St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[OneSheep]

Racial prejudice cannot exist apart from or independently of that false identification.

It’s only false in a strictly biological sense, but it is, in reality, a distinction that people make. Did you see in the video how “tribes” come about?

I think it [tribalism] is part of our fallen nature.

Okay, so you are admitting, like I do, that we are all capable of, and do have, tribal tendencies? If so, this is called, in Jungian terms, “identification”. Generally speaking, it is a taking ownership of some aspect of our nature, which can be a very painful and humbling admission. Do you agree that this is an important part of addressing roadblocks?

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.

Well, we are born mostly unaware. How do you feel about being born this way?

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.

Exactly. The capacity for tribalism is innate. It would not matter if people were all white or all black, we form tribes based on a multitude of other parameters, the thing we like, the smells of our bodies, the clothes we wear, ideologies, religions, politics, languages, surnames, geographical origin, favorite sports team, eye shape, any number of different physical or environmental attributes.

So, if you have admitted that this is part of your own nature (identification), we can move onto the next question. Jesus, who inspires us to transcend our very nature, does the super-natural, he uses examples of a loathed tribe (Samaritans, definitely in the outgroup!) to tell stories to Jews (the ingroup) about how to behave mercifully. This calls for an awareness about tribalism and a discipline to address this aspect of our nature, but before we move on to the next question, we must admit that it is part of our nature.

Do you admit that this is part of your natural tendency, that it is an aspect of our human genetic makeup?

For me, this involves admitting what tribal affiliations I am part of or was part of. It is very interesting, also, to ask questions like, “how did I end up with this affiliation?”. There is a letting go of righteousness, I think, when we realize that the answer to the question lies in the accident of birthplace and parenting, the accident of circumstance, where we grow up, and who we grew up with. It’s a humbling thing, is it not?

 

[White_Tree]

It’s only false in a strictly biological sense, but it is, in reality, a distinction that people make. Did you see in the video how “tribes” come about?

Yes, I did, and I would agree with that characterization. It’s real on its level. As Havelock Ellis said, “Dreams are real as long as they last. Can we say more of life?”

Okay, so you are admitting, like I do, that we are all capable of, and do have, tribal tendencies?

Of course!

Do you agree that this is an important part of addressing roadblocks?

100%!

How do you feel about being born this way?

“Red roses are better than white, because they have the sapience of sin” (Samael Aun Weor). And yet, it is not pleasant or easy to become a “red rose.”

I suppose it is similar to the way I feel about pain.

Do you admit that this is part of your natural tendency, that it is an aspect of our human genetic makeup?

I think it is a “natural” tendency, though I am hesitant to attribute it to genetics.

Personally, I am skeptical of scientists’ quest to claim every aspect of human nature is genetic. Genes certainly play a part in the way we think and act, but I think there are more components to our “innate” nature than just the matter of our physical bodies. So I’m 75% with you here.

For me, this involves admitting what tribal affiliations I am part of or was part of. It is very interesting, also, to ask questions like, “how did I end up with this affiliation?”. There is a letting go of righteousness, I think, when we realize that the answer to the question lies in the accident of birthplace and parenting, the accident of circumstance, where we grow up, and who we grew up with. It’s a humbling thing, is it not?

It is. You’re right.

It reminds me of a something a teacher from an eastern tradition said to me a number of years ago.

He talked about how this tendency to identify with a tribe (though he didn’t use that term) followed us from lifetime to lifetime, and how ironic it was that we develop superiority complexes based on the random circumstances of our upbringing. A person who in one life believed in the superiority of his own race or gender or religion may come back in another life with a different race, or a different gender, or be raised in a different religion, and develop the same feeling of superiority about his new identity.

Very peculiar, the types of things we latch onto.

 

[White_Tree]

And I agree with you also that it is very interesting, and very useful to ask questions like, “How did I end up with this affiliation?” It’s something I’ve thought about a lot with respect to religion, and it’s something I’ve been thinking about recently in terms of politics and even science as well, and a very important question for this particular juncture in history, especially.

