St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[OneSheep]

I suppose that, as parents, we behave this way toward our children, especially younger parents. But I don’t observe the same judgmental attitudes among, say, grandparents toward their grandchildren, at least not nearly so often. But a grandparent would have the advantage of wisdom and may even be spiritually-mature enough to realize that a young child is capable of behaving to the highest level of her consciousness, however low that may in fact be.

Yes, that, and grandparents don’t generally have to be with the child for as much time. There is also the added phenomenon, which can be observed, that people generally become more accepting when they grow older. I think that this happens because people come to reconcile more within, with their own nature, as they grow older. It is “shadow work” happening subconsciously.

They simply don’t participate in that judgmental behavior. And that probably means something important. Moreover, not even all parents engage in knee-jerk, negative reactions towards children.

The impetus, the starting point, of all judgmental behavior is the conscience itself, correct? People have a variety of personal differences, but all people of normal conscience have judgmental triggers within. People of normal conscience also form internal rules such that overreactions are also unconscionable, it is the conscience formed in such a way that it is self-regulating.

The older people are, the more that they have consciously or unconsciously transcended their own conscience. As one gradually knows and takes ownership of their triggers and sees their workings (identification) and reconciles with the aspects of their shadow (integration), their triggers will still be there but the response may be more mellow. Whatever is not integrated, though, will probably be unchanged. What does happen, with such spiritual growth, is a more accepting view of people.

I have known many parents who try to redirect their children rather than express harsh judgment.

The !Kung Bushmen of South Africa also have very gentle ways of discipline. They still have their internal reactions that communicate non-acceptance to children who misbehave, but they do so very gently. Their society, if it still exists today, is very civilized, arguably the most civilized on the planet. They have very tight expectations of parenting and behavior. It is a very understandable manifestation of a people whose group survival is extremely dependent on interpersonal harmony.

It’s an ok point, as far as it goes…

I wrote a response to those last two paragraphs, and it was almost 9K characters, whew! I’ll probably pick just one part and respond to that, maybe later today.

 

[OneSheep]

Like I said, probably related. But the idea of being supreme, of being like God, is less specific. And might be said to be the basis of pride

I’m thinking of the appeal in super-hero comics for the hero to have extraordinary powers, to be all-knowing, all-powerful. While these heroes may have these attributes, they are not necessarily loving or forgiving of enemies, even after “justice is served”. This omnibenevolent image of God we can know from within, and can be found in Augustine’s writings.

But going back to the “idea of being supreme”, are you thinking that a person desiring to be i.e. “king of the world”, to have that kind of power and status, is not a manifestation of natural human desire for “power to command and rule over others” and “honor” stated by Augustine?

 

[OneSheep]

It’s an ok point, as far as it goes. But, similarly to the point I make above, I’m not so sure this is a universally-experienced phenomenon…

Well, you did give me a lot to address there, but going back to Augustine, I think he was describing “power to command and rule over others” and “worldly honor” as appetites, and appetites, being part of our nature, as part of our (programmed) existence.

When you are referring to “attempt, transform, cajole, coerce, persuade, be controlling” these are words that refer to specific actions, which are manifestations of choices, and choices are influenced by a number of factors, correct? Would you say that a person’s choices and actions are the means of characterizing a person’s existence? If so, it is my observation that such is our natural way of looking at people, it is the way our minds of conscience see people: “he does bad, he is bad” (or partly bad). A negative affect is triggered in the mind.

So while a person might, because of normal conscience, point to a misbehaving figure like Catiline and say “evil person”, Augustine gives us the means to see Catiline as someone who has the same motives as you and I, not to be distinguished with such negative affect. Augustine gives us the means to understand Catiline’s choices in the context of “goodness”, though of “lower” goodness.

What I am seeing in this is Augustine has integrated his own desire for “worldly honor” and “power to command and rule over others” which in modern times some call “desire to be in control”, or “desire to dominate”, “desire for status”, etc. He (and I ) are referring to a very general, innate set of desires. Am I making sense?

Do you see also, that the word “temptations” may or may not have an underlying negative emotional affect?

 

[fhansen]

When I say that a person might want to be like God, I’m thinking of wanting to see oneself as the “greatest conceivable being”, whatever that means but with nothing higher or above themselves IOW. It’s the essence of ego in the worse sense of the word: narcissism, etc that can justify any and all behavior. And it’s not necessarily a conscious endeavor at all.

