St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[fhansen]

I don’t think it has to be dualistic, unless any sense of justice, any moral outrage, is necessarily dualistic. If justice/natural order demands that man exists in a state of union with God; if a person is obligated to do so in order for peace, harmony, love to reign, but can do otherwise, and similarly if a person is obligated to seek God, to develop a properly formed conscience, and does otherwise, then a “negative emotion” might be called for by others, no?

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t think it has to be dualistic, unless any sense of justice, any moral outrage, is necessarily dualistic.

Arguably the sense of justice, which is intricately interwoven with, or the same as, the conscience, is functionally dualistic. When we feel guilty, when we feel shame, when we are angry or resentful, we experience a set of neurotransmitters that make us feel bad in some way. When we do good, the neurotransmitters released have the opposite effect. This is an emotionally-derived dualism, we feel the dualism. Do you see what I’m saying?

If justice/natural order demands that man exists in a state of union with God; if a person is obligated to do so in order for peace, harmony, love to reign, but can do otherwise, and similarly if a person is obligated to seek God, to develop a properly formed conscience, and does otherwise, then a “negative emotion” might be called for by others, no?

Yes, absolutely. The fulcrum is the word “obligation” and similar words, words that imply a “should”, something that is preferred, vs something to be repressed.

Negative emotions motivate people, they are part of the functioning of the conscience. We don’t say to ourselves, “I am going to make myself feel negatively about that”, these are gut-level automatic reactions. If a person feels negative about negative emotions, they are repressing part of the functioning of the conscience itself, which is not only ironic but can be a bit counter-productive. That said, many people feel negative about negative emotions, and this gut-level response from the conscience (against the negative emotions) serves to keep people from going overboard with their righteousness.

And I agree completely with the observation that “negative emotion” is called for and has purpose. It is the well-formed conscience that is triggered when the person witnesses something harmful occurring. By extension, what happens in conscience formation is that we find harm in underlying aspects of human nature that “motivate” the harmful action. St Augustine looks at underlying motives (and surface objectives) and calls them “fitting” and “beautiful”, though “lower goods”. What this shows is that Augustine looked at the motives, looked at his own motives, and saw beauty in them, a functional beauty.

 

[OneSheep]

and similarly if a person is obligated to seek God, to develop a properly formed conscience, and does otherwise, then a “negative emotion” might be called for by others, no?

I woke up this morning thinking about this comment, fhansen. What you are possibly demonstrating here is exactly what I hope this thread addresses.

It is very normal to repress negative emotions (anger, resentment, etc). Expression of the emotions causes some hurt, so our conscience develops in such a way that we have gut-level reactions to them.

Let’s make the assumption that a person has learned to repress their resentment, they have come to see it as “bad”, even to the point of denying that they feel resentment, so that they can remain feeling “good” about themselves. (And, to deter shame, the denial serves to hide the emotion from the scrutiny of others) This is mostly all subconscious.

But in prayer, the person opens up and to God admits his resentment. In doing so, he identifies that part of his shadow, he painfully admits that he sometimes feels resentment. This is “step 1”.

When the person comes to realizing that his capacity for resentment is not only part of his nature, but an acceptable part of his nature (subject to some discipline, of course) then he has gone to “step 2” which is integration of that part of their shadow.

What you have demonstrated in those words above, if all of this applies, is an integration. Not only have you come to admit you have negative emotion, but you have integrated the emotion as part of the goodness of human nature. You showed, as Augustine does for other things, that it is fitting, it serves a purpose. And in that sense, it has its beauty.

It is my observation that with age, shadow integration happens whether or not we are actually conscious of what is going on. And, as we come to accept our own drives and capacities, we come to accept them from others also, they are directly tied, they are the “posts” and “slivers”. Of course, there might be a few grumpy exceptions, as you have put forth.

 

[fhansen]

I think I understand what you’re saying-I can certainly identify with the “age” part anyway , but also with the realization of at least some wisdom that should come along with it. But my notion about negative emotion, my ‘emotion notion’ stated above regarding an obligation to seek God and a properly formed conscience, as we come to recognize that our own and most likely other people’s consciences aren’t so well formed, is related to a recognition that something “Bigger” than myself, outside of myself, calls me to something bigger for myself, so that justice, therefore, obligates me. We’re in training here. And the Church calls our resistance to this training or our failure to seek God/Truth “acedia”.