I was talking to a friend just last night who lives in a different part of the country than I do, and it was very interesting to observe not just the difference in views, but also the difference in facts that we were aware of. It kind of makes me wonder how many of the divisions between people are simply due to us being selectively isolated from certain bodies of information.

It’s a thought that crosses my mind whenever I see threads here like this:

How do atheists explain Eucharistic Miracles Philosophy

How do atheists explain Eucharistic miracles? Stigmata? Incorruptible bodies of saints? Weeping/unnatural things happening with statues? Saints having visions, levitating, etc? Miraculous healings? Many of these can even be pulled up with multiple pictures {look up Eucharistic miracles & incorruptible saints!} & sources online?

Or like this:

Why do miracles appear in other religions? Apologetics

If God is the only God, why do miracles appear in other faiths attributed to other gods/goddesses?

As well as all manner of similar threads that pop up here periodically.

How much of the differences between us are not due to different thoughts, values, or even philosophies, but rather due to applying the same set of values to different sets of information?

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep:

Okay, so you are admitting, like I do, that we are all capable of, and do have, tribal tendencies?

Of course!

And just like the infants in the video certainly could not describe or explain why they preferred certain puppets, many, if not most of our own tribal tendencies are unconscious.

OneSheep:

How do you feel about being born this way?

“Red roses are better than white, because they have the sapience of sin” (Samael Aun Weor). And yet, it is not pleasant or easy to become a “red rose.”

I suppose it is similar to the way I feel about pain.

Well, without the capacity for pain, we injure ourselves. Children born without pain receptors gouge out their own eyes and leap from high places, breaking their bones. So while the experience of pain is uncomfortable, the capacity for pain enhances our ability to survive and thrive.

The same cannot be said for being born largely unaware, and unawareness leads to errors of judgment. So we have a choice, do we accept it (the state of birth), or do we resent it? All the other of God’s creatures are born unaware, and grow in wisdom, so we are not alone.

OneSheep:

Do you admit that this is part of your natural tendency, that it is an aspect of our human genetic makeup?

I think it is a “natural” tendency, though I am hesitant to attribute it to genetics.

Personally, I am skeptical of scientists’ quest to claim every aspect of human nature is genetic. Genes certainly play a part in the way we think and act, but I think there are more components to our “innate” nature than just the matter of our physical bodies. So I’m 75% with you here.

I agree that every aspect of our nature is not genetic, but that depends on what we mean by “aspect”. I think we can agree that we share natural tribal tendencies with chimpanzees, baboons, most apes and monkeys, lions, mongoose, mole-rats, wolves, and many other species.

It is not the specific imprint that is genetic, for sure. Geese, as you probably know, will imprint on whomever is around when very young. We had a duck that imprinted on chickens, and then seemed to reject other ducks. Chickens were his in-group. The outgroup ducks got so sick of him that they eventually left without him and his chicken harem!

 

[OneSheep]

It reminds me of a something a teacher from an eastern tradition said to me a number of years ago.

He talked about how this tendency to identify with a tribe (though he didn’t use that term) followed us from lifetime to lifetime, and how ironic it was that we develop superiority complexes based on the random circumstances of our upbringing. A person who in one life believed in the superiority of his own race or gender or religion may come back in another life with a different race, or a different gender, or be raised in a different religion, and develop the same feeling of superiority about his new identity.

Very peculiar, the types of things we latch onto.

So very insightful and relevant to the discussion. Yes, the belief in reincarnation can lead to some very humbling conclusions for those attached to their particular ingroup. I also can imagine some very humorous accusations as to what a particular friend or foe might “become” in the next life!

I do hope that some Hindi comedians, not too serious about orthodoxy, have capitalized on this huge opportunity.

How much of the differences between us are not due to different thoughts, values, or even philosophies, but rather due to applying the same set of values to different sets of information?

And it has been proven that values are generated in the individual from exposure, as the babies in the video likely selected toys that were the most similar to toys they have already liked in their short lives. This has been proven, if I remember right, the more we are exposed to something, the more we come to value it (as long as it does not harm us in some way).