Either way, the pride I’m thinking of is what Aquinas called “inordinate self-love” which , yes, is the abuse of a good and healthy human quality. The desire for power or authority is not at all a bad one, until it becomes an idol for us. Otherwise such powers are necessities in this world.

 

[Magnanimity]

Hey @OneSheep, I plan to just go with you down this road as deeply as you’d like to go down it. I haven’t quite yet connected to this subject matter in a serious way, but perhaps that’s just bc I haven’t yet gotten just how Augustine connects with what you’re after in this thread. But let’s see…

I think that this happens because people come to reconcile more within, with their own nature, as they grow older. It is “shadow work” happening subconsciously.

Yes, I think that’s right.

The impetus, the starting point, of all judgmental behavior is the conscience itself, correct?

Yes, and I would likely state it even stronger. The conscience reigns supreme in all judgments, period. As Newman said, “I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.” And, “Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.” There is perhaps nothing within us more basic for making judgments than conscience.

The older people are, the more that they have consciously or unconsciously transcended their own conscience.

Ooh, I like very much the way you have phrased this! “transcended their own conscience…” - that phrase is elegant and full of deep truth, it seems to me. Would you say that, in some way, this is the goal of the spiritual life, or of life, generally?

 

[fhansen]

Ooh, I like very much the way you have phrased this! “transcended their own conscience…” - that phrase is elegant and full of deep truth, it seems to me. Would you say that, in some way, this is the goal of the spiritual life, or of life, generally?

But if the conscience is the seat of the natural law then could it not be said instead that the problem is in people transcending-or overriding-their own conscience? Or is conscience solely the seat of judgmentalism?

 

[Magnanimity]

The !Kung Bushmen of South Africa also have very gentle ways of discipline. They still have their internal reactions that communicate non-acceptance…but they do so very gently.

That’s a nice example. I was not aware of this people-group and their parenting. I don’t so much mind judgment if it’s intermingled with deep understanding. The “judgment” of a parent toward the behavior of a child is, in the broadest sense, the reiteration to the child of what is the boundary of human nature. As in, the nature of a human is to do ‘X.’ When a child behaves contrary to its own nature, the behavior is to be “judged” accordingly.

Where a parent can get out of line is in faulting the child and expressing disbelief (or even horror) at the child’s behavior. This is an attempt to guilt the child into behaving in a different manner, right?

I think he was describing “power to command and rule over others” and “worldly honor” as appetites, and appetites, being part of our nature, as part of our (programmed) existence.

As I said above, if this is conceived in a very broad way, then yes, I can grant that these would be universally-experienced human phenomena, exerting power and desiring honor.

Would you say that a person’s choices and actions are the means of characterizing a person’s existence ?

Sure, and I would have to add the Aristotelian caveat of repetition, which forms habits that eventuate in a person’s character. So, I agree with what you say is our natural way of seeing other’s—judging their behavior is in part a judging of the person herself.

Augustine gives us the means to understand Catiline’s choices in the context of “goodness”, though of “lower” goodness.

Ok, I see where you’re going. This line of thought was readily absorbed into the Thomistic thought-process (where being is convertible with good). It’s just that there is a further consideration of the graduation of being/goods. (Some are ‘higher’ than others.)

which in modern times some call “desire to be in control”, or “desire to dominate”, “desire for status”, etc. He (and I ) are referring to a very general, innate set of desires. Am I making sense?

You are. The language you’re using isn’t necessarily universal, I would say. A desire to exert/express one’s own powerful nature is universal. But “dominate” is too particularized, I think. Desire for one’s own intrinsic dignity and accomplishments to be recognized as goods in themselves is universal, but expressed as desire for “status” is, again, too particularized, I would say. I’ve just known too many folks who truly feel not inclination toward domination or status.

Do you see also, that the word “temptations” may or may not have an underlying negative emotional affect?

Yes. On my own understanding, “temptation” would be an immoderate tug toward things which are various goods (lower goods, as Augustine is arguing).

 

[Magnanimity]

But if the conscience is the seat of the natural law then could it not be said instead that the problem is in people transcending-or overriding-their own conscience?

Overriding, I would grant you. That’s another way of saying co-opting, right? Self-determination borne out of the experiences of one’s own small self? But transcending, I don’t think so. If the source (and end) of the natural law is God, as I think it is, then any transcendence of an individual conscience would only eventuate in a merging with the Source through a christological self-emptying (Phil 2:4-8). This kenosis results in a whittling away of the small self and its particularized story. Anyone who accomplished this I think could be said to have transcended their own individual conscience. But maybe there is a better way of putting it.

