St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[OneSheep]

Jealousy is envy, to envy is covetousness which is a sinful act when willed.

Therefore, jealousy, envy, and covetousness are equal in your definitions. Let’s then go back to the original question:

In book 1, chapter 7, Augustine starts with “sin within him (man) you (God) have not made”.

In that same chapter, he uses as evidence of this sin “within man” the “jealous look” of an infant as it looked at another child nursing at the same breast.

Q: Given that this “jealous look” indicates wanting what the other child has, or even disappointment that the other child is receiving something that it is not getting at the moment, and that such wanting, this will, is a very natural ideation stemming from the capacity for jealousy itself, as such ideation is inseparable from jealousy, would you then observe that Augustine had some negative feelings about jealousy/envy/covetousness?

Jealous: to envy
envy: desire to have a quality, possession, or other desirable attribute belonging to (someone else).

If you want to make the assertion that Augustine saw nothing but goodness in man, that he had no negative feelings about man’s nature, then you have a pretty steep hill to climb!

Vico:

St. Augustine wrote in CONCERNING FAITH, HOPE, AND CHARITY of the good nature of man…

Yes, Augustine’s writings are full of contradictions. We are addressing those in this thread.

Q. Are you hesitating in observing that Augustine had some negative feelings about human nature even though he asserted otherwise? Look, he clearly intended to show that jealousy, within man’s “being”, is not made by God. Aren’t we all capable of contradictions? Are you trying to maintain that Augustine was immune to contradiction?

Q. What Augustine did not know is that some people actually take delight in murder …

By the way, I would prefer that you not turn my comments into questions. Do unto others, please, let’s have a normal conversation, okay?

I think that is an incorrect assertion. See…

If there is something in that link that shows Augustine recognizing that some people take delight in murder, please bring it forth.

Pride is positive

I agree, but I like to clarify that I define “pride” as desire for control, dominance, status, and autonomy.

but can be negative when inordinate.

The desires are still there, even when there is a disorder. The “pride” itself is essentially constant in its goodness, its part of human nature.

“Disorder” is boiled down to a person believing an untruth. So “pride”, when guided by truth, is not negative. “Pride” when guided by untruth is not negative either. What is objectively negative is the hurtful things that can happen when pride is guided by untruth. The disorder is in the untruth itself, is it not?

 

[Vico]

…

I will change the Q to S for statement and A to R for reply.

S1: Given that this “jealous look” indicates wanting what the other child has, or even disappointment that the other child is receiving something that it is not getting at the moment, and that such wanting, this will, is a very natural ideation stemming from the capacity for jealousy itself, as such ideation is inseparable from jealousy, would you then observe that Augustine had some negative feelings about jealousy/envy/covetousness?

R1. No, they are merely natural temptations.
To want (desire) and to will are different, so exclude will in the following.

Merriam Webster

• to want, tr. verb – to have a strong desire for
• to will, tr verb – to cause of change by an act of will

S2. Are you hesitating in observing that Augustine had some negative feelings about human nature even though he asserted otherwise? Look, he clearly intended to show that jealousy, within man’s “being”, is not made by God.

R2. St. Augustine expressed his negative feeling about fallen human nature, for example, with concupiesence. (Book II, Chapter II ;Book III, Chapter I; Book XIII, Chapter VII). God made mankind and angels good, and their fallen human nature resulted from a human cause in the will.

S3. Aren’t we all capable of contradictions? Are you trying to maintain that Augustine was immune to contradiction?

R3. We are capable of making statements that involve, cause, or constitute contradiction.

S4. If there is something in that link that shows Augustine recognizing that some people take delight in murder, please bring it forth.

R4. I posted “but from the good nature of man both good and evil will can arise” not specific example of murder but pride. But from the Catiline example St. Augustine writes:

having once got possession of the city through his practice of his wicked ways, he might gain honors, empire, and wealth, and thus be exempt from the fear of the laws and from financial difficulties in supplying the needs of his family–and from the consciousness of his own wickedness.

S5. I define “pride” as desire for control, dominance, status, and autonomy. “Disorder” is boiled down to a person believing an untruth. So “pride”, when guided by truth, is not negative. “Pride” when guided by untruth is not negative either. What is objectively negative is the hurtful things that can happen when pride is guided by untruth. The disorder is in the untruth itself, is it not?

R5. The purpose of an action (including delectation) is given by nature or it may be superadded by the will. Such action is considered to be morally disordered, when the natural purpose of the action has been willfully impeded. It is not necessary to believe an untruth to willfully impede – it is enough to not choose the highest good even knowing the truth.