IOW, speaking generally, there must be objective standards out there somewhere that we can navigate to with the navigating being an option, and with the opting for the trip being a mark of our own moral rectitude-because the standards, themselves, define moral rectitude for us.

 

[OneSheep]

a recognition that something “Bigger” than myself, outside of myself, calls me to something bigger for myself, so that justice , therefore, obligates me.

IOW, speaking generally, there must be objective standards out there somewhere that we can navigate to with the navigating being an option , and with the opting for the trip being a mark of our own moral rectitude-because the standards, themselves, define moral rectitude for us.

Do you observe that people not only experience different levels of obligation, but also find themselves obliged to different activities?

Do you notice, as people grow older, that obligation does not matter as much as desire to set an example, behaving because of compassion, or other motivations?

Do you find objective standards forming as part of the “training”?

And the Church calls our resistance to this training or our failure to seek God/Truth “acedia”.

When people say the word, “acedia” is there an underlying negative emotion? I’m not trying to be a broken record about this, I am trying to remain focused on the sources of roadblocks and identification/integration of shadow.

 

[fhansen]

Do you notice, as people grow older, that obligation does not matter as much as desire to set an example, behaving because of compassion, or other motivations?

Hopefully love compels us increasingly in our lives. But love doesn’t necesarily exclude negative emotions as I see it.

Do you find objective standards forming as part of the “training”?

Or previously existing objective standards being accepted.

When people say the word, “acedia” is there an underlying negative emotion? I’m not trying to be a broken record about this, I am trying to remain focused on the sources of roadblocks and identification/integration of shadow.

There may be a negative emotion, but negative emotions can be called for, they can be rightly ordered IOW as Jesus’s presumably were when directed towards the money lenders in the temple.

 

[OneSheep]

Hopefully love compels us increasingly in our lives. But love doesn’t necesarily exclude negative emotions as I see it.

Yes, especially when I consider that Love, the source of our creation, gave us the capacity for negative emotion as a benefit to our ability to survive.

Or objective standards being accepted.

Do you observe that when objective standards are incorporated in the conscience, triggering gut-level reactions (faster than the mind), the compliance is most effective?

There may be a negative emotion, but negative emotions can be called for, they can be rightly ordered IOW as Jesus’s presumably were when directed towards the money lenders in the temple.

Yes, I agree. To remain focused, though, we are looking at those gut-level reactions, the sources of them, and seeing which sources Augustine had come to identify/integrate, and which ones he he was roadblocked. He had come to a revelation of “all existence is good”, but then somewhat contradicted, which I hope to get to later, after we exhaust Book 2 ch 5.

Do you see how he probably irked some people when he said (basically) “Catiline is not bad” and even “murderers and adulterers are not bad” when many of his contemporaries felt(negative affect) the opposite?

 

[Magnanimity]

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?

Augustine certainly seems to really be acknowledging that life on this Earth does indeed have its goods, but they are simply “lower” than the things of God. So, he’s advocating a gradation. Poor Augustine never does seem to transcend Manichaeism though, no matter how much he might have wanted to. (I note this in my own participation in several CAF threads on Hell this year.)

If I am seeing a negative, such is a natural manifestations of conscience formation, of the conscience itself

I think so. It’s the neverending internal sense that things (ourselves, others) ought to be other than as we encounter them.

If “pride” is desire for power, wealth, status, and autonomy all wrapped up together, which of these subcategories hits my own triggers

I see two sense to pride. One is an inflated sense of self, which carries within it some unreality. As in, I think I’m greater than I am in fact. The second sense is that deeper one that Aquinas and others get at with consideration of the angelic fall. This second sense of pride is basically a seeing oneself as you are, and rejecting it as not enough. I should be more than I am (more powerful, knowledgeable, etc).

 

[fhansen]

I see two sense to pride. One is an inflated sense of self, which carries within it some unreality. As in, I think I’m greater than I am in fact. The second sense is that deeper one that Aquinas and others get at with consideration of the angelic fall. This second sense of pride is basically a seeing oneself as you are, and rejecting it as not enough. I should be more than I am (more powerful, knowledgeable, etc).