 

[Michael_Anthony]

We see in the bible that those things considered “evil” are in fact, good inherently, but used in a manner incompatible with their nature, so Satan, was inherently good (an angelic being) but fell, separating himself completely from the Divine, and so is evil, in that there is an absence of good (the Divine) in him. Evil only exists as an absence, hence we refer to it as “light” and “darkness” for and “darkness can never overcome the light” because the moment light is present it banishes the darkness, and darkness is simply the absence of light. As such, evil is something good, which is used in a manner that is devoid of goodness.

 

[OneSheep]

When I say that a person might want to be like God, I’m thinking of wanting to see oneself as the “greatest conceivable being”, whatever that means but with nothing higher or above themselves IOW. It’s the essence of ego in the worse sense of the word: narcissism

If a person is wanting to see himself as “the greatest conceivable being”, it sure sounds like an absolute of “power to command and rule over others”. I don’t see Augustine making a distinction, given his use of the terms, but perhaps he is more explicit elsewhere. Like I mentioned, absolute power is certainly alluring to people, as seen in the popularity of superheroes with supernatural powers.

That said, if say a fellow named John has a gut-level negative reaction to Jim’s saying that he “wants absolute power”, this might be an indication that the specific want of such “absolute power” is a trigger based on the “shadow” in John’s conscience. He, from his life experience or what he has been taught, finds “wanting to be all-powerful” unconscionable.

Based on Book 2, Ch 5, I think that if Augustine had previously had that trigger in his own conscience, he had managed to transcend it. In the book Confessions, anyway, he did not condemn (call evil) those who sought ultimate power; his triggers were elsewhere. He seemed to understand and accept Catiline, and even murderers, though he obviously did not approve of their behaviors.

Either way, the pride I’m thinking of is what Aquinas called “inordinate self-love” which , yes, is the abuse of a good and healthy human quality. The desire for power or authority is not at all a bad one, until it becomes an idol for us. Otherwise such powers are necessities in this world.

Yes, that is a great word, “inordinate”. What is out of order is often the person’s grasp of reality, especially an inner reality. For example, a person wanting to be God is completely inordinate in their thinking. First of all, both the person and God have some kind of identity, but the person’s identity is completely dependent on God, and not the other way around. So while wanting to be God can be seen as a normal, understandable manifestation of desire for power/dominance, it is most certainly a position of lack of awareness.

Idolatry, having to do with worship, would fall along the same lines as wanting to be God. When we say “the Kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours”, we are stating a truth that dissolves the misguidance (and illusion) of self-worship.

One thing to keep in mind is that many people nowadays use the word “narcissism” in such a way that it communicates a negative emotional affect (in effect, "he is narcissistic, so he is of negative value, deserving wrath, etc.) Like all words with negative affect, they are probably coming from the speaker’s shadow. (note: even if the speaker is a psychological professional )

 

[OneSheep]

There is perhaps nothing within us more basic for making judgments than conscience.

It seems like the functional purpose of the conscience is not only to guide our own behaviors, but because we feel compelled to punish wrongdoing, it is meant to help guide the behaviors of those around us. It appears to be a crucial element of our capacity to live and cooperate in society.

Ooh, I like very much the way you have phrased this! “transcended their own conscience…” - that phrase is elegant and full of deep truth, it seems to me. Would you say that, in some way, this is the goal of the spiritual life, or of life, generally?

For an adult with an adequately functioning conscience, IMO, yes it can be a “goal” in some way. As a person identifies and integrates their shadow, the transcendence is happening, and their is an experience of wholeness, for sure. The conscience itself, while beautiful, can be observed to essentially set up a dualism within, and transcendence erases the dualism, as can be seen in Augustine’s spirituality (with a few minor exceptions).

For a child, it would be great error, IMO, to work on transcending the conscience; because it is really important for the conscience to freely form, that the triggers get “put into place” so to speak. Since even conscience formation is a life-long process, it stands to reason that conscience transcendence is also life-long, as we continue to resent new things, form rules, and create new bases for gut-level reactions we can subsequently come to revisit and transcend, recreating a state of holiness, but with triggers intact.

I see it all as part of a “creation” of individuals, and it is God still creating us (with some of our own participation). It’s a doing, and a bit of undoing, within. Hmm. That sounds a little spacey, but hopefully it is somewhat meaningful.