 

[OneSheep]

Q: Given that this “jealous look” indicates wanting what the other child has, or even disappointment that the other child is receiving something that it is not getting at the moment, and that such wanting, this will, is a very natural ideation stemming from the capacity for jealousy itself, as such ideation is inseparable from jealousy, would you then observe that Augustine had some negative feelings about jealousy/envy/covetousness?

Jealous: to envy
envy: desire to have a quality, possession, or other desirable attribute belonging to (someone else).

Vico:

R1. No, they are merely natural temptations.
To want (desire) and to will are different, so exclude will in the following.

Merriam Webster

• to want, tr. verb – to have a strong desire for
• to will, tr verb – to cause of change by an act of will

It sounds like we have established that the child referred to by Augustine was not expressing its will but was instead tempted, it wanted what the other child had.

Q: (note that this is an actual “Q”) Given that these are “natural temptations” and that Augustine used the child’s tempted “jealous look” as evidence of what is within man’s being “not made by God”, do you see now that he had a negative outlook toward the natural capacity for jealousy?

St. Augustine expressed his negative feeling about fallen human nature, for example, with concupiesence . (Book II, Chapter II ;Book III, Chapter I; Book XIII, Chapter VII). God made mankind and angels good, and their fallen human nature resulted from a human cause in the will.

There you go. And it is pretty clear that he used expression of jealousy as an example of such negative aspect of human nature.

It is not necessary to believe an untruth to willfully impede – it is enough to not choose the highest good even knowing the truth.

However, if a person does know the whole truth he will choose the highest good. We have been here before, but it would be a distraction on this thread. If a person knows all of the outcomes of his actions and his own emotional reactions to those outcomes, and is fully aware of the intrinsic value of all people impacted by his actions, all of which are part of “truth”, then he will choose the highest good (as long as the “knowing” is accessible).

 

[Vico]

…

However, if a person does know the whole truth he will choose the highest good. We have been here before, but it would be a distraction on this thread. If a person knows all of the outcomes of his actions and his own emotional reactions to those outcomes, and is fully aware of the intrinsic value of all people impacted by his actions, all of which are part of “truth”, then he will choose the highest good (as long as the “knowing” is accessible).

It is not so, rather knowing the highest good a person may choose the lesser from malice. St. Augustine wrote on the malice of final impenitence which is the unforgivable sin of blasphemy, Sermon 21 on the New Testament (item 37):

One refuge then there is against unpardonable blasphemy, that we take heed of an impenitent heart; and that it be not thought that repentance can avail ought, unless the Church be kept to, in which remission of sins is given, and the fellowship of the Spirit is preserved in the bond of peace.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160321.htm

 

[Magnanimity]

Perhaps. Would you go even further, and say that we are inclined to see that everything has an intrinsic value unless it gets in our way or triggers a negative emotion? Is it not easy to see beauty in even the most humble of stones, unless it is the one upon which I just stubbed my toe?

Yes, I think I would go further and assert “that everything has an intrinsic value”. I’ve long been compelled by the medieval concept of the “great chain of being.” On this concept, the more that good is expressed in a being, the more intrinsic value/worth/dignity/sanctity is possessed by that being. So a creature such as a human would possess a high degree of worth, much more so than a rock. But, as you say, the rock can be appreciated as it is in itself.

The propensity of children toward equality (“fairness”) has to be accounted for, positively. As in, what is the good that underlies a jealous feeling and a desire for fairness (the toddler thinking to himself that Billy is nursing right now, and he should be too)? I think there are two goods, at least. The first I’ve mentioned—a primal recognition of one’s own intrinsic worth. Second, it would be a desire toward equality/fairness. If someone who is my equal in worth (the nursing toddler) is getting a good right now, I should be getting it right now too.

Sometimes the only good that can be found is in what is intended ,

Does this perspective require a “consequentialist” view of ethics? It seems to me that some good(s) persist within all acts, sort of in keeping with the Augustinian belief about sin as a ‘privation of a good’ or the NT concept of ‘missing the mark.’ In this particular case of the toddler’s jealousy, I see two distinct goods underlying the act.

What you are doing, by treating the children equally despite who is the most aggressive or “cute”, is transcending your human nature. Congratulations!

Haha, look at me succeeding at parenting! To he honest, it’s two things for me—(1) the equality angle as well as (2) the randomness angle (my sometimes arbitrary order in which I’ll serve them). One cannot always understand why things happen to us…

The baby bird that experiences no jealousy is simply less likely to survive - and subsequently thrive. Does that help clarify? Survive- and then thrive.

