a knot in our psychology, a part of ourselves we have not yet come to terms with.

I agree, but as I mentioned before, I see roadblock formation in itself a by-product of conscience development. The “knots” are all good, even though the eventual “coming to terms”, an “untying” is growth. We don’t want to lose those gut-level reactions, and in my own experience, they can’t be removed anyway! I’m looking at roadblock-removal as completely safe, it is a movement toward conciliatory wholeness within, without compromising our drive for justice.

Though when I read that passage from Augustine, I didn’t see it as emotional contempt that he was referring to. I saw it as merely indicating, in a hyperbolic fashion, that such things were undesirable

I can’t read in Book 5 Ch 5 that he was saying status and power are undesirable. From paragraph 10: “The life which we live here has its own peculiar attractiveness because it has a certain measure of comeliness of its own and a harmony with all these inferior values.” If I remember right, Plato was very big on “what is desired”, and I see nothing from this chapter that contradicts that. At the last part of the chapter Augustine points to Catiline, an enemy of Roman elite, as just as human as the rest of us, loving “something else”, not his own crimes, loving something we all desire, even though the object of those desires is of much less value (meaning objectively, but being subjective, and I agree with his subjective )

Someone who remains attached to power or status has become stunted in their personal growth, and remains spiritually impoverished as a result.

No doubt, those attachments lose their joy. And thanks for the article by Arthur Brooks, I read the whole thing and thoroughly enjoyed it, found it quite insightful, and it’s going to help me accept my failing ability to concentrate.

 

[OneSheep]

I’m not entirely sure what sort of answer you’re trying to coax out of me here

My apologies. Now that you bring it back, racism is a perfect and timely example. I dismissed Lincoln’s comments too quickly!

I mean, I gave the example of slavery described by Lincoln. And I will add, that when Lincoln was saying that God ordained that slavery should exist, he was referring specifically to American slavery, based on racism, greed, and a complete disregard for the liberty or humanity of our fellow man, not the “merciful” kind.

Whew! There is already a lot there to cover. But what would give me joy now is to discuss the untruths of racism, because such a discussion is so timely in the context of Black Lives Matter, which I generally support. What I am looking for is a very specific lie to investigate, for legion is impossible to address! There is only one way I know of to address roadblocks: one at a time.

So, if I might provide a specific untruth? I’ll present this one; please let me know if it captures some of the untruth we can address:

“The black man is of less value than the white.” Can we start with that untruth? Or, how about “Slavery is just”?

I apologize for not replying to the rest of your post, including the writing of Kahlil Gibran. I am grateful for all your comments. You cited examples of many aspects of human nature we commonly, by the workings of our conscience development, come to resent; these can only be addressed one at a time.

So, this is an attempt to focus.

 

[White_Tree]

Are you sure you aren’t editorializing a bit there?

Haha. Perhaps I am. Though it seems like a plain reading of the text to me, and a natural and unavoidable implication of what Augustine has provided us.

I agree, but as I mentioned before, I see roadblock formation in itself a by-product of conscience development.

I think you’re right. I’ve spent quite a bit of time pushing back against dualistic concepts of “good” and “evil,” and I’ve often pondered whether it is possible to escape the formation of those roadblocks while also developing a well-formed conscience.

While I think a good conscience can be developed without forming roadblocks in theory, in practice it seems to be out of reach. As children, we are conditioned by our parents with notions of “good” and “bad,” as opposed to being taught why certain behaviors are to be cultivated or avoided. Perhaps parents do this because they believe the children are incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions, or perhaps it is because the parents themselves do not fully understand the reasons behind certain moral norms, and are merely copying their own unconscious conditioning into the minds of their children. I suspect it’s a little of both.

Whatever the ultimate cause, as children we are exposed to a large amount of unconscious conditioning (meaning, conditioning in which we are not fully conscious of the reasons behind it), and this seems to give rise to these “roadblocks.”

I can’t read in Book 5 Ch 5 that he was saying status and power are undesirable.

