A Random Thought

[Laudate_Dominum]

I was walking through the neighborhood to visit a friend earlier and was thinking about some things. These thoughts are not really developed so my presentation will be vague. I am hoping that peeps might throw out their opinions about this stuff as I'm not sure how cool it is. Thanks

At first I was considering certain types of Biblical symbolism. Many times in the OT, particularly in prophetic writings, a symbol or event is presented in terms of its earthly reality, in our history, but alongside a heavenly counterpart. For those who have studied the OT or Rev you will know of what I speak.

Anyway, I obviously don't see this as merely a cool literary device, rather I see it as expressing something of the nature of the cosmos and created reality as a whole.

So as I was walking I noticed cats, dead plants, cars and things and was struck by the tension and inner conflict of this world. I thought of many heinous creatures that exist and attrocious, terrible things that occur in nature. Nasty, mindless, carnivorous plants that slowly digest their prey while they're still alive. And other such things. I'm sure we can all think of some pretty nasty aspects of nature that are in fact distubing and that cause nausea or fear and disgust. Now those who employ satanic reason (it's a concept of mine that would take a long time to explain) might interpret these aspects of nature as evidence that the universe is ultimately arbitrary and absurd, or perhaps even that evil is absolute and other such blasphemies.

I have thought about such things before as I can be preoccupied at times with the "book of creation", or the way in which creation is expressive of the Divine as the ultimate exemplary cause of creation and as it's principle of being and intelligibility.

So we all know that creation is expressive of the Divine, creation is in a sense symbolic or an analogy of the Divine Reality, though in a limited way obviously.

It can be quite a task sometimes to see how many aspects of creation (particularly on Earth) in fact express Divine perfections. Sure there is a harmony and these aspects may contribute to the greater good in some way. But let's face it, sometimes they are ugly, absurd, creepy, one might even say evil.

I believe the universe was created good, but also sin has entered into the picture and the goodness and beauty of creation has been distorted by the effects of sin. So in creation we see beauty distorted, goodness slightly twisted, etc..

Long ago I adopted the perspective that prior to the fall man was endowed with a three-fold "sight", our perception of the outside world, our inner sight, and that contemplatio which is vision of that which is above. These three aspects inform one another so that a darkening of the inner sight effects our perception of the external world (this is evidenced by psychology for example). Through grace the supernatural organism can be renewed and through contemplatio we can attain a union with God in this life which illuminates the inner and outer sight. I think specifically of saints like St. Francis, who through this light of Grace experienced profoundly the goodness of creation and the ways in which it proclaims the reality of God.

But even Francis, when he encountered natural evils, did not sit back indifferently as if it was good. So even with the light to read the book of creation, natural evils are not rendered good. It's not entirely our bad eyesight which percieves darkness in the things of nature.

So as I walked it struck me that indeed creation is expressive of the Divine through exemplarity, but creation is hierarchical and their are higher orders of creation which precede our own. When I began to ponder the idea of the cosmos and our world as expressive of the Divine, but, as it were, expressed through the fiddler or lense of the higher orders of creation. So the essence of created goodness is not obliterated, but is distorted in that the mark of the great angelic enmity is impressed upon it at its very foundations. So like so much Biblical imagery, the universe itself is directly related to its spiritual, heavely counterpart. Thus the violence and hostility and grotesque, bizzare, nasties of nature (and even the laws of nature) are expressive of the demonic battle which exists and preceded this creation. This way of thinking seems to open up a great many interesting avenues of investigation. For example in relation to the absolute primacy of Christ and His eternal predestination. And then the garden paradise, testing, and fall of Adam and Eve. I can't really keep going because the list of compelling implications would go on ad nauseum.

Perhaps someone sees a fundamental problem with this general concept? Bear in mind I have just sketched it briefly in as simple terms as possible. Has anyone any book recommendations or anything which may be helpful?

Thank you all and God bless.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Your three types of sight reminded me of something which, if not helpful to you in this regard, is still a good and interesting read and a meditation.