Do you agree that this is an important part of addressing roadblocks?

100%!

Okay, so it sounds like we are on the same page, more or less. If a person sees the our tendency to be tribal, which is part of our nature, as something negative, they are not simultaneously seeing, through the Spirit, it as a “good”, that is having a purely “good” existence, coming from God. Of course, we can all think of tribal tendencies leading to hurtful behaviors, but where the next question goes is not concerning choices of behavior, which are based on awareness, but going directly for the compulsion to be tribal, the compulsion itself, as separated from the behaviors chosen.Chimpanzees have a tribal compulsion, but will also kill intruders from neighboring tribes, which objectively harmful, and certainly “sinful” for humans. So, I’m not talking about actions, I’m talking about desire to be in a tribe.

Now that we have identified tribalism as a tendency, the means of integration is to ask why so many species, including us, have this tendency.

Why did our loving God create this tribal tendency in us (and in so many species)?

 

[OneSheep]

Hello White Tree,

I am finally getting around to addressing this thoughtful post. I am very grateful for your additions to the thread. I meant to message you with this, but ended up posting here accidentally. It’s off-topic, but not a big deal on that count.

I have also seen cases where racism (and tribalism in general), tore down such barriers

Am I correct in reading that you are talking about people coming from different “tribes” coming together and forming a new “tribe” in a new context?

If not, why are people forming these friendships?

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

Could you tell me a personal (or heard) example of this happening?

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.”

Or simply “being schoolboys”. There is a constant dynamic of teens, for example, of wanting autonomy from their parents who want them to achieve in school, and the teachers who also push such success.

Among their results, one thing they found was “blacks in more segregated schools incur less of a tradeoff between social status and [educational] achievement.”

I think the main thing is that there is some parental choice involved. Schools can do nothing without support from the parents.

 

[White_Tree]

Why did our loving God create this tribal tendency in us (and in so many species)?

It’s an interesting question.

It obviously serves a purpose in the animal kingdom for the same purposes I explained above. It can foster and enhance within-group unity, making a species more competitive, fitter, and protect them from external threats. (Plants also do this, by the way, not just animals)

However, once we become humans it takes on a different significance. God obviously has higher standards for humans than for animals, and behavior that is acceptable in animals is not necessarily acceptable in us. There is also the tendency for humans to take innate animal behaviors and allow them to grow out of control.

For instance, animals typically kill when they are hungry, or seriously threatened. Humans also kill due to hunger and fear, but we do so in a grotesquely exaggerated fashion, killing thousands or even millions of people because of fantasies. The “seed” God originally planted here may have been good and served a purpose in nature, but we have allowed the plant that sprung forth from that seed to become unruly and spread beyond its allottment. Most human tendencies that we would consider “sinful” are really just natural tendencies, which serve a purpose in nature, but which we have allowed to grow beyond their useful function.

I see the human manifestation of tribalism as something like that. It serves a purpose in nature. It can serve a purpose in human activities. But by allowing it to expand unchecked within our consciousness, we have created a monstrosity. A fire in the fireplace is good. But if we allow that fire to expand to the curtains, the carpet, and the walls, now that fire is not so good anymore. It’s still the same fire.

That said, as I alluded to in my earlier posts, there is a certain “goodness” to be gleaned from the “fire on the carpet”–that is, the recognition of the suffering we incur from the unchecked growth of our animalistic tendencies. The reason why we allow these tendencies to grow beyond their useful function within us is because we already are convinced, at least subconsciously, of the fundamental goodness of each of them.

We trust in greed because we have seen how it can protect us from want. We trust in anger because we’ve experienced how forceful action can achieve results. We trust in pride because it shields us from experiencing the terror of our internal emptiness. We trust in envy because we know it can help us keep up with our peers.

We already believe all these things are “good.” But as I mentioned, nothing is inherently and completely good or evil. We need to experience the pain these behaviors bring us in order to see a full picture of what they really are. It can be hard to see the harmful side of fire if all you have ever experienced is the tame fire in the fireplace. Experiencing the fire on the curtains is painful, but it demonstrates unambiguously the other side of that fire’s nature.

