What's that supposed to mean? Just that it's an example of a Spoonerism palindrome, i.e., perfectly symmetrical.
Yesterday I spent all afternoon thinking hard about the doctrine of original sin. Which is unusual for me, since I’m usually more inclined to randomly seed the head and harvest whatever pops out of the ground.
But this one has bothered me for a long time, because while I don’t doubt its existence, the traditional explanation just doesn’t cut it. I have no reservations about the what, it’s the how -- and, to a lesser extent, the why -- of it that annoy me.
But it’s also troubling for reasons of evangelization. Obviously there was a time when people found Augustine’s explanation to be sufficient, basically from the fourth century to the Enlightenment. That’s a good run, but not only does it not speak to modern ears, it repels them.
Is there a better way to get the point across without vitiating the deeper point of the doctrine? What is essential and what is merely symbolic? What is at the center and what is at the human margin?
Let’s briefly review what the Catechism teaches, and find out exactly how much wiggle room we have. Already on p. 97 there’s a hint of how to approach the subject, where it implies that man’s fall cannot be understood outside the context of his redemption. You could even say that the fall is a kind of backshadow of salvation: man minus redemption = fallenness, and Genesis 3 is just a way to symbolize it.
I’ll have more to say about that, but I was immediately reminded of Rodney Bomford’s The Symmetry of God, which has a lot of ideas about nonlinear logic that I couldn’t do without (https://www.amazon.com/Symmetry-God-Rodney-Bomford/dp/1853434388/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3B65GQNZ88SPC&keywords=rodney+bomford&qid=1673034532&sprefix=rodney%2520bomford%2Caps%2C145&sr=8-1).
Backing up a bit, the book is based on the ideas of a psychoanalyst called Ignacio Matte Blanco, who essentially formalized the logic of the unconscious, which operates along very different lines than the usual Aristotelian logic.
Dreams, for example, may appear illogical, but Matte Blanco showed that they merely obey a different kind of logic whereby, for example, your boss can suddenly turn into your father, or your wife into your mother. I hate when that happens. (I wonder if this is the basis of people imagining they're the opposite sex?)
Anyway, Bomford came along and applied Matte Blanco’s theories to the vertical dimension, or at least made a first stab at it. I don’t agree with everything he says, but it is undoubtedly a fruitful avenue for a host of otherwise insoluble problems. Indeed, what if certain parts of scripture are more like a dream than a documentary? If it’s the latter, then we will find ourselves mired in unthinkability at some rather key junctures.
Note that, among other things, we are trying to talk about the eternal and infinite within the constraints of time and finitude, which is bound to generate paradox if we limit ourselves to the asymmetrical logic of Aristotle:
If we take these literally we distort them into a kind of false fact. If we treat them as mere fictions we undercut their seriousness. There is a way of respecting the truth of the myth that falls into neither error.
Moreover, it’s not a matter of either/or but both/and: the combination of symmetrical and asymmetrical logic is called bilogic.
I wonder if Bomford addresses Adam and Eve? Yes. For example, he suggests that Adam naming the animals symbolizes the acquisition of asymmetrical logic, as he essentially makes the transition from a kind of ontological fusion to “becoming aware of the distinctions of the many.”
But at the same time, Adam -- like anyone else -- longs for a return to that happy and conflict-free world of symmetry. There’s no way back (short of a heroic dose of LSD), but there is a way forward into a higher unity:
The longing of Adam for one with whom he may be one is the longing of the particular for a return to the unity of the One. This return is not a direct return to the One, but a return to the One through another -- for their mutual harmony will be expressive of the symmetry of the One, while at the same time their particularity will not be done away with.
Which sounds suspiciously like what goes on in the Trinity, but let’s not jump to a different subject. This is blogging, not dreaming. Or rather, both.
Now, Adam and Eve are situated in “paradise,” and
This unimaginable perfection has to us a dream-like quality. We are still in a world dominated by symmetry. There is one discordant note, however: God has issued a very clear and asymmetrical command, one which in no way incorporates its opposite. [In symmetrical logic, opposites can coexist in the same object; for example, think of how things like justice and mercy are perfectly reconciled in God, indeed, because they were never "de-conciled.”]
Man disobeys and yada yada, he falls into
a hostile world of real things. From this point on, the conflicts between the dream of harmonious symmetry and the reality of struggle between the particulars of creation will haunt humankind.