 

[fhansen]

He, from his life experience or what he has been taught, finds “wanting to be all-powerful” unconscionable.

He may have found it to be harmful, conflicting with love to put it another way.

 

[fhansen]

So while wanting to be God can be seen as a normal, understandable manifestation of desire for power/dominance, it is most certainly a position of lack of awareness.

IDK. Lack of wisdom/foolishness are certainly involved. A failure to acknowledge ones limitations.

 

[Magnanimity]

not only to guide our own behaviors, but because we feel compelled to punish wrongdoing, it is meant to help guide the behaviors of those around us.

Agreed, the conscience guides our acceptance of various beliefs, helps guide behavior, both personal and social—the whole kit and caboodle.

The conscience itself, while beautiful, can be observed to essentially set up a dualism within,

Yes, for sure—a dualism both within and without (outside of oneself). As in, it helps to foster ‘me vs you’ (or ‘us vs them’) consciousness.

Since even conscience formation is a life-long process, it stands to reason that conscience transcendence is also life-long,

I honestly have not reflected much on whether conscience formation is a lifelong process. But on some level, I suppose this must be true, if I am right when I suggest that the conscience is critical even in forming new beliefs (or rejecting beliefs which seem to us at the time to be false). But this is something of an unsettling notion—the inability to “let go” of conscience itself. Hmm, not sure how I feel about that one. I’m glad you raised the poi though.

I see it all as part of a “creation” of individuals, and it is God still creating us (with some of our own participation). It’s a doing, and a bit of undoing, within. Hmm. That sounds a little spacey, but hopefully it is somewhat meaningful

It’s ok, I would likely be accused of being “spacey” myself on these issues. I tend to think that if we are following the words and example of Christ (the doing) that in that process, one is inevitably led down a path that leads to one’s own undoing—the letting go of the small particular story of “me” and hopefully an eventual union with Being (God).

 

[OneSheep]

He may have found it to be harmful , conflicting with love to put it another way.

Yes, exactly. The person finds that “wanting to be all-powerful” is harmful, shameful, unacceptable, and represses the desire to be ‘all powerful’, it becomes part of his shadow. His conscience develops in such a way that he sees the desire to be a “bad part” of himself and humanity. Note: this happens subconsciously, for the most part. The person likely does not identify this desire as part of himself. Since he is repressing it, he is more likely to deny that such a desire or idea is there.

IDK. Lack of wisdom/foolishness are certainly involved. A failure to acknowledge ones limitations.

Yes, not knowing our limitations is inordinate, and lack of wisdom also. Now, if a person uses the word “inordinate” with a condemning tone of voice, then it is likely part of their shadow. He condemns his own lack of knowledge or wisdom, and may call it “foolishness”, with a negative emotional affect.

Do you see what I’m hoping to read for in Confessions? Here he speaks with negative affect, and here he speaks with acceptance. That’s what we’re looking for.

 

[OneSheep]

As such, evil is something good, which is used in a manner that is devoid of goodness.

For this thread, I am focusing specifically on the shadow, the “dark part of the shadow” in which we tend to look at things we resent/repress with a negative emotional affect. If the negative emotional affect is there, and we say “good”, then we are using the word “good” in a way that is different than the way people usually use the word.

It’s like, "Okay, so that thing you are calling evil is actually good, in your usage. How do you feel about this thing you are calling evil? Do you accept it, or do you resent it? " This is where we get to using the same vocabulary, or at least come to an agreement concerning different usage.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, for sure—a dualism both within and without (outside of oneself). As in, it helps to foster ‘me vs you’ (or ‘us vs them’) consciousness.

I am thinking of a different dualism, a good v. evil dualism, which we see (perceive) within and without, yes. For us v. them dualism, that is more having to do with tribal instinct, I think. It’s been studied a lot. Did I send you the infant study?

But this is something of an unsettling notion—the inability to “let go” of conscience itself

It’s not a “letting go” of the conscience, really. Transcendence of the conscience is more of seeing it all and how it works, such that it can be seen as something that serves our being, rather than seeing it as God himself, or as the “Self” itself. A person cannot, in one swoop, transcend their conscience. It is a process, one part of the shadow at a time. Much of what is in our shadow are human instincts; we come to resent/repress some of our instincts.

The conscience is always there and working, transcended or not.