 

[White_Tree]

So the unchecked growth of our animal tendencies serves a role in helping us to know good and evil, which are less like opposing forces, and more akin to opposite sides of the same coin. And isn’t that understanding what we have been seeking since The Beginning?

Of course, the extension of that analogy is that if we don’t put out the fire once it starts to burn our curtains, it will consume our whole house and we will die. Having finally seen it for what it is, it should be destroyed.

Am I correct in reading that you are talking about people coming from different “tribes” coming together and forming a new “tribe” in a new context?

If not, why are people forming these friendships?

Well, each one of our “tribes” is a mental construct. None of it is real on an objective level. It’s like your duck that believed the chickens were part of its tribe.

So what I was referring to was people perceiving or believing someone was a part of their tribe because of some characteristic of the person, and gravitating towards them because of that. Maybe skin color does that. Or it could be a cap from a particular ball team. Or maybe, like in your video, they enjoy a particular snack. One of my closest friends initially gravitated to me because he recognized part of himself in the way I was blinking.

What I’m trying to say here is that it’s all arbitrary. There are no real tribes, just the ones we believe in. Though certainly, what you are describing happens all the time as well. It can happen naturally, though that tendency has also been taken advantage of by leaders around the world to cement their own power. When there is strife and tribalism within a country, one solution many leaders use is to expand the context in which people see themselves, and in doing so, create a new “other.” Thus, while people previously saw the “opposing tribe” as their neighbor, now they may see the “opposing tribe” as someone external to their country. Tribes are not only arbitrary, they are also context-dependent.

Could you tell me a personal (or heard) example of this happening?

Well, what I was thinking of is the removal of barriers between people within the tribe, or, following on my earlier point, within what they perceive to be their tribe.

Think about families, for example. Families are a type of tribe. You don’t choose your family, with the possible exception of your spouse. And yet, people form connections with their families despite often having virtually nothing in common. They accept and forgive behavior that they would never tolerate in any other person because of that perceived notion of being part of the same tribe. In one extreme example, a friend of mine told me about a member of their family who was stabbed and robbed by his cousin, and also had his house destroyed because the cousin broke a pipe during the robbery, which flooded it. True, after that incident, there was some awkwardness at family reunions, but not the white rage you would expect from a typical victim in these circumstances.

 

[White_Tree]

Or simply “being schoolboys”. There is a constant dynamic of teens, for example, of wanting autonomy from their parents who want them to achieve in school, and the teachers who also push such success.

True. There are always a lot of social forces at play, and it’s difficult to tease out all of the influences that are affecting people in any given setting. I think our failure to understand these critical (name removed by moderator)uts to human experience is at the root of a lot of the woes our world is currently experiencing. Or perhaps, we do understand it, but only enough to get ourselves in trouble, and the people who have that understanding are using it to further their own ends, rather than to help humanity, which is the theme behind the recent Netflix docudrama, The Social Dilemma.

I think the main thing is that there is some parental choice involved. Schools can do nothing without support from the parents.

Agreed. Far more of our education happens at home than at school, which is why educational reforms focusing only on the educational system itself have failed to produce the results people desire.

 

[OneSheep]

It obviously serves a purpose in the animal kingdom for the same purposes I explained above. It can foster and enhance within-group unity, making a species more competitive, fitter, and protect them from external threats.

Agreed. To expand on the word “competitive”, social structures enhance ability to hunt larger prey, so the pre-humans more genetically predisposed to communal existence had a better chance of survival. One man taking down a large antelope eats for a couple days, until the food spoils or it is stolen by other creatures. One group of people, with one man managing to score the same kill, feeds everyone a couple days, and nothing goes to waste or is stolen. It is much more efficient.

However, once we become humans it takes on a different significance. God obviously has higher standards for humans than for animals, and behavior that is acceptable in animals is not necessarily acceptable in us.