Agreed. They are desirable, but only because of our spiritual blindness.

Jesus, having perfect perception, was not enticed by such empty things. He fled the crowds when they sought to make him a king (John 6:15). He rejected Satan’s offer to rule over the earth (Matthew 4:8-10).

So, if I might provide a specific untruth? I’ll present this one; please let me know if it captures some of the untruth we can address:

“The black man is of less value than the white.” Can we start with that untruth? Or, how about “Slavery is just”?

We can work with that.

First of all, it should be stated that all racism is based on ignorance. Two fundamental forms of ignorance are at play here. First, there is the belief that race exists as a fundamental feature of reality. (It doesn’t; race is nothing more than a social construct. There is no genetic basis for the concept of “race.”)

The second fundamental point of ignorance is the belief that we are a particular race, entangling our sense of self with the illusion. Once we start identifying with a particular thing, and we say “I am X,” then we naturally develop a vested interest in the success and integrity of that thing.

 

[White_Tree]

Then when X comes under attack, we feel that we are under attack, and when X triumphs, we feel that we have triumphed. (For a silly example of this, see how people behave when a sports team they favored wins a game. They act and feel as if it is their own victory, when all they did was sit on couch, or a bench, and drink beer.)

Yet despite all of the harm that it causes, this double-layered delusion does serve some function. In the same way that racism creates artificial barriers between people, I have also seen cases where racism (and tribalism in general), tore down such barriers. I can’t even remember how many times I’ve seen people who, when placed in a setting with a diverse group of people, formed friendships with people who were part of their “tribe” (e.g. same race, same country, same alma mater, etc.). There’s no reason to assume that a person the same race as you is necessarily going to have anything more in common with you on a deep level than a person of any other race. However, we often fail to get to know people on any sort of deep level because we put up barriers as a form of psychological defense mechanism, and never really give ourselves the chance to get close to many people. But by identifying ourselves with a “tribe” (race is one type of tribe; there are many others), and by believing that tribe has some inherent “goodness” to it, we give ourselves the freedom to let down our barriers with other members of the tribe, allowing ourselves to form real connections with them.

We could form those genuine connections with people outside of our tribe as well, but far too often, we never give ourselves the freedom (and often times, others never gave us that freedom either).

So tribalism (e.g. racism) serves as a way to help us remove the natural barriers we place between ourselves and others. But the poisonous side effects of that mentality include hate, slavery, inequality, and pain.

With specific reference to white on black racism, one of the consequences of that delusion in the United States was school segregation. School segregation negatively impacted the educational attainment of students in schools with less resources, which primarily means black students (because race and socioeconomic status are so tightly linked in America). However, while integration caused some headway to be made with respect to the resource disparity, it led to another phenomenon that served to suppress black educational attainment, and that is the negative social stigma academically successful black students received among their black peers for “acting white.”

Fryer and Torelli published an empirical analysis of this phenomenon in 2010 (and here is a pre-publication working paper version if you want to look at it without going through the paywall). Among their results, one thing they found was “blacks in more segregated schools incur less of a tradeoff between social status and [educational] achievement.”

 

[White_Tree]

So, all things being equal, having segregated schools provided high-achieving black students the freedom to perform well in school without sacrificing their social standing as a result, whereas in more integrated schools, they incurred a social cost for doing well academically.

Is that an argument for re-segregating our schools? No. I will assert without evidence that the resource disparity that arises from segregated schools will have a greater impact on educational outcomes than the social stigma high-achieving black students must incur as a result of integration. However, I cite this here because it demonstrates that not all of the consequences of racism (and the resulting segregation) were 100% negative. There is some good in every evil.

We could make similar statements about slavery. It’s clearly a crime against humanity, with roots in ignorance, and hate. And as Christ tells us:

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. – Matthew 7:16-18

An institution that blossoms from ignorance, indifference towards suffering, and greed, can only bring forth pain for those who participate in it, whether they be those who are subjected to that institution (the slaves) or those who profit from it (the slaveholders).