 

[Magnanimity]

I am thinking of a different dualism, a good v. evil dualism, which we see (perceive) within and without, yes. For us v. them dualism, that is more having to do with tribal instinct, I think. It’s been studied a lot. Did I send you the infant study?

I don’t recall, could you resend it? I appreciate the distinction you are trying to draw, one of these is a broader category for sure. But I’m not sure that you could have one type of dualism without the other. What I mean is this. Embedded in any kind of tribalism would be notions of good versus evil. This plays itself out on a global scale all the time. It is the very reason behind governmental propaganda. One government will paint the other as evil or in someway much less good than the government doing the propagandizing. Good versus evil dualism can lead to tribalism. Or, if one finds oneself within a certain tribe merely by incidental circumstances, the decision to stay within the tribe or to separate from it will often have good versus evil dualistic thinking undergirding those decisions. And the primary problem, in my mind, is that rather than good vs evil dualism being unitive, it is necessarily sectarian and divisive. And I don’t see how sectarianism and divisiveness could ever be our end game.

A person cannot, in one swoop, transcend their conscience. It is a process

I wholeheartedly agree.

Transcendence of the conscience is more of seeing it all and how it works

By “seeing it all,” I understand you to mean that a person can see, generally speaking, the big picture and those things which are most important. Is that what you’re after in that sentence? Grasping for an all-encompassing totality of understanding is not something particularly advocated by our Tradition. Sounds more like the Platonic approach.

such that it can be seen as something that serves our being, rather than seeing it as God himself, or as the “Self” itself.

Since the conscience is placed there by God, it doesn’t seem to have the ability to lose a divine stamp of origin, as it were. And it certainly has low-level utility (e.g., assisting in survival, discerning truth and goodness and even helping with social ethics).

Whether its functionality extends to higher level spirituality is not obvious to me. Being maximally attentive to one’s own conscience would seem to keep a person stuck in dualistic thinking and living.

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t recall, could you resend it?

But I’m not sure that you could have one type of dualism without the other.

Perhaps they are tied in practice, but I don’t know if they are necessarily tied. A person may distrust an outgroup without necessarily thinking that they are bad in some way. I think the babies are operating in a trust/distrust mode, not something coming from the conscience.

One government will paint the other as evil or in someway…

This is an appeal to people’s natural desire to punish wrongdoing. It motivates people to spend resources and lives to go to war for the sake of “justice”.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on your other observations. Does the baby study give some light to the roots of tribalism?

 

[OneSheep]

By “seeing it all,” I understand you to mean that a person can see, generally speaking, the big picture and those things which are most important.

In all humility, my own inner journey has been so mind-blowing that I cannot honestly say I have the “big picture”. I think I can see how the conscience works, to some degree, and I see the illusions that it presents. If I were to say I have the “big picture”, I may close my mind to some aspect of creation that I would have never fathomed.

Grasping for an all-encompassing totality of understanding is not something particularly advocated by our Tradition.

Well, we are given the gift of understanding, and self-reflective prayer, self-awareness, is indeed part of our tradition, and is demonstrated by Augustine. That said, we do inherently desire to be omniscient, do we not? To know everything has its appeal. To actually think one knows everything, though, that is for teenagers.

Since the conscience is placed there by God, it doesn’t seem to have the ability to lose a divine stamp of origin, as it were.

I agree, to a point. I think that the ability for conscience-formation is there, and since we have a set of appetites and capacities given us, the conscience is sure to be formed in a certain way (i.e. since we naturally identify with our possessions and they give us a sense of power, we feel hurt when they are taken, and the conscience forms accordingly). However, some people’s consciences form in very unusual ways. Have you ever found someone detestable but do not really understand why you have a negative feeling about them? I have. It had to do with repressing effeminate mannerisms. I had formed a conscience such that effeminate mannerisms were unconscionable, so I had a negative affect about a guy.

And it certainly has low-level utility (e.g., assisting in survival, discerning truth and goodness and even helping with social ethics).

Low level? Hmmm. Sure has a lot to do with our image of God, though. I think that since the conscience is the first “voice within” that the human default is to first equate the conscience with God. This can be seen in Genesis 3 and many places in the Bible.

Being maximally attentive to one’s own conscience would seem to keep a person stuck in dualistic thinking and living.

Perhaps, but being “attentive” is not the same as observing it, which I hope to do in this thread.

In book 2, ch 5,an you see any other common elements of the dark side of the shadow (manifested in what/who is condemned) that Augustine managed to integrate?