[url="http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/itinerl.html"]Journey of the Mind to God[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

Thank you Raph! LOL! Actually I read that text during my conversion years back and have accepted that concept ever since. teehee

that rocks

[Laudate_Dominum]

Perhaps there is an analogy between the three-fold sight described above and the structure of creation I hinted at above. The material cosmos relating to the outer sight, the angelic and spiritual order relating to the inner sight, and God naturally relating to that from above, [i]contemplatio[/i]. Thus the material order is informed by the spiritual order as our perception of the outside world is conditioned by our inner-sight and [i]contemplatio[/i].
Fittingly human nature, through which the entire created order is redeemed in Christ, is constituted of both spirit and matter in relation to God.

Also I believe this celestial relation is implied in Scripture. The creation accounts are particularly interesting (though complex). And it is quite fun to consider in light of the pontificate of man and the eternal, unconditioned, joint predestination of Jesus and Mary.

fun, fun, fun!

[Laudate_Dominum]

it was fitting that humanity should be constituted in Adam as in one man. For man is a microcosm, and it is in the One Man, Jesus Christ, that the entire created order is completed and consummated. We all fell in Adam that we might be glorified in Christ, the coincidence of microcosm and macrocosm. The Pantokrator.

[Laudate_Dominum]

bump! I am eager to discuss these and other lofty subjects.

[i]"God bless us all, every one."[/i]

[phatcatholic]

this insight makes the Incarnation, the culmination

--of material/spiritual/God
--of inner sight/outer sight/contemplatio

all the more miraculous

(sorry, i can't contribute much more then that. i'm somewhat braindead after writing that tract )

Edited August 26, 2004 by phatcatholic

[Laudate_Dominum]

sweet

the implications of the Incarnation are so lofty I don't think we can even grasp it remotely.

St. Athanasius is said to have written a treatise on the Incarnation that was lost, long after his smaller Treatise on the Incarnation which we still have today. Considering how profound the existing treatise is, and the fact that apparently Athanasius did not allow copies to be made because he feared the doctrine was so lofty and intense that people might misunderstand and fall into heresy, I imagine reading the text would border on ecstatic rapture.

Just a random thought, for a random thought thread.

[phatcatholic]

hey bro, i'm right there w/ ya

"ecstatic rapture" here we come!!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 25 2004, 08:58 PM'] hey bro, i'm right there w/ ya

"ecstatic rapture" here we come!! [/quote]
LOL!

I'm more partial toward sleep at this particular moment. hehe But if God were to hook me up, I wouldn't complain.

[Apotheoun]

Laudate_Dominum,

Your post is interesting, but I haven't ever divided man in the way you do. I normally follow the division of the human person found in St. Irenaeus, which is simply that man is created as a natural being of body and soul, but was elevated above his nature by the infusion with God's Spirit into his being, giving him the Divine Trinitarian Likeness. St. Maximos does speak of [i]contemplatio[/i], but I haven't studied his thought on this in any great detail, so I don't know if he makes the divisions you make within it. I hold that man, body and soul, will experience the Beatific Vision and will be filled with God's uncreated Energy. I do of course accept, in a very limited way, the [i]anaolgia entis[/i], but the East has never focused much on that, favoring instead an [i]apophatic[/i] approach to theology.

As far as evil is concerned, I always avoid speaking of evil as "natural," because evil is by definition "unnatural." Perhaps my Protestant upbringing makes me sensitive to such things, but what you called "natural evil," I normally call "physical evil," which of course is only evil in an analogical sense. Because when one talks about moral evil and physical evil, he is using the term "evil" in an equivocal manner. In other words, physical evil isn't really evil.

As an example: when a lion attacks and eats a gazelle, there is no malice involved in the lions actions, he is just doing what instinct commands of him in order to preserve his own life. Out of the "evil" of the gazelle's death, the good of the lion's life is preserved. Now, did God always intend for lions to eat gazelles? Some people have argued that that is not what God intended when He created the world, but that argument is a hypothetical one, because the Church has never defined that lions only eat gazelles because of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.

Now, maybe my Aristotelian studies have deadened me to the sense that a lion eating a gazelle is a bad thing, but I basically see it as the consumption of matter by the lion which releases the form of the gazelle, and then the matter consumed takes on the form of the lion. I see great order in all of this, and so even if it may appear brutal, I don't see it as brutal because the animals involved are not moral agents.