Those “standards” are communicated in the form of developing consciences. We can use the word “unconscionable” in exchange for “unacceptable”.

There is also the tendency for humans to take innate animal behaviors and allow them to grow out of control.

If we remain unconscious, yes.

Humans also kill due to hunger and fear, but we do so in a grotesquely exaggerated fashion, killing thousands or even millions of people because of fantasies. The “seed” God originally planted here may have been good and served a purpose in nature, but we have allowed the plant that sprung forth from that seed to become unruly and spread beyond its allottment.

I take a deep breath, and exhale. Yes, you are correct, and what your comment does is force part of the discussion into the larger context of roadblock removal as part of the movement of forgiveness. This is the context of the process. Augustine was able to look at Cataline and cognitively empathize with the “good” (though lower) that Cataline wanted. Jesus while being crucified cognitively empathized with the crowd, seeing that they did not have a clue what they were doing, seeing that the crowd had the illusion that they were destroying something of negative value. Cognitive empathy is a step toward a deeper forgiveness.

Because of intelligence and technology, humans have a greater ability to kill each other. I would not put it past many species to do what we do if they had our intelligence.

 

[OneSheep]

Most human tendencies that we would consider “sinful” are really just natural tendencies, which serve a purpose in nature, but which we have allowed to grow beyond their useful function.

I like the scare quotes on “sinful”. Yes, Augustine saw that desire for the lower goods was not sinful in itself. Cataline’s motive was not sinful and we can say today that the desires serve a purpose in nature. Sin is the destruction of people, the act of sin; and when people see the “other” as something of negative value, their ability to empathize has been blinded, they are blind, and have a much increased ability to do great evil. Your use of the word “fantasy” captures this also. Roadblock removal is, in part, a “turning on the light”, it is a removal of blindness, the blindness that is the illusion, for example, that millions of Jewish people have the value of mosquitoes. We are all capable of such blindness, do you agree? Can you put yourself in the crowd?

The point of the matter, and I think you agree based on your post, is that the innate tribal tendency itself is not evil, but functionally beautiful, just as it serves other creatures. The problem is that we are all capable of blindness, and acting in the darkness of blindness.

All sin involve a “disorder”. Do you see that it is a disorder in the eyes?

So the unchecked growth of our animal tendencies serves a role in helping us to know good and evil, which are less like opposing forces

I think it depends on the eyes. When we see with eyes of judgment, with the conscience, we naturally see opposing forces. When we see with eyes of acceptance, of forgiveness, of seeing the good in all existence, we do not see dualistic forces; we see a nondual cosmology. This nondualistic divine is accessible through contemplative prayer, through meditation, and through reflective prayer. What I am saying is that even seeing things dualistically serves a purpose, which is why that cosmology remains so attractive in, for example, “new age” thinking and that dualism is practically innate in the human as a default cosmology. It can be the “shadow side” of idealized monotheism. (Just as, IMO, monotheism can be the “shadow side” of idealized dualism!) Note: I am not giving equal ground to one of these models; I see oneness as underlying.

Just a side note: I am currently reading the Jung-White letters, which involve the theme in the paragraph above. I am seeing both Jung and White as perhaps in denial about the other’s focal point.

I am not seeing the problem as “unchecked growth of the tendencies”. The tendencies themselves only grow and develop with the natural process of maturation to adulthood (one of the last of the tendencies to emerge is sexual desire, which greatly upsets the previous equilibrium!).

What sometimes grows “unchecked” is the development of “fantasy” or “blindness”. Are we on the same page here?

 

[OneSheep]

What I’m trying to say here is that it’s all arbitrary. There are no real tribes…

Yes, we are thinking alike on that paragraph. The only “real” tribe is one defined in ways that have to do with perception.

there was some awkwardness at family reunions

I gotta wonder if this was real repentance and forgiveness, or simple co-dependency.

Thanks for your replies!

 

[White_Tree]

Yes, you are correct, and what your comment does is force part of the discussion into the larger context of roadblock removal as part of the movement of forgiveness.