Sure. What it is to thrive as a human however would far transcend “survival,” right? Additionally, if a human is deeply committed to both (1) acknowledging the intrinsic worth of all humans as well as (2) always striving for equality, it’s not obvious to me that feelings of jealousy are required to persist in one’s experience over time, as one gets older. Perhaps in human development, jealousy is the ‘normal’ way of fixing within us the correct views of equality and human dignity. Is that what you’re getting at?

 

[OneSheep]

The propensity of children toward equality (“fairness”) has to be accounted for, positively. As in, what is the good that underlies a jealous feeling and a desire for fairness (the toddler thinking to himself that Billy is nursing right now, and he should be too)? I think there are two goods, at least. The first I’ve mentioned—a primal recognition of one’s own intrinsic worth. Second, it would be a desire toward equality/fairness. If someone who is my equal in worth (the nursing toddler) is getting a good right now, I should be getting it right now too.

I agree with what you are saying there, especially the human desire for fairness, which is very likely motivated by jealousy. Jealousy acts as motivating an equalization, which is a benefit to our species as a whole.

After all, in a hunter/gatherer type situation, which is our ancestry, we had other species to compete with also!

Do you see how what we are talking about is the opposite of Augustine’s use of jealousy as “sin within (man) you (God) have not made”? You are demonstrating how jealousy itself is a drive that is beneficial to His creatures.

Does this perspective require a “consequentialist” view of ethics?

Since ethics is not about our nature, but concerns itself with a response to human behavior and guidance of human behavior, I don’t know if it really applies. A guy named Josh Greene from Harvard, wrote a great article titled Neural ‘is’ vs Moral ‘ought’. It’s a bit heavy, but he addresses it as a cognitive scientist who also has a degree in Philosophy, if I remember his background.

This whole thread concerns itself first with what “is”, and keeping all gut reactions aside (which are the stimulus for “ought”). For example, we can see how Augustine’s reaction to the child’s face might lead to a discipline - “The child ought not make such a face, have such a reaction to seeing the other.” The word “ought” is coming from natural inclination to form the conscience; we want to define what is right and wrong.

So as long as “consequentialism” does not focus on the “ought”, then yes, seeing that people intend the good, as an observation, is in line with the perspective. Do you see that there is a “teasing out” of what is in focus?

 

[OneSheep]

Sure. What it is to thrive as a human however would far transcend “survival,” right?

I’m thinking that “thriving” is mainly security when it comes to these human nature aspects. However, if I’m obsessed with jealousy, I am certainly not “thriving”, I am enslaved, and freedom is also an aspect of our “thriving”. There is a constant interplay between security and freedom, both of which we deeply desire (as part of our nature). I think we may eventually see in Augustine’s writing that desire for freedom can become part of the shadow. Do you see jealousy as something like an aspect of our “foundational nature” that we can be aware of and come to appreciate without letting it enslave us?

if a human is deeply committed

correct views

Do you see how these words go to “ought”? It is so natural to do so, we look for an underlying discipline or “right way of thinking”. What I am trying to do is to stay strictly observational.

if a human is deeply committed to both (1) acknowledging the intrinsic worth of all humans as well as (2) always striving for equality, it’s not obvious to me that feelings of jealousy are required to persist in one’s experience over time, as one gets older.

I agree, the feelings of jealousy are not required, but they remain anyway. For some (good) reason, God does not supply a “shut off” switch that ends jealousy when we age. What He does provide, though, is His Son, guiding us in transcending jealousy itself, giving us the means (relationship, prayer, discipline, etc.) and impetus (freedom, wholeness, etc.) to look at our nature and not let it enslave us.

Perhaps in human development, jealousy is the ‘normal’ way of fixing within us the correct views of equality and human dignity. Is that what you’re getting at?

What I am observing is that jealousy, as part of our nature (and the nature of many other creatures) has a functional beauty. Jealousy, as an innate drive, comes from God. So yes, jealousy is very normal and natural, and probably helps form our ideas about what is fair.

I’m not saying that there is no “correct view” (there certainly is!), but to go onto “correct” is another discussion.

What is being sought here is Truth; in this case have we established that jealousy is an aspect of our nature that comes from God?

 

[Magnanimity]

Do you see how what we are talking about is the opposite of Augustine’s use of jealousy as “sin within (man) you (God) have not made”? You are demonstrating how jealousy itself is a drive that is beneficial to His creatures.

From Augustine’s greatest disciple (Aquinas) I get the inclination to always seek out whatever good one can find in particular behaviors. This is part of the genius of Aquinas—he even identifies something so non-descrip as existence itself as a “good.” So yes, if we say that jealousy has couched within it the acknowledgment of your own inherent worth as well as your desire for equality, I would say it is a great benefit to humanity.