There is a tendency on the part of human beings to ascribe human emotion and reason to non-sentient animals, but this is rather foolish. A lion is not moral agent, he has no will through which he cannot choose between different natural goods; instead, he acts by instinct. But I digress, and I really should leave the lion and gazelle alone, and let them do what they must, because I should be focusing on moral evil, which is true evil, in that it is a relative absence of the good in the will of man. Moral evil is produced by a being with free will and intellect, who has the ability to discover the good and to do it, but who can choose, against the good of his own nature, to do that which is evil.

But now that I've spouted on for several paragraphs, I'll have to re-read your comments, and see if anything else spurs me to write.

God bless,
Todd

[Laudate_Dominum]

Thanks Apotheoun!

[quote]Your post is interesting, but I haven't ever divided man in the way you do. I normally follow the division of the human person found in St. Irenaeus, which is simply that man is created as a natural being of body and soul, but was elevated above his nature by the infusion with God's Spirit into his being, giving him the Divine Trinitarian Likeness. St. Maximos does speak of contemplatio, but I haven't studied his thought on this in any great detail, so I don't know if he makes the divisions you make within it. I hold that man, body and soul, will experience the Beatific Vision and will be filled with God's uncreated Energy. I do of course accept, in a very limited way, the anaolgia entis, but the East has never focused much on that, favoring instead an apophatic approach to theology.[/quote]
I would like to clarify the [i]contemplatio [/i]thing by pointing out (in case it wasn't clear) that this is a supernatural thing, it is in the order of grace. Before the fall I would put this in the category of preternatural gifts. I'm not sure if I really disagree with Irenaeus (I hope not). I would say that it is through this infused light from above (which in the context described above is under the aspect of contemplatio) that man attains to the perfect likeness of God.
And I do admit a great emphasis on the [i]analogia entis[/i], and I am not ashamed of this.


[quote]As far as evil is concerned, I always avoid speaking of evil as "natural," because evil is by definition "unnatural."  Perhaps my Protestant upbringing makes me sensitive to such things, but what you called "natural evil," I normally call "physical evil," which of course is only evil in an analogical sense.  Because when one talks about moral evil and physical evil, he is using the term "evil" in an equivocal manner.  In other words, physical evil isn't really evil. [/quote]
Yes, we agree. By natural evil I meant those things, typically called evil which have no moral content. Physical evils being the primary culprit. And I also hold that this is evil only in an analogical sense, but I would qualify that to some degree because the idea I presented above suggests that such "evils" are in fact rooted in moral evils. There are distinctions that need to be made, but in general terms I would suggest that things that are perceived in a way which is antithetical to the Divine Perfections are in fact related to moral evils in the supernatural order and expressive in a remote way of them. St. Paul says that death entered the world because of sin. So death, which in itself has no moral content, is connected with morality remotely as an effect of sin. I am saying that the constitution of the cosmos bears a stamp in remotely expressing the effects of sin in the higher created order, namely the rebellion of the angels and the heavenly milieu of which we really know very little. I am also confident that I could find Scriptural support for these ideas.

[quote]As an example:  when a lion attacks and eats a gazelle, there is no malice involved in the lions actions, he is just doing what instinct commands of him in order to preserve his own life.  Out of the "evil" of the gazelle's death, the good of the lion's life is preserved.  Now, did God always intend for lions to eat gazelles?  Some people have argued that that is not what God intended when He created the world, but that argument is a hypothetical one, because the Church has never defined that lions only eat gazelles because of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.  [/quote]
Yes, I understand these points. But I don't think it really rules out what I've been thinking. As I indicated above I accept the fact that there is no moral content in the happenings of beasts, plants and inanimate objects.

[quote]Now, maybe my Aristotelian studies have deadened me to the sense that a lion eating a gazelle is a bad thing, but I basically see it as the consumption of matter by the lion which releases the form of the gazelle, and then the matter consumed takes on the form of the lion. I see great order in all of this, and so even if it may appear brutal, I don't see it as brutal because the animals involved are not moral agents.  [/quote]
But insofar as an animal is beautiful it expresses a Divine perfection (just to focus on one), and the brutal destruction of such a creature is a negation of that expression. I'm not saying that God is powerless against this by any means, obviously not, but in allowing sin to happen God allowed its consequences which he foreknew so its all part of God's plan and the greater good will come of it. Based on my previous paradigm I might be so bold as to say that the predatory structure of the natural world expresses something of the nature of sin, and the fallen state of persons (angelic or human) and this is not meant to imply moral content directly, only remotely as a kind of extrinsic formative agent.