Agree wholeheartedly. I’ve long been of the opinion that when we experience an inability to forgive someone, it is an indicator that we have not adequately dealt with the manifestation of their offense in ourselves.

As the Apostle tells us, judging others for their behavior an indication that we have the same behavior within ourselves (even if we may be unconscious of it):

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? – Romans 2:1-3

I’ve often wondered if Jesus’ admonishment against judging others (Matthew 7:1) is less about God giving us what we give to others, and rather signalling to us that if we have within ourselves that capacity to condemn others, then that is an indicator of unresolved issues we have within that inherently condemn us, irrespective of God’s sense of “justice” or “forgiveness.”

We are all capable of such blindness, do you agree? Can you put yourself in the crowd?

Absolutely. Having had brief glimpses of the light only makes me more acutely aware of just how dark my ordinary perception is. We are blind in ways we don’t even realize.

And if you’re referring to the crowds that crucified Jesus, then yes. I always assumed I would be shouting to crucify him too. I find it ridiculous, to the point of being comical, how many people today believe they would have correctly perceived Jesus as the Messiah and understood his message, as opposed to being offended and agitated to the point of desiring the bearer of that message to be snuffed out.

When we see with eyes of judgment, with the conscience, we naturally see opposing forces.

I agree with this mostly, though I’m not sure I would characterize the conscience as necessarily being trapped in duality. I think a well-formed conscience merely sees things as they are.

Referring back to what I was saying earlier about the “lies” of the devil, our conscience, enriched by wisdom, can recognize the nature of those lies. It perceives that the satisfaction of desire may lead to a brief respite from the pangs of that desire, but ultimately leads to more desire; that anger and resentment cause us more pain than those towards whom we direct it; that allowing our consciousness to become entangled in a false sense of self when that false “self” is inevitably destroyed.

This recognition of the informed conscience requires piercing through our common dualistic way of seeing, which only perceives one side at a time of each of the actions that bring us suffering.

 

[White_Tree]

Do you see that it is a disorder in the eyes?

I think I understand what you are saying here, and I believe you are referring to the same type of perception failure I was just describing above. But if you’re actually referring to something else, please tell me.

I am not seeing the problem as “unchecked growth of the tendencies”. The tendencies themselves only grow and develop with the natural process of maturation to adulthood (one of the last of the tendencies to emerge is sexual desire, which greatly upsets the previous equilibrium!).

What sometimes grows “unchecked” is the development of “fantasy” or “blindness”. Are we on the same page here?

Yes, I think that is an accurate characterization of the issue. The problem with the disordered application of these tendencies is not in the tendencies themselves but rather in the blindness we have in applying them.

I gotta wonder if this was real repentance and forgiveness, or simple co-dependency.

Haha. You might be right on that one. Maybe it’s a little of both.

 

[OneSheep]

Agree wholeheartedly. I’ve long been of the opinion that when we experience an inability to forgive someone, it is an indicator that we have not adequately dealt with the manifestation of their offense in ourselves.

Yes, or even more grueling, taking ownership of my own contribution to a situation where I end up hurt, but the perpetrator not!

As the Apostle tells us, judging others for their behavior an indication that we have the same behavior within ourselves (even if we may be unconscious of it)

Yes, and at the very least we judge ourselves in the same way (our conscience is not selective). Our own guilt (self-condemnation) about past deeds comes from the same rulebook and judgment criteria.

I think you agree that we are all capable of the worst.

I’ve often wondered if Jesus’ admonishment against judging others (Matthew 7:1) is less about God giving us what we give to others, and rather signalling to us that if we have within ourselves that capacity to condemn others, then that is an indicator of unresolved issues we have within that inherently condemn us, irrespective of God’s sense of “justice” or “forgiveness.”

I’m convinced (especially since the priest I most rely on insists) that God’s forgiveness is unconditional. The conditions are on my side only, and what happens is that when I have some criteria for forgiveness, then by that same criteria (rules of judgment) I project that God’s love is conditional.