Since ethics is not about our nature, but concerns itself with a response to human behavior and guidance of human behavior, I don’t know if it really applies

You generally strike me as very Aristotelian in your approach to these matters (and believe me when I say I mean to pay you the highest compliment in saying that).

This whole thread concerns itself first with what “is”

This is the essence of Aristotle’s approach. In the realm of ethics, if one were to say to Aristotle, “you can’t derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is,’” he would no doubt react with a very puzzled look on his face and reply by saying, “How else do you think you can ever arrive at an ‘ought’ other than by observing what ‘is?’ What other mechanism is there on Earth for determining ‘oughts?’”

Such things as “divine-command theories” are products of the paltry Modernist mind coming out of the decline of the Middle Ages. They are sorry explanations for how there are ought’s in the world and how we know these ought’s. Aristotle and Aquinas knew very well that the way we determine moral norms as part and parcel of the very fabric of the universe is by looking around and living life for a while.

I would submit to you that moral norms are built into the fabric of the universe, and our consciences connect to this fabric beginning even prior to the age of reason. Have you ever read the Nicomachean Ethics? I think you would enjoy it very much.

 

[Magnanimity]

Do you see jealousy as something like an aspect of our “foundational nature” that we can be aware of and come to appreciate without letting it enslave us?

I do, but if and only if jealousy is understood as approximating having the dual goods I’ve described above as intrinsic to it. Without granting this, I might have to revisit jealousy as foundational.

What I am trying to do is to stay strictly observational.

Well, you are culturally conditioned (as we all are, to be fair) by the scientific age in which we live in the West. As such, I understand a desire to be “strictly observational.” But the genius of Aristotle is that he does the same. He does not so much go beyond observation as he goes beneath it, as it were, to determine what would have to be antecedentally true about the world for virtues to exist within it. He begins as you do—simply observing the circumstances behind people calling other folks courageous (or cowards) or just (or unjust). As in, his list of virtues (and vices) are derived from experience. Strictly speaking, there is no where else that these virtues may be found, except in the world.

when we age. What He does provide, though, is His Son, guiding us in transcending jealousy itself, giving us the means (relationship, prayer, discipline, etc.) and impetus (freedom, wholeness, etc.) to look at our nature and not let it enslave us.

Other than the possessing of wisdom, my absolute favorite fact about the elderly is their uncanny ability to disidentify. A steady progress of disidentification and a “letting go” of those things that normally “enslave” folks well into their 50’s, is a normal trajectory of human development for the elderly, in my observation. And I have to say that I am jealous of this ability. ok, not really. But I do really want to go through this process myself, even before my golden years.

Disidentification is the teaching of this world’s greatest spiritual masters, to include Our Lord and the Buddha. Clinging to things only leads to suffering. You must let go. It is the only way. You must let go even of things you feel you cannot possibly let go of—your retirement plans, your own children, your negative emotional reactivity to what goes on around you, even your very sense of being a separated self.

What is being sought here is Truth; in this case have we established that jealousy is an aspect of our nature that comes from God?

Ontologically, yes. All this (as everything else) is held in existence by the sheer act of Existence itself (God). But epistemically? I would say, no. An atheist can have as good an understanding of human dignity and equality as I ever might. Again, on the Aristotelian insight, these principles are in the world, not merely in the heavens above.

 

[OneSheep]

This is the essence of Aristotle’s approach. In the realm of ethics, if one were to say to Aristotle, “you can’t derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is,’” he would no doubt react with a very puzzled look on his face and reply by saying, “How else do you think you can ever arrive at an ‘ought’ other than by observing what ‘is?’ What other mechanism is there on Earth for determining ‘oughts?’”

I am amazed and fascinated by your ability to come forth with examples from ancient philosophers! I appreciate your adding their voices to this thread.

I am wondering, for a moment, if my words “This whole thread concerns itself first with what “is”” may have been interpreted as “we ought not talk about ought!”

But yes, I agree completely, we can only arrive to “ought” once we have observed what “is”. What I am thinking now, though, is that it might be a little bit fruitful to observe and address the “ought” before we go on. I mentioned in passing that our minds go to “ought” because we are compelled to form our consciences. I observe what is hurtful, i.e. a child taking a toy from another, and I see the hurt, as a suffering, as something to avoid. In my mind, the hurtful behavior is condemned and the opposite behavior (respect for other’s property) is an idealized “ought”. In the mean time, a shadow has been formed within; it has not been part of “ought” formation that I have necessarily understood and forgiven the thief. Indeed, for a child, such focus may run contrary to the process of conscience formation. A child can forgive in this way, “I won’t be mad at him any more”, and that will suffice; he does not have the knowledge and experience to understand and forgive in a deeper way, the way we do when we are addressing the “posts in our own eyes” as adults.