And yet, as I stated earlier, there is wisdom to be gained from pain. As M explains:

The more advanced soul desires to gain his wisdom as quickly as possible. This plunges him through a range of experience which usually brings with it suffering and exertion. The wise man, whom we meet on earth today, has passed through a greater range of experience than his fellows; he is learned in the ways of mankind through actual experience, and he learns to see and feel as his fellows see and feel.

[…]

It is not the rich who have the monopoly of the Light, it is more often found among the poor… It is more often the tired and hungry heart whose soul becomes flooded with light. – M, The Lord God of Truth Within

We could make similar statements about the economic slavery that still exists today. There are plenty of people who argue that it is “just” to pay people wages so low that they can never hope to escape their station in life, so inadequate that even while holding a full-time job, they still require government assistance for their basic needs. And of course they will make arguments about economic growth, and economic necessity, about how paying everyone so little allows more people to be employed. And all of those statements will be true, on a certain level. But greed and indifference are also true descriptions of the drivers behind this modern slavery. There is good in every evil, but evil it remains.

 

[OneSheep]

I’ve spent quite a bit of time pushing back against dualistic concepts of “good” and “evil,” and I’ve often pondered whether it is possible to escape the formation of those roadblocks while also developing a well-formed conscience…Whatever the ultimate cause, as children we are exposed to a large amount of unconscious conditioning (meaning, conditioning in which we are not fully conscious of the reasons behind it), and this seems to give rise to these “roadblocks.”

The child, for example, gets angry about not getting to go outside. The parent reprimands the anger. Next, the child experiences her brother or sister getting angry and then violently hurting the child. Over time, these unconsciously add up to “anger is a bad part of oneself”. The child pays attention to his anger, and gut-level reacts to his own anger, tempering the expression of it, etc. The child has formed a roadblock, rejecting the part of herself that is capable of anger. Anger becomes an element of her shadow. This is a bit simplistic in explanation, but I think you can see the beauty of the process.

My latest thinking is that dualism and monotheism, when idealized, are shadows of each other. The Gnostic who holds contempt for monotheism and the Christian who holds contempt for dualism both have the opposite point of view in their shadows, but both cosmologies say something about the human psyche.

 

[OneSheep]

We can work with that.

Okay, we are starting with this untruth:

“The black man is of less value than the white.”

So tribalism (e.g. racism) serves as a way to help us remove the natural barriers we place between ourselves and others.

I’m pretty sure that this statement taken by itself would trigger a gut-level reaction in many readers. The statement makes perfect sense in context, as you have made the case for redefining race, racism, and tribalism, but for this thread can we stick with the ordinary uses of the words? I read parts of a book last year in which racism was defined in such a way that all white people are racist and no black people are, and I found the author’s redefinition counter-productive.

Racism:
Merriam-Webster:
a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. (“race” is defined in the normal way).
Oxford:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group

In the common vernacular, “racism” = “racial prejudice”

First of all, it should be stated that all racism is based on ignorance. Two fundamental forms of ignorance are at play here. First, there is the belief that race exists as a fundamental feature of reality. (It doesn’t; race is nothing more than a social construct. There is no genetic basis for the concept of “race.”)

The second fundamental point of ignorance is the belief that we are a particular race, entangling our sense of self with the illusion. Once we start identifying with a particular thing, and we say “I am X,” then we naturally develop a vested interest in the success and integrity of that thing… the poisonous side effects of [tribal] mentality include hate, slavery, inequality, and pain.

Please pardon me for manipulating your post this way! I am doing this so we can focus a little and take it a little deeper into the “why”. Remember, the purpose of this exercise is to find the intent behind “lies”, and to see if those intent(s) are good. We are doing so by investigating an example of a falsehood, and the only way to do that is to examine the falsehood itself, and look for underlying motives for saying/believing the falsehood.