So yes, there may be unresolved issues, for sure. But the “capacity to condemn” is what is operating. Have you integrated your own “capacity to condemn”? Do you see it coming from the Spirit?

We are blind in ways we don’t even realize

Yup. It’s all unconscious. And when I have discovered my own blindness I am so very humbled that I find it hard to have strong opinions about anything! I do eventually forget the humility though… such is life… until the hammer of awareness strikes again. Do you identify that capacity for triggered blindness is an innate human attribute?

And if you’re referring to the crowds that crucified Jesus, then yes. I always assumed I would be shouting to crucify him too…

I absolutely love how the liturgy is set up so that during the passion; the congregation gets the role of the crowd, calling for the crucifixion. It gives people a chance to “be in the shoes” of a group that is so easily resented and discounted - and dehumanized.

 

[OneSheep]

I agree with this mostly, though I’m not sure I would characterize the conscience as necessarily being trapped in duality. I think a well-formed conscience merely sees things as they are.

I’m convinced that the duality (perceived) is so natural, and such an integral part of forming gut-level reactions, that it is clearly part of the functioning of the conscience. When you are saying “well-formed” I think you are speaking from the position of having integrated much of what had been previously demonized, this integration happens sub-consciously as well as consciously. The Confessions has plenty of examples of Augustine’s own dualistic perceptions; the discussion @Magnanimity and I had earlier about A’s reaction to one child looking at the other at the breast is a perfect example. What I am saying is that where a person has a roadblock, this is exactly the same as seeing a duality in creation. It is an emotion-triggered illusion.

Referring back to what I was saying earlier about the “lies” of the devil

Well the devil as Legion is what I am trying to point out. It is the archetype formed to represent all parts of the self, all archetypes, that we resent, all that we hold in contempt. What we just addressed, for example, is the human tendency to be tribal. If a person resents this natural tendency, it is part of their Legion. If a person has come to accept and see the beauty of their own tribal tendency, then it is no longer part of legion. Sure, the tribal tendency, if taken by itself, pushes its own “lie”. In this case the lie we discussed is “My race is better” which the Truth dismisses at many levels. But the question is, Do you see the good intent of the tribal tendency itself, in presenting such untruth? What can be seen is that all the parts of ourselves intend the good, but it takes the Self, the Soul, the integrated whole, to inform the parts of their misdirection, which you say with such brevity here:

our conscience, enriched by wisdom, can recognize the nature of those lies

It [the conscience] perceives that the satisfaction of desire may lead to a brief respite from the pangs of that desire, but ultimately leads to more desire

Alas, it does better than “perceives”; it knows, right? Through wisdom we learn to manage, for example, our tribal tendency and any rationalization it puts forth. Have you seen The Social Dilemma?

 

[OneSheep]

This recognition of the informed conscience requires piercing through our common dualistic way of seeing, which only perceives one side at a time of each of the actions that bring us suffering.

Exactly. But it is in my observation that we first must form an ignorant conscience in order to “set in place” those important gut-level reactions. Indeed, since we mostly come from a place of ignorance, the first level is discovery of, and then coming to resent, the parts of ourselves that get us in trouble. If I were to tell a teen, for example, that desire for sex is beautiful and a gift from God, it will not give the teen the wherewithal to really see the disaster that can happen if one were to let such desire be in charge. The human conscience is informed initially to see that unrestricted sexual behavior is disastrous and dangerous; the perception that the desire itself is evil (part of legion) is functional and beautiful in forming gut-level reactions, like “Promiscuity is bad! The desire comes from the devil!”. This is Manichaeism, is it not?

So to “wrap up” what I am saying here, I think I compartmentalize what the “conscience” is in a different way than you do, but I think we are saying the same thing. I look at “conscience” as that first voice, the voice that says “human tendency to be tribal is bad!” including the gut-level reaction to that human tendency, desire to punish wrongdoing, the perception of owed debt to God, the desire for justice, and all of the rules formed that govern what we think of as “right” regarding such tribal tendency. What the conscience, in this formulation, does not include is the Self’s wise observation of what the conscience “concludes”: what the conscience sees as an evil part of human nature, (again, not talking about behaviors) the Spirit shows the Self that it is actually something beautiful and God-given.

