St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[Magnanimity]

A person may distrust an outgroup without necessarily thinking that they are bad in some way.

Do you mean like in a case of ignorance of the other group? As in, the person just doesn’t know anything about this other group and so doesn’t know whether they can be trusted? That’s about the only scenario I can imagine.

I think the babies are operating in a trust/distrust mode, not something coming from the conscience

Thanks for sending the video—I think this topic may have come up between us before, in a different context. I recall me sharing the Jonathan Haidt tedtalk with you (where he argues against the “blank slate” theory of humans and morality). And I agree with your trust/distrust assessment of the babies. Beginning with the “mother,” babies engage in a relationship of trust almost from infancy. And this trust grows and grows as they grow. But I think this is bedrock conscience formation. The mother being trustworthy is the way human relationships are supposed to function. Iow it’s a good. And in short order is understood (by the child) as the proper function of the mother-child dynamic.

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”.

That, and it serves as a way to entrench you within your “side” or group or tribe.

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.

Haha, very well said. We do have this innate tug towards more, I’ll grant you that. As in, we don’t seem to ever be satisfied, no matter how much we learn. The point I was making by describing it as Platonic was suggesting the idea that knowledge is the thing that’ll save us is reminiscent of Plato. Or, phrased differently, “to know the good is to do the good.“ Who was it that once said that Christianity has been much more influenced by Plato than by Jesus? That is a sobering criticism bc it often seems all too true. And I certainly count myself as falling under that criticism too!!

 

[Magnanimity]

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.

I definitely have. But, I often wonder if I knew the full context of their lives, I would be more understanding and my negative feelings would recede. Isn’t that normally how it goes? Also, humanity is much more integrated that we normally give it credit for. Often, westerners tend to think of every man as an island, rather than admitting of finding oneself in “the other” and the “the other” seeing herself in you. So, in the very initial stages our consciences do get formed by whoever is in that “mothering” role, and we don’t always know just how much goodness (or lack thereof) is exhibited by someone’s “mother.”

Low level? Hmmm.

Alright, how about if I say low and mid-level utility, is that better?

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.

For sure, this goes along with my quotes from J.H. Newman above–the conscience is the “primordial vicar of Christ.” So, I’d never want to downplay the conscience or disregard it. But, I can’t help but note its role in sectarianism and dualistic thinking and behavior. I’m unsettled by that fact.

Or, maybe I’m just very confused!!

 

[OneSheep]

Do you mean like in a case of ignorance of the other group? As in, the person just doesn’t know anything about this other group and so doesn’t know whether they can be trusted? That’s about the only scenario I can imagine.

I was thinking in the sense that we can see human nature in the infant study. If an employer, for example, is a Donald Trump fan, and he has a choice between hiring a DT fan and one who completely dislikes DT, he is likely to choose the DT fan because of the trust factor. He may not think of the other applicant as bad in any way, but he trusts the person with similar likes and affiliations (note: this may be totally subconscious). There is an us v. them dynamic, but not necessarily involving an negative emotional affect. This is very subtle, though, and I am happy to include distrust in “negative emotional affect”. And there are certainly important dualism(s) involved either way, so your framing makes sense.

I definitely have. But, I often wonder if I knew the full context of their lives, I would be more understanding and my negative feelings would recede. Isn’t that normally how it goes?

For me, this is definitely the case. But it is also very important for me to dig up my own shadow and look at it, find its source, understand its formation. In doing this, I can be free of the gut-level reaction after it happens. In my experience, the gut-level reactions (from the conscience) happen faster than my ability to process and reflect, so any “transcendence” is still a second-response activity.

 

[OneSheep]

For sure, this goes along with my quotes from J.H. Newman above–the conscience is the “primordial vicar of Christ.” So, I’d never want to downplay the conscience or disregard it.

In a way, both Jesus and Augustine challenge the normal workings of the conscience. In the story of the workers in the vineyard, Jesus has the master doing something unconscionable. When He challenges people not to stone the adulterer, this is also against the common conscience, “what is right”. When he eats with “sinners”, he again stirs up gut-level reactions. When he says “you have heard it said to love your friends and hate your enemy” he is speaking, in part, about normal conscience. To "love the enemy (i.e. Romans) was most certainly unconscionable!