My own view of this is that the shadow is the mysterious negative we hold within that sort of acts as part of a fulcrum for guiding my own behaviors and evaluating those of others. Indeed, when Augustine sees the jealous look in the child, he is seeing/reminded of/ an internal ideation of theft, his gut reacts from the fulcrum of the shadow, “ought not jealousy!” and he is motivated not to be jealous, not to want what others have, and of course not to take what others have.

If a person has transcended their capacity for jealousy, he is accepting it as a gift from God. What to notice here is that the person will not be free from experiencing a gut-level negative reaction when he witnesses theft. The conscience remains unscathed by reconciling with (integrating) his shadow.

What may be new for a person addressing this part of his shadow is his ability to look at someone’s jealousy and reflectively observe “that person is feeling jealous, just like I do sometimes” (identification) with a feeling of acceptance (integration) because he is able to look at jealousy itself as a gift, not a scourge, as an example of God’s love, not a stain on our dignity.

Does that make sense?

 

[OneSheep]

I would submit to you that moral norms are built into the fabric of the universe, and our consciences connect to this fabric beginning even prior to the age of reason. Have you ever read the Nicomachean Ethics ? I think you would enjoy it very much.

I agree, the conscience, when well-formed, is part of the fabric. Transcendence of the conscience does not mean negating moral norms or downplaying the need or function of the conscience, but is more along the lines of what I described in the previous post.

I’m still working on Dare we hope that all all men are saved?, but I have Nicomachean Ethics written down.

I do, but if and only if jealousy is understood as approximating having the dual goods I’ve described above as intrinsic to it. Without granting this, I might have to revisit jealousy as foundational.

It would be an overstatement on my part to describe jealousy as “foundational” with equal footing given to “inherent sense of one’s worth”. The latter is manifested in a general desire to live, to survive which is much more “foundational” and is present in every living thing.

I’m seeing jealousy as merely an added “module” I guess, something that helps humans and many other species (but not all) get motivated to demand the fairness you mentioned.

Is this closer to accurately describing the dynamic?

Disidentification is the teaching of this world’s greatest spiritual masters, to include Our Lord and the Buddha. Clinging to things only leads to suffering. You must let go. It is the only way. You must let go even of things you feel you cannot possibly let go of—your retirement plans, your own children, your negative emotional reactivity to what goes on around you, even your very sense of being a separated self.

It can be experienced even by much younger people when they practice contemplative prayer.

What do you mean when you write “must”?

Ontologically, yes. All this (as everything else) is held in existence by the sheer act of Existence itself (God). But epistemically? I would say, no. An atheist can have as good an understanding of human dignity and equality as I ever might. Again, on the Aristotelian insight, these principles are in the world, not merely in the heavens above.

For an atheist, integration is not described as “seeing jealousy comes from God”, it would be more like coming to accept jealousy as a beneficial part of human nature, just as it benefits other species that experience it as part of their innate drives and emotions.

Feel free to add more comments or critiques, your (name removed by moderator)ut has been very helpful. Are we closer now with a harder look at the word “foundational”? I’m sorry for my wordiness, brevity is not my strong suit.

 

[Magnanimity]

I am amazed and fascinated by your ability to come forth with examples from ancient philosophers! I appreciate your adding their voices to this thread.

Haha, thanks! I believe strongly that the greatest voices from antiquity and the middle ages need to be in all these contemporary conversations. I was first introduced to Aristotle in undergrad in the late 90’s, and it’s been something of a love-affair ever since. (I completely sympathize with St Thomas Aquinas referring to him as “THE philosopher.”)

And if I may return the compliment, I very much appreciate you bringing into these conversations the insights provided by great minds of psychology (Jung, etc)! Getting all of these perspectives in dialogue with each other can only be a good thing.

A child can forgive in this way, “I won’t be mad at him any more”, and that will suffice; he does not have the knowledge and experience to understand and forgive in a deeper way, the way we do when we are addressing the “posts in our own eyes” as adults.

Would you say that a child who does not get internally “wounded” by the experience thereby more easily let’s it go (releases it from his consciousness)? What is it about adults that does not allow us to “let go?” Is it only when adults internalize wounds (offense) that they even feel a need to forgive in a deeper way?