[quote]There is a tendency on the part of human beings to ascribe human emotion and reason to non-sentient animals, but this is rather foolish.  A lion is not moral agent, he has no will through which he cannot choose between different natural goods; instead, he acts by instinct.  But I digress, and I really should leave the lion and gazelle alone, and let them do what they must, because I should be focusing on moral evil, which is true evil, in that it is a relative absence of the good in the will of man.  Moral evil is produced by a being with free will and intellect, who has the ability to discover the good and to do it, but who can choose, against the good of his own nature, to do that which is evil.[/quote]
Again, I never meant to suggest that these facts have moral content. But the fact of the ugliness and mindless savagery of nature is plain. It can be cold and brutal. In some ways this serves a good, the hostility of the world reminds us that we are mortal and that our ultimate happiness is not to be found in this life. But I would still maintain that without sin the world would be entirely different. And I think its ultimate source is in the sin of Satan and the Demons, and that had Adam not sinned, Christ would have come in some way inconceivable to us to glorify humanity and reconcile all of creation in Himself. Instead, Adam fell under the yoke of the Devil, who is the prince of this world, and the cosmos itself participates remotely in the fall of the Demons themselves in that the symbolism, or the image and likeness and vestiges of God in creation were distorted by the subordination to the hierarchies of fallen creation which preceded it. And this world is an actual battleground between good spirits and evil spirits for the salvation or ruin of human souls.

I hope I'm making some sense. I thought the first post explained it pretty well, but maybe I was too brief.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Since you seem to accept that physical evils can at least be considered evil in an anagogical sense (which is my view) it seems reasonable to suggest that there is in fact a relationship between physical evils and evil in the proper sense (moral evil). And this is something St. Paul seems to be saying. And I am trying to elucidate this point by examining the nature of the fall in the broadest sense, and the relation between the material order and the spiritual order which coincide in man.

I probably shouldn't even get into this, but I also have considerations that apply to this regarding principalities, thrones, dominations, etc..

nevermind. teehee

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 25 2004, 09:05 PM'] Since you seem to accept that physical evils can at least be considered evil in an anagogical sense (which is my view) it seems reasonable to suggest that there is in fact a relationship between physical evils and evil in the proper sense (moral evil). And this is something St. Paul seems to be saying. And I am trying to elucidate this point by examining the nature of the fall in the broadest sense, and the relation between the material order and the spiritual order which coincide in man.

I probably shouldn't even get into this, but I also have considerations that apply to this regarding principalities, thrones, dominations, etc..

nevermind. teehee [/quote]
Since I'm trying to understand the Eastern Catholic perspective on the fall of man, my views on [i]original sin[/i] are somewhat in flux. Because some of the things I've read indicate to me that "death" itself is seen, at least in some sense, as good, in Eastern theology. Good in the sense that it limits the moral evil that a man can do, and also because it retards the general growth of moral evil within society. Death is actually natural to man. But as I said, my views are not firm on these matters.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 25 2004, 08:57 PM']I would like to clarify the [i]contemplatio [/i]thing by pointing out (in case it wasn't clear) that this is a supernatural thing, it is in the order of grace. Before the fall I would put this in the category of preternatural gifts. I'm not sure if I really disagree with Irenaeus (I hope not). I would say that it is through this infused light from above (which in the context described above is under the aspect of contemplatio) that man attains to the perfect likeness of God.
[/quote]
Is this "Light" you are talking about created or uncreated? Is this infused "Light" a participation in God's Essence or is it something distinct from His Essence? These are questions that are important to me as an Eastern Catholic.

As ironic as this may sound, I'm not as concerned about whether or not the [i]contemplatio[/i] is natural, preternatural, or supernatural, because in some sense it is all three, since grace perfects nature, and doesn't destroy it. There is a natural capacity within man for God, and this was put their by God when He created man, but it has been wounded and darkened by sin. Grace revives this natural capacity, and adds to it a supernatural and uncreated capacity that enables man to participation in God's uncreated Light and Glory.