Augustine shares with us understanding of human nature in such a way that even Catiline can be seen as “one of us” or “human” though Catiline had been heavily condemned by society for unconscionable behaviors. Augustine shows how even murderers seek what we all seek, some kind of “good”. This is a very prayerful position; the conscience itself has a way of resisting understanding of those who do wrong, but Augustine’s own self-reflective prayer is obvious, he transcends that part of his conscience, he resists “don’t seek to understand!” impulse coming from the conscience.

Let me expand on that. Let’s say a person brings forth the example of a mass murderer. He states that there is something to understand about the person. Do you know what kind of reaction occurs? “I don’t care what there is to ‘understand’, he did evil, and he needs to be punished!” The condemnation is so strong that understanding is resisted, the condemnation in the mind (conscience) is being protected from anything that might soften the stance. Augustine brings up the figure of Catiline, a person heavily condemned by a large portion of Roman society. He says things that may soften desire to punish; he says things that may replace that conscience gut-level reactions with understanding and forgiveness. People who did not want to forgive Catiline probably found Augustine’s words detestable (unconscionable). Society represses being “soft on crime”; understanding is, in part, a behavior that counteracts desire to punish. (Luke 23:34)

Did you see that last question in my post? I don’t want to be pushy, but there is more there to talk about in the chapter.

 

[pulchraesamicamea]

I have this book and I’m seriously going to start reading this. Thank you for letting us know!!

 

[fhansen]

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.

What about faith in God? Could the concept of created vs Creator be considered by some to be dualistic in thought, with God superior and the created inferior?

 

[fhansen]

People who did not want to forgive Catiline probably found Augustine’s words detestable (unconscionable). Society represses being “soft on crime”; understanding is, in part, a behavior that counteracts desire to punish. (Luke 23:34)

I think pride again, self-righteousness, under girds such detestation. We want, as a presupposition, to be right, to be better, to be separate from “them”.

 

[Magnanimity]

What about faith in God? Could the concept of created vs Creator be considered by some to be dualistic in thought, with God superior and the created inferior?

It’s a great question. For my money, there has never been a higher (and more precise) theory of God and creation than what was put forward by St Thomas Aquinas. If you know your Thomism, then you’re aware that a ramification of his cosmological “ways” of knowing that God exists entails a rather shocking conclusion—that God is ever creating all contingent beings that exist. The universe is like the music that the Musician is playing. If He stops playing, the music isn’t “anywhere” and doesn’t exist. It’s just gone. (The watchmaker-watch analogy is plain deism.) So, God is always at every moment causing the universe and all its constituents to exist. Though we can know this in our heads, it takes a while (and probably a deep prayer/meditative life) to fully acknowledge it in our hearts. It is frightening to think that I am much more like music than a watch!

So if the created is constantly upheld by God’s causative act, and the more accepting I become of this over time, it would seem to follow that the more I can rest in this. I am not God. And yet, I (along with everything else) have no independent existence. I only am bc he continuously wills me to be.

So He must increase, and I must decrease.
He who wants to be first must be last.
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus who, though being in the form of God did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped (clinged to). But he emptied himself (kenosis) taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. ‭‭(Phil‬ ‭2:5-8)‬ ‭

I think the path to non-duality, non-sectarianism, non-divisiveness lies in this kenosis that we see in our Lord whose path we are to follow.

 

[OneSheep]

I think pride again, self-righteousness, under girds such detestation.

So when you say “self-righteousness” is that being stated with a negative affect, or a positive one, or neither? For example, are you saying:

A. “they were speaking from their conscience, and are defending what they see as right” (with no negative affect or tone) or is it
B. “they have a malformed conscience (“malformed” used with negative emotional affect) and are resisting what is truly right, as guided by a conscience more in tune with truth”? or is it
C. Something else undergirding the detestation?

We want , as a presupposition, to be right, to be better, to be separate from “them”.

Yes, especially if the “them” is doing something unconscionable. It is a very natural reaction, methinks.

And yes, I agree, we all think that our conscience is just fine, right? We want to be right. And then, being “better” brings us back to what we discussed earlier about what ordinarily falls under “pride”, right? We want to dominate, to be most powerful, to have the highest status, etc. Granted, it is enslaving (and fruitless!) to tirelessly go after such things, obsessed like Gollum with “the pretty”, but people learn that such enslavement is counterproductive, it goes against desire for autonomy (freedom).

 

[OneSheep]

What about faith in God? Could the concept of created vs Creator be considered by some to be dualistic in thought, with God superior and the created inferior?