In this type of exercise, I think it is very important to discern the “next” question. These are questions, I think, that go deeper into the matter:

1. Is tribalism is part of our nature?

I think this question is important because it is an identification. It is asking, “am I willing to admit that “tribalism”, as it is ordinarily defined (ingroup/outgroup perception), is something that I am capable of and have some natural proclivity toward?” (even though the conscience may restrain aspects or manifestations of it?) No need to answer these questions, just answering number 1 is sufficient.

 

[OneSheep]

Here is a very important video that adds to our knowledge of the phenomenon of tribalism:

Feel free to ignore the host’s editorializing. She definitely hints a dualistic cosmology, God bless her.

As for the rest of your post(s) I apologize for not responding here, but I hope to send you a message later. Interesting stuff!

 

[White_Tree]

My latest thinking is that dualism and monotheism, when idealized, are shadows of each other. The Gnostic who holds contempt for monotheism and the Christian who holds contempt for dualism both have the opposite point of view in their shadows, but both cosmologies say something about the human psyche.

I think you’re right, and I would even take it one step further. Any concept of religious truth, taken as a dogma, is incorrect.

There is a common aphorism in science that “All models are wrong, but some models are useful.” Science uses models in order to form conceptual frameworks about the natural world and make predictions about how certain actions or natural laws will play out. Religion uses models in the same way; it’s called theology. Theologians form conceptual frameworks about the spiritual world, and use those frameworks to make predictions about how certain actions or spiritual laws will play out.

But like in science, the models themselves are not the natural world. They are merely a way of understanding the natural world through the intellect. The same is true of theology. Our theories, concepts, and beliefs about the spiritual world are not the spiritual world itself; they are merely a way of understanding it. A model can never capture the totality of the thing it represents. It will always, to some degree or another, be wrong.

Thus, when he was asked, “What is Truth?” Christ remained silent (John 18:38). Truth can never be captured in words or concepts. We can only point in its direction.

The statement makes perfect sense in context, as you have made the case for redefining race, racism, and tribalism, but for this thread can we stick with the ordinary uses of the words?

I think it comes down to a question of what the “thing” is that we are examining here.

For example, when I meditate on a particular aspect of my psychology, I often discover thoughts and actions that are completely the opposite of the thing I was meditating on, but are nonetheless merely different manifestations of the object of my meditation. It’s like the same person wearing different clothes in different settings. A person may behave differently when they are wearing a suit vs. when they are wearing shorts and a t-shirt, but ultimately it is the same person under the clothes. If we focused on the behavior of the person only during those times when they were wearing the suit, we would get an incomplete picture of who that person actually is.

 

[White_Tree]

I think that is what is going on here with racism as well. The common understanding of “racism” as “racial prejudice” is merely a particular manifestation and consequence of the broader psychological pattern of tribal identification I was describing. Racial prejudice cannot exist apart from or idependently of that false identification. To talk about the prejudice without talking about the identification is like talking about the person only in a particular outfit, or talking about a branch of a tree, but ignoring the tree itself. The branch is merely an outgrowth of the tree; its life and existence depend on the tree. Similarly, the notion that one race can be superior or inferior is based on the false understanding that race inherently exists, as a fundamental feature of reality, and that we are a particular race. Without that false understanding, racial prejudice cannot exist; it is merely an outgrowth or a manifestation of that fundamental ignorance.

Is tribalism is part of our nature?

I think it is part of our fallen nature.

We lack awareness of both God and the true nature of our own consciousness. Because we are ignorant of who and what we are, and our attention is focused on external phenomena (including phenomena within our own mind, since the mind is external to the observer), we project our sense of self onto those phenomena, believing them to be “us” (because we do not perceive anything else).

All people do this. In the West, we attribute this fundamental ignorance, or darkness of the mind, to the consequences of original sin. In the East (e.g. Hinduism and Buddhism), it is taught that this ignorance is the cause of physical birth to begin with. But regardless of which tradition you belong to, it is universally recognized that there is something fundamentally “broken” about our perception, and that “brokenness” is present in everyone.

Tribalism is one of the natural consequences of that broken perception. And as the video you showed illustrates (very interesting, by the way!), it is so deeply ingrained in who we are that aspects of it show up even in infants.