The inner conversation:
Conscience: The human tribal tendency is evil and comes from the devil!
Spirit-informed Self: The human tribal tendency is beautiful and comes from God, but listen to the conscience’s call to not be controlled by tribal tendency.

With spiritual growth, other (all) innate aspects of human existence (not behaviors) can be substituted for words “tribal tendency” above. The Spirit-informed self is the second voice, it is the quiet voice beneath the conscience, bringing the entire self to a place of wholeness and mercy rather than being stuck in duality and judgment.

 

[OneSheep]

This recognition of the informed conscience requires piercing through our common dualistic way of seeing, which only perceives one side at a time of each of the actions that bring us suffering.

So in your model, it looks like the conscience is sort of equated with the Self, rather than seeing the conscience as a separate “module” so to speak. I have no problem with this, but since I am seeing that desire to punish wrongdoing is such an integral and functional part of the conscience, and that such desire is also something that we need to (eventually) make sure does not be the controlling part of ourselves, I like to think of the conscience as merely a part, not the whole. So I’m thinking that as long as such desire to punish (establish a debt, etc.) is identified and kept in line with the Whole of merciful being, your model is essentially no different than my own.

We can notice that once a man becomes more mature, his “inner zealot” has been tempered.

Yes, I think that is an accurate characterization of the issue. The problem with the disordered application of these tendencies is not in the tendencies themselves but rather in the blindness we have in applying them.

Exactly. However, our conscience does naturally form the illusion that the tendencies themselves are “the problem” and that they are evil, an evil part of human nature. These illusions are the roadblocks that we are addressing “through the Spirit”.

Have we addressed tribalism? If so, are we ready to finish up on desire for sex? This was the last one @Magnanimity and I were working on, based on the order we found them in Confessions.

We can move onto another, but are we both seeing that the desire for sex comes from God, and any “lies” it puts forth are well-intended?

 

[Magnanimity]

I have just perused the dialogue between you two, and wow!! I love it when folks with depth of mind & heart get engaged on issues of psychology, theology and human nature. I have had so little free time that I’ve almost entirely disengaged from CAF (not by choice). But, what a treat for me to briefly return and read these exchanges! Every time I read a post by either of you, I feel entranced by your wisdom and breadth of knowledge. Good on you both, @OneSheep and @White_Tree for taking the time to plug away and share your respective insights! For my part, I’m the better for having read these thoughtful posts.

 

[White_Tree]

I think you agree that we are all capable of the worst.

Absolutely!

Have you integrated your own “capacity to condemn”? Do you see it coming from the Spirit?

I believe so. I see nothing wrong with the recognition that certain behaviors are detrimental or harmful to our further growth in the spirit. The problem occurs when we allow that recognition to metastasize into a lack of love, compassion, or understanding towards others.

Do you identify that capacity for triggered blindness is an innate human attribute?

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “triggered blindness” here. Are you referring to the fact that certain stimuli can cause our previously clear perception to be afflicted by blindness? As a somewhat timely example of that phenomenon, say someone sees a story on the news about an injustice, perhaps a person being murdered unnecessarily by the police. And in response to that story, blindness overcomes them, and they start to experience feelings of hate towards those who committed the injustice.

Is that what you’re referring to? If so, then I would agree, yes, it is innate, but it is conquerable. It occurs because we are not fully conscious of our perceptions. We receive sensory stimuli in an unconscious or mechanical manner, which leads to them being processed by our subconsciousness, with all the muck that it contains, resulting in blindness.

So it is possible to short-circuit that triggering process, but doing so requires an enormous amount of energy and attention.

Well the devil as Legion is what I am trying to point out.

I think that is a good distinction to make. I refer to “the devil,” but that can give the mistaken impression of a unified entity. What we are actually dealing with here is a churning sea of delusions and internal contradictions. It has no semblance of unity, or even sanity.