There are an infinite number of ways to use the term “dualism”, but I was hoping for this thread to stay with the Manichean/Zoroastrian use of the term.

And then, if we look at creation we can see God within, so the observed distinction of “inferior” and “superior” sort of loses its edge. It’s all beautiful.

 

[Magnanimity]

Did you see that last question in my post? I don’t want to be pushy, but there is more there to talk about in the chapter.

This is your thread. And I genuinely want to follow wherever you think we should go. To me, you have addressed all the normal categories of sin brought up by St Augustine in this chapter.

But I still perceive that he addresses this:

“The life which we live here has also its peculiar attractiveness, through a certain measure of comeliness of its own, and harmony with all things here below. The friendships of men also are endeared by a sweet bond, in the oneness of many souls.”

The friendships of men, and the oneness of many souls—these are things that we seem to need, at our deepest core. You could say that we crave these things. In friendship, as St Augustine perceives, a very interesting thing forms—a bond, a unitive bond. It’s a thing that nearly enjoys a life of its own, perhaps mirroring (in a crude way) the Holy Spirit, which many have interpreted as a truly alive Person whose existence is undergirded by the love between the Father and the Son.

I can speak from experience that in all the deepest friendships I’ve ever had, something like a tertium quid emerges out of that connection—that seems to have a life of its own—this ‘real’ thing that conjoins one person to another. Friendship seems to give rise to (in an emergent way) something real that binds together two otherwise separable souls.

 

[fhansen]

I’ve tended to think that pride was first born of Lucifer’s fear-and consequent denial- of being music, or even a watch, because they both imply dependency- for one’s very continued existence-a fearful thought. Pride is to believe an untruth about oneself and one’s world, stubbornly so, and denial of God begets a false boldness and confidence in the face of an otherwise very uncertain future. At least until we begin to believe, and then trust, and ultimately love that which we fear because of the power He has.

Anyway Adam’s sin was the first human act of disbelief, and our history has been one of struggling to believe again, with God’s help, ever since, for our own good despite our family preference for ourselves over Him.

 

[fhansen]

So when you say “self-righteousness” is that being stated with a negative affect, or a positive one, or neither? For example, are you saying:

A. “they were speaking from their conscience, and are defending what they see as right” (with no negative affect or tone) or is it
B. “they have a malformed conscience (“malformed” used with negative emotional affect) and are resisting what is truly right, as guided by a conscience more in tune with truth”? or is it
C. Something else undergirding the detestation?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) fhansen:

A/B. “they were speaking from their malformed conscience, and are defending what they see as right” and are resisting what is truly right, as guided by a conscience more in tune with truth”

 

[fhansen]

And then, if we look at creation we can see God within, so the observed distinction of “inferior” and “superior” sort of loses its edge. It’s all beautiful.

I agree with this. We can either be part of and participate in God’s superiority, so to speak, participate in and with Him, or wish to stand apart from Him and focus on our “own” superiority which makes us all lone ducks at the end of the day. That separated position and state was what Adam & Eve encountered the moment they disobeyed. The Church teaches that, with that sin, man in some manner separated himself from God, from his fellow man, from the rest of creation, and from himself.

 

[Magnanimity]

I’ve tended to think that pride was first born of Lucifer’s fear-and consequent denial- of being music, or even a watch, because they both imply dependency - for one’s very continued existence-a fearful thought.

I can see the relation between fear and pride that you’re trying to draw out. It’s very insightful. “If I’m only this level of powerful, this level of knowledgeable or this level of beautiful, then I won’t ever be ________ (fill in the blank).” I won’t ever achieve beatitude…maybe the most fearful thought bc we sense we were really made for beatitude.

Pride is to believe an untruth about oneself and one’s world, stubbornly so, and denial of God begets a false boldness and confidence in the face of an otherwise very uncertain future.

Well said—the prideful person almost always is a poser of some sort (puts on a front, an act) before the whole world. The prideful person senses his own fragility and rather than contemplating the meaning of that fragility all the way down, he rejects it, fights it and begins a lifetime of posturing. It’s a heartbreaking way of life, really.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks, that was a nice reply, magnanimous almost. JK. Anyway, I think pride and fear and shame are closely related, integrally so.

 

[Magnanimity]

Haha, ok fine, yes I chose my username intentionally several years ago as a way to constantly remind myself what I’m striving for. I realize that it’s a little obnoxious, but you know, I’m trying here! Not always succeeding but trying nonetheless.