Yes, and they’re interrelated it seems. Pride “sets the standard”, so to speak, in either case, so that in the first we’re feeling like we live up to the standard while in the second we fail; shame is an offspring of pride; we can feel inferior or superior and either way we’re off the mark and unaligned with truth as pride beckons us to be more than who we are- with the result that we always become other than who we are, harmfully so potentially. JMO

 

[fhansen]

Yes, I agree. To remain focused, though, we are looking at those gut-level reactions, the sources of them, and seeing which sources Augustine had come to identify/integrate, and which ones he he was roadblocked. He had come to a revelation of “all existence is good”, but then somewhat contradicted, which I hope to get to later, after we exhaust Book 2 ch 5.

Do you see how he probably irked some people when he said (basically) “Catiline is not bad” and even “murderers and adulterers are not bad” when many of his contemporaries felt (negative affect) the opposite?

Yes, ‘a hate the sin, love the sinner’ attitude does not align itself well with our proclivity to be self-righteous, holier than thou, etc. Others must be demonized in order for us to feel divinized, while the cross teaches just the opposite in reality. IMO humankind does not easily give up its “distorted image of God” that was conceived of at the Fall as the Church teaches, and we aspire towards becoming whatever God we conceive of.

 

[Magnanimity]

with the result that we always become other than who we are, harmfully so potentially.

I suppose that’s right. If I reject the delineated parameters of my own createdness, as somehow not enough, then disorder necessarily follows. Or at least, this is how the scholastics reasoned regarding the fall of the angels. I guess the fall of man occurs in much the same way. In the words of the great Mick Jagger, “I can’t get no satisfaction.”

 

[fhansen]

Yes, so wise, he. But that is the idea, that, as Aquinas or the other guy said, “God alone satisfies.” And our distance from God is proportional in some manner to our level of pride. And we all begin with too much pride, and too little humility relatively speaking IMO.

In the end it’s all about knowledge of God because the more I focus on and humble myself before Him in acknowledgement of His existence and goodness the more humility yet that I gain, along with other virtues. And then things like loving one’s enemy or turning the other cheek in order to defuse sin/evil becomes all the easier-because pride/ego is no longer the controlling factor, or less so at any rate.

 

[OneSheep]

I think so. It’s the neverending internal sense that things (ourselves, others) ought to be other than as we encounter them.

There is a key ingredient, though, by which a distinction must be made in order to address roadblocks. To distinguish roadblocks, we can find where there is truly some negative emotion involved, like an on/off button. For instance, I may think wood is better than metal for a certain project, but do I actually resent the metal? If so, that gives me something to investigate. Do I find wanting status “lower” than wanting relationship? Maybe, but if I don’t resent the wanting of status, then we don’t have an example of the roadblocks I am trying to address.

I see two sense to pride. One is an inflated sense of self, which carries within it some unreality. As in, I think I’m greater than I am in fact.

Okay, is the word “inflated” used with a negative affect? If so, it is a gut-level feeling about having such “inflation”. If I’m using the word with negative affect, then there is likely an underlying rule in my conscience, such as “I should not inflate”. There is idealized condition, in this case humility. When I am seeing that I am exhibiting humility, I feel good. When I am seeing that I am inflating, I feel guilt, shame, resentment, some kind of negative (in fact, I may very well deny that I am inflating in order to ward off the guilt/negative feeling). When I see/hear humility in others, I may reward it with praise. If I see/hear an inflation, I may chastise or feel resentment or even condemnation toward the person.

which carries within it some unreality

Yes, there is an “untruth” involved. The next question is, “from where comes this untruth”? Does it come from a place I resent? How did this idea of inflation come about? Did it come from a part of one’s nature that one resents, or does it come from a “good part” (an acceptable part, a part I see as beneficial or “fitting”) of one’s nature?

The second sense is that deeper one that Aquinas and others get at with consideration of the angelic fall. This second sense of pride is basically a seeing oneself as you are, and rejecting it as not enough. I should be more than I am (more powerful, knowledgeable, etc).