What to notice here is that the person will not be free from experiencing a gut-level negative reaction when he witnesses theft. The conscience remains unscathed by reconciling with (integrating) his shadow.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the spiritual teacher, Rev Cynthia Bourgeault (I’m a fan of hers), but she has a video in which she discusses a spiritual discipline called the “welcoming practice.” From what I know of this practice, it seems similar to what you write here above. She states that spiritual folks, just by their natures, are susceptible to repression of emotional states/reactions. So, the welcoming practice is designed to walk a tight-rope between the two extremes of (1) completely giving your whole self over to an emotional reaction on the one hand, and (2) fighting/resisting/repressing the emotional reaction on the other hand. The discipline recommends that you (1) acknowledge the emotional reaction you are feeling (first, at the sensate level) and you go a step further and (2) welcome the specific emotion you’re feeling (anger, fear). You don’t deny it, fight it or resist it. You welcome it, but then once you’ve completely welcomed it, you (3) let it go (as in, you let go of any attachment to it/identification with it). Is this practice akin to the reconciling with/integrating the shadow that you’re describing above?

 

[Magnanimity]

I’m still working on Dare we hope that all all men are saved? , but I have Nicomachean Ethics written down.

They’re both so very good. I’d be interested in your thoughts once you have engaged with those works.

I’m seeing jealousy as merely an added “module” … that helps humans … get motivated to demand the fairness …

I really like this particular wording you’ve used right here. I can completely get behind this languaging. Makes a lot of sense to me.

It can be experienced even by much younger people when they practice contemplative prayer.

I have heard this before, which, if true, is a great selling point for contemplative practices. The world certainly needs more (not less) dis-identifying right now, IMHO.

What do you mean when you write “must”?

I mean to say that the path laid out by Christ (especially) but also by others (Gautama, the Buddha) is the one path to freedom/enlightenment/salvation. Clinging to our internal concepts of ourselves or to external stuff (possessions, people) invariably leads to your own suffering at some point. “He who loses his life for My sake will find it.” When I say must, I mean to communicate that it is necessary for achieving (psychological and spiritual) maturity. “Letting go” is not an option in the spiritual journey. It is the requirement, so it seems to me.

Are we closer now with a harder look at the word “foundational”?

I think so, yes. And thank you—I’ve enjoyed the exchange. Where to know? Are we to look at other sections of the Augustinian writings?

 

[OneSheep]

Would you say that a child who does not get internally “wounded” by the experience thereby more easily let’s it go (releases it from his consciousness)?

Children’s consciences are developing, so they don’t have the practiced internal rewards/punishment mechanism as intact. So yes, I think adults are more “wounded” in the sense that they tend hang onto grudges when they are a bit older.

What is it about adults that does not allow us to “let go?”

My own thinking is that the reason we are somewhat inclined to hang onto grudges is that grudges themselves help form and maintain the conscience. It is when Joe abuses me that I am most likely (by mirroring, if nothing else) to abuse him in return. However, if my conscience is working, condemning the behavior, then my own behavior is kept in check. It works most of the time, right?

Is it only when adults internalize wounds (offense) that they even feel a need to forgive in a deeper way ?

I don’t know whether it is conscious that a person can forgive in a deeper way. I think people are used to forgiving in a more superficial way and leaving it at that.

To me, a deeper forgiveness involves something coming to this: “I could have done exactly what they did if I had the same mindset/awareness/lack of awareness/etc. This is a person no different from me in terms of dignity, the beauty of humanity.”

Is this practice akin to the reconciling with/integrating the shadow that you’re describing above?

What Bourgeault is referring to, in my reading your description, is the practice of meditation, seeing and owning the emotions and then honoring them. If a person has anger itself in his shadow (i.e. being angry is bad), then such identification and ownership would be part of shadow identification. A person with anger in his shadow who does not identify his anger when it occurs would either (I) deny that he is angry or (2) self-condemn for feeling angry. Not all people have anger in their shadow content though.

“Integration” is when we come to reconcile with a part of ourselves that we resent, we not only take ownership, but we come to see that part of ourselves as beautiful and acceptable (even if it can be enslaving).

An emotion that is more likely in the shadow is hatred. I think you can imagine that a person who has hatred in their shadow (And don’t we all, at some time? It would be weird for a person not to find hate an “evil” emotion) would be very hesitant to “welcome” it, it would feel so much better to deny it is there. Our subconscious protects us from the wrath of the conscience by going to denial. BTW: to me, the conscience is basically the same as the “superego”, or is at least a major element of it.

 

[OneSheep]

When I say must, I mean to communicate that it is necessary for achieving (psychological and spiritual) maturity. “Letting go” is not an option in the spiritual journey. It is the requirement, so it seems to me.

