I Don't Believe in God, I Only Participate in Him

This is a two-part post, in that the first part was incompleted yesterday while the second part was left undone this morning. 

Transform: to change completely or essentially in composition or structure : metamorphose.

The question is, how is this even possible for human beings? You can "transform" yourself from fat to fit, but this isn't a literal transformation. That is, there has been no change to the substance, only to one of its accidents: irrespective of your size, you are nevertheless you, and you've been you since the moment of your conception.

It would seem that most of the things we call "transformation" aren't really so. Reducing a log to ashes in your fireplace is an actual transformation; likewise going from life to death, which represents the adiós of form (AKA soul), precisely. 

But no amount of learning, for example, is a transformation, rather, just an actualization of latent potential. It is change, but not transformation.

Is there a kind of transformational learning? Is there information that results in a literal change? We'll return to the question, but the quick answer is Yes and No. 

The whole premise of psychotherapy is that change is possible, but what kind of change? Analogously, a medical doctor helps us change, but only from unhealthy to healthy. Or vice versa in the case of Dr. Fauci.

A positive change in health presupposes a teleological or homeostatic state of health. The doctor can't change you from one essence to another, which of course goes to the criminal fraud of pretending a medical procedure can achieve sexual transformation, which is strictly impossible.

Back when I was in grad school one of my main influences was a fellow named Bion, who wrote a little book called Transformations, which I haven't looked at since then. 

I wonder what present Bob would think of the book? Let's have a quick peek.  

Ah, it's all coming back to me now. Bion, I think, had a little trick up his sleeve, which he never made explicit. That is, I think the title -- Transformations -- is a kind of meta-commentary on the cryptic nature of his writing, which I believe was intended to provoke a kind of transformation in the reader. In other words, his writing is intended not just to be "informational" but transformational.

Speaking of which, a little secret: this is always the aim of my writing, i.e., to provoke a little transformation in the head. I have never claimed to be a scholar, nor would I waste all this time and space -- we're up to 3,733 posts now -- simply conveying information that is not only readily available elsewhere, but presented in a much less annoying manner.

Here's something from the book: "Eckhart considers Godhead to contain all distinctions as yet undeveloped and to be Darkness and Formlessness. It cannot be the object of Knowledge until there flows out from it Trinity and the Trinity can be known."

So much for Part 1. On to Part 2, in which we hope to get to the point.

Let's begin with a strictly orthoparadoxical coonfession: I do not believe in God. Rather, I only participate in Him.

We all know Augustine's line about "faith seeking understanding." And if you're not familiar with the gag, here's the punchline, courtesy of Professor Wiki:

Fides quaerens intellectum means "faith seeking understanding" or "faith seeking intelligence." It is the theological method stressed by Augustine and Anselm of Canterbury in which one begins with faith in God and on the basis of that faith moves on to further understanding of Christian truth.

Chronologically, faith precedes understanding, like when small children first trust their parents and believe what they state, and it is only later on, when they grow up, that they want to examine and understand the reality by themselves. In the words of Anselm of Canterbury, "I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but rather, I believe in order that I may understand."

But for me and possibly other members of the Vertical Community, it's more the other way around: understanding (or intelligence) seeking faith. In other words, we already know plenty. The head is good to go. Rather, it's the heart that might be a little undernourished, and it is fed from a different source, or at least it requires a more balanced diet.

Along these lines, yesterday I read a book called Salvation: What Every Catholic Should Know. I don't recommend it, because it's pretty basic, but it does at least touch on the vast differences between knowledge, faith, justification, salvation, redemption, and transformation.  

So, when were you saved? For most of my life I never heard that irritating question, since I made it a point to avoid contact with Christians. It was first posed to me around five years ago, but I didn't know quite how to respond, since it's a loaded question and I reject its implicit premise and assumptions.

A more sensible question would be Have you been transformed?, or better yet, How's the transformation going? Any progress today? Only if the transformation attains a certain minimum standard can we start talking about the possibility of "salvation." 

Yes, the transformation isn't possible without Christ, but nor is it possible without our cooperation; he is the necessary condition -- the "without whom" -- but this in no way robs us of our dignity to be sufficient conditions -- the "with whom."  

We might even say that the With Whom is left free to participate in the Without Whom, and in between is the transformation of the former into the latter: as the early fathers said, God becomes man in order for man to become God. But walking on water wasn't built in a day, and while It is accomplished, we aren't unless we are accomplices in the transformation.