Applying the same concepts, what is the “emotional propellant” behind the words (i.e. “fall”, or “rejecting it as not enough”). Is Aquinas feeling something negative toward humanity concerning the word “fall”? Is he feeling a little resentful about about “rejecting oneself as he is”, in which one should accept oneself as is and ideally do so, with a gut-level reaction toward the motive behind “rejecting oneself as one is”?

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, ‘a hate the sin, love the sinner’ attitude does not align itself well with our proclivity to be self-righteous, holier than thou, etc.

In keeping with that, I think “hate the sin, love the sinner” is a discipline to counteract the automatic gut-reaction we (I) have when seeing something that violates our (my) conscience.

Do you see that the “proclivity” includes automatically feeling negatively toward people who do wrong? But I’m sensing a possible tension, because you did admit that there is a place for correcting (with negative affect) those who cause harm, violating our consciences, correct? Does the proclivity itself seem negative in some way, even though, as Augustine may have suggested, it is “fitting”?

IMO humankind does not easily give up its “distorted image of God” that was conceived of at the Fall as the Church teaches, and we aspire towards becoming whatever God we conceive of.

So what I am hoping to get to in this thread, in looking at roadblocks, is not as much God’s image, but man’s image. As we become more accepting of people as we age, the image of humanity changes in our minds. This is what was going on with St. Augustine, his image of mankind was changing, he had learned to accept as “fitting” and “good” and even “beautiful” many aspects of our existence that he had previously found negative.

 

[fhansen]

Does the proclivity itself seem negative in some way, even though, as Augustine may have suggested, it is “fitting”?

Well the proclivity I’m speaking of is, as I see it, a basic “wrongness” in man, and I think Augustine would agree. Self-righteousness in that sense was the sin of Adam, that which he “appropriated” so to speak, as opposed to God-righteousness. This means that both the definition of righteousness for man and the actuation of it come from God, which is why divorcing ourselves from His authority is destructive.

The New Covenant implies that we can come under His authority again, through faith and the communion it establishes, and so come in line with His will in terms of human morality with the help of grace that is part and parcel of this relationship. Even if the bond is imperfect in this life such that struggle is involved in our overcoming sin, in our choosing good over evil, in our assessing what is really good and evil and deciding whether or not our faith speaks the truth. And if and as we increasingly believe that it does, the struggle decreases and our bond with God grows stronger.

 

[fhansen]

So what I am hoping to get to in this thread, in looking at roadblocks, is not as much God’s image, but man’s image. As we become more accepting of people as we age, the image of humanity changes in our minds. This is what was going on with St. Augustine, his image of mankind was changing, he had learned to accept as “fitting” and “good” and even “beautiful” many aspects of our existence that he had previously found negative.

Age/experience would’ve been part of it but I also think revelation and grace and his ability and desire to use reason to put it all together. Either way, we may or may not learn about and face and acknowledge our own weaknesses and sin that should prevent us from casting the first stone, or the plank in our own eye that distorts our vision.

 

[fhansen]

Do you see that the “proclivity” includes automatically feeling negatively toward people who do wrong? But I’m sensing a possible tension, because you did admit that there is a place for correcting (with negative affect) those who cause harm, violating our consciences, correct?

To paint with broad strokes I guess, I’m saying that there’s a higher level of righteousness or justice, based on love, that we may be ignorant of and not even want to be aware of but that we can access. But as this often interferes with selfish interests or with our momentary attraction to the “smart” thing to do, which may include anything: adultery, embezzlement, murder, lying, etc. we may well override any inner repulsion to it, and commit an act that constitutes injustice/harm in some way, and which should be looked upon negatively, even if handled lovingly.

 

[OneSheep]

Well the proclivity I’m speaking of is, as I see it, a basic “wrongness” in man, and I think Augustine would agree.

He might agree that man has a “wrongness”, but the progress of his spiritual growth, his acceptance of humanness, humanity’s desires being “fitting” and “good” and “beautiful” showed a trend away from seeing that man has a “basic wrongness” if that phrase is used with negative affect (resentment, etc).

Do you see the evidence of that trend in Book 2, Chapter 5? With Manichaeism, the look at the world is one of split between good and evil. For Augustine, his new Christian spirituality showed him that all that exists is good. He says this many times in his Confessions.