Yeah, I get it. “If you want this, then this is what is required.” I try to keep in mind, though, that even “letting go” can be an obsession, an attachment. To me, there is an underlying acceptance that leads to a place of harmony. “Oh yes, there is that thing that I cannot let go of yet, that’s okay, I’ll get to it. In the mean time, my clinging is not a bad thing if I am not suffering, it just is.” It may very well be that I am suffering, but the suffering has not been enough, not been made clear in my mind. It’s all okay, even stagnation is okay (I can accept it). If there is relationship with the Father, stagnation is sure to end.

Are we to look at other sections of the Augustinian writings?

Sure, but I don’t have to be the driver. I’ll go to the next one I see in the book, but maybe you see something before that.

“I sinned…I was disobedient, not out of a desire for better things, but out of love for play. I loved to win proud victories…”

-Book 1, Chapter 10

While Augustine does not include the language of self-condemnation in this chapter, given the tone it appears that both the capacity for disobedience and the love of play (especially at the expense of the “better”) are in his shadow. We can clearly see that Augustine is not in denial, he is truly identifying and taking ownership, and it is painful because he sees these as “sin”.

While this observation in itself calls for a definition of sin, I don’t think we need to go there. What can be seen is that there is “confession” in admitting his disobedience and his love of play, he is ashamed of these things (feels guilty, self-condemnation). I’d like to save “love of play” for later, because I’m pretty sure it is involved in the pear incident, so I vote we just address “disobedience” at this time, if that’s okay with you.

Formation of the shadow has been described as wearing a backpack. I am disobedient to my mom, she reacts, and disobedience gets put in the backpack. I am disobedient to my teacher, he reacts, and disobedience gets put in the pack, or it gets verified as belonging there. Someone disobeys my wishes, and I feel hurt, and again the shadow content is endorsed. The “the disobedient is evil” develops subconsciously, and rules form around the negative image and the experienced hurt. We protect the shadow, for it comes with an ideal, and gives us a sense of security and “rightness”.

Do you also have a sense that Augustine has not reconciled with his own capacity for disobedience? That though he identified it, he had not integrated it?

 

[Magnanimity]

So yes, I think adults are more “wounded” in the sense that they tend hang onto grudges…It is when Joe abuses me that I am most likely…to abuse him in return.

You know what is strange, @OneSheep? I have several old memories from my childhood that I still carry with me to this day as “wounds.” I interpret these wounds as unresolved moments of internal pain. I got hurt in the experience, and I was never able to make it right. I have one such experience that is quite old, all the way back to when I was in the 4th grade (so about 9 years old at the time). I was just yesterday thinking about this painful memory (as they often do–it merely sprang into my consciousness, unsolicited). I began to take a close look at the memory, playing it out in my mind as best I could, and when it got to the precise moment that would have been most painful–the thing about the experience that wounded my heart the most–there is a blank. I guess that at my age, my mind/heart have suppressed this precise moment, though the whole painful memory has not been blocked.

So, I just carry this wound around with me–unable to let it go, even though I’m now several decades removed from it. But, as far as I know, a “grudge” isn’t a factor. I was a victim of some injustice (kids behaving badly), but the pain comes from my tiny, fragile heart being crushed in the moment. And when I reflect on the memory (what’s left of it), all I can remember thinking was wishing that this particular boy would have acted differently. I don’t feel anger or resentment toward him. It’s more like, “why couldn’t he have been kinder? Why not?! I didn’t deserve that. I would rather he just ignored me, than shamed me…”

There’s something interesting going on in these types of “woundings” because it’s not obvious that grudges are always involved. The memories linger against one’s will, somewhat like scars linger on skin from physical injuries. We don’t always, maybe not even most of the time, want the other that has wounded us to feel pain themselves. It’s more that we question how this level of injustice could exist at all? It’s more confusing than it is something in need of retribution. Does that make sense?

“Integration” is when we come to reconcile with a part of ourselves that we resent…we come to see that part of ourselves as beautiful and acceptable (even if it can be enslaving).

Interesting. And would you say that “integrating” extends to the wider world outside of us? As in, our beliefs and thoughts are routinely challenged by alternative points of view throughout the course of our lives. And, with some regularity, we have to assimilate some aspect of these alternate points of view, even sometimes surprising ourselves in the process. As in, we never thought we could change our minds on issue X but something comes along and pretty much forces our hands. Not forces us in the sense of we had no freedom of thought, but forcing us in the sense that the only way to peaceably move forward is to change our own perspectives, even on issues we used to think were settled in our own minds.

 

[Magnanimity]

To me, a deeper forgiveness involves something coming to this: “I could have done exactly what they did if I had the same mindset/awareness/lack of awareness/etc. This is a person no different from me in terms of dignity, the beauty of humanity.”