Now, in the atemporal world of symmetrical logic, what we call “past” and “future” can be copresent or even reversed, as can causality. Therefore, the present can be caused by the future, and back to what I said at the outset, it is possible to look at our “past" fall in light of our “future” redemption.
We’re just getting started, so don’t jump to any conclusions.
7 comments:
New CE requirement for California psychologists:
"Licensees must complete a minimum of 4 hours of training in the subject of cultural diversity and/or social justice as they apply to the practice of Psychology."
It's not enough to be indoctrinated into ideological fantasy, one must go in for a booster shot of the fantasy every two years.
Back when I was in grad school psychology still pretended to treat delusions instead of instilling them.
The doctrine of original sin can be difficult to process, at least as it has come down to us from early church fathers. Part of the difficulty in grasping this, as you note, is, I think, the language which is utilized to articulate the doctrine. While I do not think any new revelations can solve the difficulty of the doctrine, in my mind, at least, it isn't too difficult to understand that there has been no man, except the Messiah, who was without sin. Try as mere men might to live a godly life, there are none who rise to the glory of God himself. To further complicate matters in this day and age, the age of if it "feels" good do it, people are offended simply by the word sin being utilized to describe those actions which fall outside classic Christian morality.
Jesus didn't engage in fall theology.
Jesus acknowledged the existence of Adam and Eve and the part of the story related to marriage......but not the fall story.
The theology that says people sin because they inherit a sin nature from Adam.....cannot explain how Adam sinned without a inheriting a sin nature from an earlier sinner. So its stupid and counterproductive. You also don't see the church fathers before Augustine using this stupid theology much if at all either.
Augustine was a dumb as a box of rocks Manichean heretic as Julian of Eclanum said. And he and Jerome lied on Pelagius who in his commentary on Romans does acknowledge the need for grace, but to Pelagius grace is God's mercy not an idiotic Manichean-Calvinist "magic enabling power" that enables "flesh-robots" "born in sin and disabled" to believe. St. Pelagius also clearly states his belief in the part on Romans 5 that we inherit mortality from Adam because our bodies are from him but we don't inherit his sin because our soul is not from him. This is the real difference: St. Pelagius believes in the soul being a new creation from God at the point of conception and Augustine believes in the braindead traducian theory that our souls are produced naturally by particulate of our parents souls broken off into the sperm and egg.
Augustine's theory I dare say, yes I dare say, is compatible with abortion. If one truly opposes abortion they should be a Pelagian, in the true sense: Grace is not magic enabling power but is God's mercy, grace is received in baptism baptism is necessary, and our soul was directly created by God personally at conception and so inherits nothing from Adam while our body inherits physical mortality becauae it desce nds from Adam.
In fact, there can be no such thing as good or bad taste, in case you were wondering about our culture’s unending celebration of tastelessness.
I dunno, it seems like there are plenty of factors including childhood trauma (for instance, the boy whose parent, usually a mother or grandmother, puts him in a dress), steroid use, and of course as with teenage girls the excessive attention they receive for declaring themselves other than what they are. Not to mention the ubiquitous porn that fetishizes all that stuff.
Not saying dreams don't play a part, but there are so many factors, especially now. Tying in with original sin, though, as a taxpayer in California there's no escaping the taint as your tax dollars go to fund transitioning "treatment" for kids. Without parental consent, naturally. Even if you don't support it personally, you can't help but support it financially either directly or indirectly. I see original sin as being that which we participate in simply by virtue of existing; similarly, as a modern American, simply by existing we participate in all manner of abhorrent practices - again, not directly, but indirectly in most of the ways we engage in and interact with the world at large.
Not sure what happened, but obviously the copypasta I started with above was not from today's post. What I meant to quote was the bit about dreams possibly being tied in with believing one is the opposite sex.
Just read this on HappyAcres' Twitter feed, and thought it should be added to this post and comment thread:
"There's no wisdom so deep as that captured by "original sin"
that we're our own worst enemy
and its cause is almost irrelevant & a distraction"
Love this one too: "When the left side of the bell curve tries to mimic the elites’ sneering cynicism it’s the most depressing thing imaginable."
Just as violence is the weak man's impersonation of the strong man, the left is one giant sneer that is their impersonation of intelligence.
Post a Comment