Are you instead seeing something in that chapter that does not support this trend, shows him perceiving that negative emotion continues to color his characterization of mankind?

Age/experience would’ve been part of it but I also think revelation and grace and his ability and desire to use reason to put it all together. Either way, we may or may not learn about and face and acknowledge our own weaknesses and sin that should prevent us from casting the first stone, or the plank in our own eye that distorts our vision.

When you are saying “face and acknowledge”, this is what I am referring to as “identification”. It is an “owning” of our planks, which are basically the same as the slivers in someone else’s eye. For example, is there a specific “wrongness” that you see in other people that you don’t see in yourself? Can you imagine yourself doing to someone else the worst thing that was ever done to you? The worst thing done to anyone? Shadow work is not an easy path.

To paint with broad strokes I guess, I’m saying that there’s a higher level of righteousness or justice, based on love, that we may be ignorant of and not even want to be aware of but that we can access. But as this often interferes with selfish interests or with our momentary attraction to the “smart” thing to do, which may include anything: adultery, embezzlement, murder, lying, etc. we may well override any inner repulsion to it, and commit an act that constitutes injustice/harm in some way,

What you are saying here is in congruence with Augustine in book 2, ch 5, depending on whether or not there is any negative affect with your words (which I cannot know, but I might be able to guess at if I heard your voice saying the words or saw your face). Augustine is calling such interests “lower goods” that are “fitting”, that they are in some sense beautiful in that people intend something good.

Do you share the observation that it is not only empathy overridden, but the conscience itself that can be overridden, by desire, despair, or resentment/anger? That the prioritization of the conscience itself becomes sidelined?

 

[OneSheep]

and commit an act that constitutes injustice/harm in some way, and which should be looked upon negatively, even if handled lovingly.

But the negative look, if you are talking about negative emotion, is generally not deliberate, correct? It is a triggered response that you and I can see as “fitting”.

What St. Augustine has done is looked at his own negative emotional responses to some specific aspects of being human, such as wanting power, status, someone else’ wife, etc, and despite his own negative emotional response (which he surely had, being a man of good conscience), he was able to separate his negative emotional response from his characterization of humanity.

It’s like “okay, he has this sliver, and I have this post”, but he goes beyond and takes the next step to integrate some specific human desires into what he sees as “goodness”. He has gone beyond the roadblock of his gut-level emotional response to adultery, embezzlement, murder, etc. and has come to see that desire to do these things does not eliminate a person from “good”; these are a “lower good”, but still “fitting”.

which should be looked upon negatively, even if handled lovingly.

Yes, if we have a well-formed conscience, not compromised by desire, anger, etc, we will have a negative response triggered when we see such bad behaviors (I’m thinking of an example of “compromise” as a case where say my friend embezzles money and gives me a million dollars of it; my own conscience may suddenly take a lower priority, my mind may start to look for reasons why the victim deserved to be robbed, etc.).

What I see the Gospel calling us to do has an additional step in-between what you stated:

1. We look upon injustice negatively, our own anger, righteous indignation, resentment, etc. is triggered. It “should” be triggered, and it is.
2. We forgive the person
3. We deliver some form of “loving correction”, something that benefits the person in such a way that he is enabled to make better choices.

In my observation, in many cases step 2 is not considered, and for example, if Jesus had not intervened in the adulteress case, the situation would have gone to the default-negative-trigger to default-punish-the-offender. Indeed, if step 2 does not occur, it takes a hard discipline to carry out step 3, against the pressure of the workings of the conscience/gut level reactions. What commonly (mostly?) happens, though, is that the default impulse to angrily punish in itself can become unconscionable for the individual, the impulse is seen as wrong, which is the conscience self-regulating. The conscience eventually mandates that we put aside anger and resentment before we consider punishing. While the developed gut level reaction toward angry punishment is definitely better than the default, I think the Gospel shows a path more developed in compassion and prayer. Again, this is what I am observing.

 

[SeraficLeo]

Luke 11:13 13 If you then, though you are evil , know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

Matthew 7:11 11 If you, then, though you are evil , know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

I do like however trying to work out how our feelings or impulses are expressions of our God-given nature though. As the Catechism teaches they are not in themselves evil. But I think your doctrine denies original sin.