As usual, you’ve put your finger on it. Very insightful indeed.

even “letting go” can be an obsession, an attachment.

The paradox of being attached to detachment itself?
When I think of the Sermon on the Mount or the several places where Christ says things like, “he who finds his life will lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake, will find it,” or “he who does not hate his father, mother…and yes, even his own life also, cannot be my disciple,” I can’t help but be struck by the conflict of “being ok with some clinging” and the spirituality advocated by Jesus. Perhaps you simply mean, “all in God’s timing,” is that the gist?

If there is relationship with the Father, stagnation is sure to end.

As in the spirituality of Christ is the goal, but it’s a lengthy process to get there?

Do you also have a sense that Augustine has not reconciled with his own capacity for disobedience? That though he identified it, he had not integrated it?

It seems to me that at least one aspect of what bothers him so much about this is the pride it fostered and emboldened. “…loving the honour of victory in the matches, and to have my ears tickled with lying fables, in order that they might itch the more furiously — the same curiosity beaming more and more in my eyes for the shows and sports of my elders.” It seems he’s identified pride as being embedded into his fascination with this “play.” Am I reading too much into that?

The “the disobedient is evil” develops subconsciously,

Hmmm, maybe… When it comes to parents, this is a unique relationship because we trust that they (more than teachers, bosses or coaches) have our long-term, best interests in mind. So, we trust parents uniquely. But, in all such relationships, there is leverage over us. Rather than “disobedient is evil,” many folks I think develop the idea that “people have various expectations of me.” And if there is a power-dynamic in the relationship (as there is in parent-and-minor-child, teacher-student, boss-employee, coach-player) then we come to learn that expectations can be coerced from us by sticks or carrots.

IOW, a person in a power-relationship to me has a certain expectation that they are looking for me to comply with. If I refuse or hesitate, an attempt to coerce my behavior ensues. But, all this really is is a competition of wills. Would this also lead to shadow-formation, seeing the world as fundamentally competing wills? The notion of “evil” doesn’t have to enter in, or does it? Have I gotten too far afield of your concerns here?

 

[Magnanimity]

While this observation in itself calls for a definition of sin, I don’t think we need to go there.

Maybe in your experience, attempting to define sin gets one too far into the weeds. But, if I combine Aristotle (“every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good”), Augustine (evil is a privation of the good) and the biblical sense (missing the mark), I think it’s fine to define sin as “less-than-the-best.” Some acts are much-less-than-the-best, others are slightly-less-than-the-best, etc. This is my ongoing sense of the concept of sin. Aristotle’s summation of Greek thought cannot be ignored–every act and pursuit aims as some good. But in aiming, we know that one can miss his mark. He can miss it by a little or a lot…anyway, if this isn’t relevant to you, then we’ll leave it. Just wanted to clarify where I’m coming from on “sin.”

 

[OneSheep]

And when I reflect on the memory (what’s left of it), all I can remember thinking was wishing that this particular boy would have acted differently. I don’t feel anger or resentment toward him. It’s more like, “why couldn’t he have been kinder? Why not?! I didn’t deserve that. I would rather he just ignored me, than shamed me…”

Those are super questions. For me, those questions come from the Spirit, they are an invitation to a deeper place. In spiritual direction, we ask questions such as “How does God meet you in that painful place?” That might be a question worth meditating. For me, one of the important guides is Jesus’ most common request in the Gospel: “Seek”, and there is the assertion, “Seek, and ye shall find”. It doesn’t occur to us to seek when we are in the painful places, but there is the question, inviting us deeper. If we seek, we will find, at least when it comes to these questions.

The fact of the matter is that there is always a reason, there is something that the other wanted, something was going through his mind that if you were to imagine with your own mind, your conscience would probably react with revulsion.

There are an infinite number of possibilities as to what was going on in his mind when he hurt you. What I have found fruitful is to find a “best case scenario” giving him full benefit of the doubt, and then understand and forgive that. Then I go to the “worst case scenario(s)” and then pray to understand and forgive those. When I write “understand” there, I’m talking about an understanding that initially looks like “I could have thought/wanted that”. It is a process of making very painful admissions, which Jung called “identification”.

If you ask yourself “what did he want?”, what happens? Where does your mind go?

 

[Magnanimity]

The fact of the matter is that there is always a reason, there is something that the other wanted, something was going through his mind

That’s right. It’s a good corrective to one’s own tendency to focus on self. It’s a wide world, and we’re called by our Lord to love neighbor as self (as if he is myself because, in some way, he is). The 9 year old struggles with this, but you’re right–we are ever called and invited to go with our Lord into these deeper places. Looks like I’ve got some spiritual world ahead of me with this one!