But, being quasi-serious for a moment, I wasn’t just saying all that to be magnanimous. I really do think you were getting at some deep insights on the sin of pride. I happen to struggle with this sin on a personal level, so I’m keen to it!

 

[fhansen]

I think it’s a very interesting topic as it affects us all deeply IMO, even if some less and some more so. But we’ve probably meanwhile strayed far off OneSheep’s thread here by now I suppose

 

[OneSheep]

“The life which we live here has also its peculiar attractiveness, through a certain measure of comeliness of its own, and harmony with all things here below. The friendships of men also are endeared by a sweet bond, in the oneness of many souls.”

The friendships of men, and the oneness of many souls—these are things that we seem to need, at our deepest core. You could say that we crave these things. In friendship, as St Augustine perceives, a very interesting thing forms—a bond, a unitive bond. It’s a thing that nearly enjoys a life of its own, perhaps mirroring (in a crude way) the Holy Spirit…

Yes, I think that is something great to pay attention to/glean from that chapter. To some degree, he is looking at the whole person, “this is what we are all like, even those who commit the worst sins”.

I can speak from experience that in all the deepest friendships I’ve ever had, something like a tertium quid emerges out of that connection—that seems to have a life of its own—this ‘real’ thing that conjoins one person to another. Friendship seems to give rise to (in an emergent way) something real that binds together two otherwise separable souls.

Arguably the desire for friendship is a desire for oneness, which brings us back to human nature and God’s influence (presence) in all of us.

To me, you have addressed all the normal categories of sin brought up by St Augustine in this chapter.

The next thing I thought it might be interesting to kick around is his reference to the “lower goods” and how they are “beautiful and fitting”.

Here are some of the “lower goods” he refers to:

1. wanting another’s wife or property
2. “burning for revenge”, (desire to punish perceived wrongdoing)
3. “honors, power, and wealth”
4. “freedom from fear of law and trouble due to a lack of wealth or from a guilty conscience”

Taking a look at that list, we see things that violate the 10 commandments, violate conscience (desire for power, status and wealth), and violate the workings of the conscience itself! Yet all these things are “lower goods”, even “beautiful and fitting”. In doing so, is he simply determined to do all he can to defy Manichaeism, or is he actually seeing the beauty and “fittingness” of these “lower” goods? A bit of both?

…you were getting at some deep insights on the sin of pride. I happen to struggle with this sin on a personal level, so I’m keen to it!

I think the question that we are first addressing on “pride” is "what is it that my gut is reacting to when I look at a behavior and label it as ‘pride’? (with negative affect). Is there some aspect of human nature that I find negative in some way? If I am seeing a negative, such is a natural manifestations of conscience formation, of the conscience itself. If “pride” is desire for power, wealth, status, and autonomy all wrapped up together, which of these subcategories hits my own triggers?

 

[OneSheep]

A/B. “they were speaking from their malformed conscience, and are defending what they see as right” and are resisting what is truly right, as guided by a conscience more in tune with truth”

Okay, and is there a negative affect in any of that? For example, the most possibly charged words are “malformed” and “resisting”. When stating the above, the person may or may not be saying those words with a negative emotional affect. If there is a negative emotional affect, the person is speaking with the influence of his conscience, saying “and malformed is bad” or “and resisting is bad”. Do you see where the discussion gets a little difficult in print vs. hearing someone state their opinion?

edit: Some other parts that may have gut-level aspects are “what they see as right” and “more in tune with the truth”. These, too, may or may not have an underlying negative affect.

Augustine’s roadblocks, when we get to them, are gut-level reactions triggered by violations against the conscience.

I agree with this. We can either be part of and participate in God’s superiority, so to speak, participate in and with Him , or wish to stand apart from Him and focus on our “own” superiority which makes us all lone ducks at the end of the day. That separated position and state was what Adam & Eve encountered the moment they disobeyed. The Church teaches that, with that sin, man in some manner separated himself from God, from his fellow man, from the rest of creation, and from himself.

Yes, and if any words used there, such as “separated” or “disobeyed” with a negative affect, then this is the conscience coming through (gut-level) and saying “and disobedience is bad” or “and separation is bad” Since many people would agree with the possible negative affects, and the conscience works in such a way that we couple the person with the sin, this example demonstrates how we naturally see things (existence) dualistically. Does this jibe with your own observations, or do you see it differently?