Metaphysics: the Science of Being

Metaphysics: the Science of Being
----------------------------------



-------------------
By Jim J. McCrea

The sciences which most people are familiar with, study being under one aspect or another. Physics, for example, examines being under the aspect of physical phenomena. Mathematics studies being in light of the principle of quantity. Logic studies being under the aspect of propositional truth. And Psychology looks at the thinking and emotive processes of human beings. What most people are not aware of, is that there is a science which studies being precisely as being. This science is called metaphysics.

The ultimate first principle on which reality rests, is the law of identity which states that a thing is what it is. This is not a mere tautology, such as the truth A=A in logic. It is much more. It superabounds in meaning.

The law of identity is manifest or differentiated into a number of aspects known as the transcendentals. The transcendentals are the universal modes of being. They are as extensive as being itself. They can be considered convertible terms for being - that is, although there is a distinction between the transcendentals as concepts, they are really different names for being. Being is so rich and deep, that even though it is one, several concepts are required to more thoroughly grasp it (so says Jacques Maritain in his "Preface to Metaphysics").

The first transcendental is unity. This means that as far as a thing has being, it is one thing. Much of today's reductionist science attempts to understand nature more clearly by reducing things to their most fundamental components. If, however, you divide something to look at what it is made of, you depart from that thing. A thing is not simply its parts. The parts must be arranged into a unifying form to make that thing what it is. From this, it can be said that the best description of a thing is itself - that is, a thing cannot be better described in terms of something other than that thing.

The second transcendental is truth. This states that being has the capability of "speaking to" or being understood by an intellect - that is, being is intelligible. An intellect is not limited to grasping a thing piece by piece, but can apprehend it as a whole. As the eastern mystics say, when a tree is observed, its "treeness" is grasped by the mind immediately, without any mediating analysis. This property of "graspableness" of a being by an intellect is its truth.

The third transcendental is goodness. This means that being precisely as being confronts a desire or affective response. In this manner it is related to the will and the affective center of the soul.

An important part of metaphysics concerns an analysis of evil. If goodness is a transcendental - that is, an intrinsic attribute of being - how is evil possible, since we can plainly see that evil has a real presence in the world? Evil is not the opposite of good, as many people believe, but its absence. It is not the absence of just any good, but a good which should be present in a thing, according to its nature. Evil, therefore, does not have existence in itself, but is only a parasite in good. It is a "hole" of non-being in the midst of some existing thing. (An objector may say that a tumor has being, yet it is in no manner good or desirable. The answer to this is that a tumor is not, properly speaking, a real being. It is an aggregate of beings [individual cells] which does not have true unity. Its essence consists of a lack of order in the cellular growth of the tissues of the tumor).

A fourth transcendental is beauty. Beauty is a property which indicates that being has integrity. It is an attribute of being to have a certain symmetry and order to its form. When this is present , there should be a response of delight and pleasure in the sensitive and intellectual faculties of the one who perceives it. When ugliness is validly perceived as an objective aspect of something, it always indicates that a certain element of non-being is mingled with it. Something is missing within it - something it should have by its nature.

It must be realized, that in the study of being, that to be is not necessarily to be a physical object. All physical objects are surrounded by an enclosure of three dimensional space, with their parts distributed in that region of three dimensional space. Entities which we call spirits are not like that. A spirit is a concrete (particular existing) being which is not bound by the limitations of matter. It is not confined by an enclosure of space, and does not consist of parts.

The first to be mentioned are angels. They are not, as often depicted, effeminate creatures with wings. They are pure essences. All material beings are composed of matter and form. Matter is the total collection of parts which make up the thing, and form is the total arrangement and interconnectivity of the parts which gives it its essence as a being (form as defined here, is something deeper than mere shape). Essence is the determining attribute of a thing which makes it that particular type of thing and not another. The component parts of a car, lying in a jumble, is the car's matter. Even though all the parts of a car are present, there is no actual car. When the parts are properly assembled, a real car emerges, because form is added to the matter. When this happens, essence arises. We can therefore say that with matter and form there is "carness" (its essence), in which the intellect can make a true judgment that that thing is an actual car. In an angel, essence and existence alone are present. It has neither matter nor form.

Angels are far simpler than any material thing is, therefore they have a higher degree of unity (In their simplicity, they are not poorer in meaning than material things, but paradoxically richer). Since angels do not have parts or composition they cannot be divided or decomposed. They are, therefore, immortal.

Two material objects of the same essence (say two watches of the same kind), are distinct beings because they are enclosed in different regions of three dimensional space. Angels, which are free from the limitations of space, cannot be distinguished in this way. They are differentiated on the basis of essence alone. From this, it can be concluded that each angel is the sole member of its species.

At the summit of being is God. To have a finite essence is to be limited to one particular aspect of being. One finite essence expresses one aspect of being, and another finite essence expresses another aspect (i.e. a rose does not have the attributes of a sunset and vice versa). God is not a finite essence, and is therefore, not limited to a given aspect. All finite entities participate in being to a lesser or greater extent, but God is Pure Being. Even though angels are simple, in that they have no physical composition, they still have metaphysical composition. A real distinction exists between the love and knowledge an angel might have, and his being. Angels *have* knowledge and love. Because there is a real distinction between an angel and its attributes, it is logically possible for it to be without them. The fallen angels, for example, lack supernatural charity and knowledge. The love and knowledge that God possesses is, on the other hand, identical with himself. He is the very love and knowledge he has. Also, his essence is his own existence. In this, God has neither physical nor metaphysical composition. God is not only simple, but infinite. The transcendentals are, therefore, perfectly realized in him. He is perfect and infinite unity, truth, goodness, and beauty.

The question: "how is metaphysics possible?" can be answered by studying the nature of the intellect. Every faculty has a proper object to which it is oriented. The proper object of the ear is sound and the proper object of the eye is light. The proper object of the intellect is being or that which is. Metaphysics, as the science of being-as-such, is possible because certain truths about being-as-such are necessarily and automatically acquired by the intellect when it comes into contact with being. The law of identity, as mentioned above, is one. It states that if a thing is what it is, it is not necessarily what one believes it to be or would like it to be. This contradicts any form of relativism or subjectivism. The law of non-contradiction is another. This states that nothing can both be and not be under the same aspect at the same time. This law is essential if any form of intellectual reasoning is to proceed. The principle of sufficient reason says that if anything exists, occurs, or is true, it must have adequate grounds for existing, occurring, or being true. Nothing can have these, simply for no reason. The human mind's ability to understand the fact of God's existence is based on the principle of sufficient reason (i.e. this universe can possibly not exist - that is, it is not self existent - therefore, it requires a being who is self existent - that cannot possibly not exist - to explain it, which we call God).

These truths are self evident in themselves. It may be asked, therefore, that if this is so, why do not all philosophers accept them? This is because there is a distinction between their explicit and implicit understanding. Anyone who has a properly functioning intellect has an implicit understanding of them. All effective acts of knowing and acting require their use. In people who have only an implicit understanding of these truths, they are drawn upon automatically without a conscious understanding of them. A certain judgment of the intellect may be held with certitude, without a genuine knowledge of the laws of thought which enable that judgment to occur (i.e. the inference of the fact of God's existence from the contingency of this universe) The metaphysician, on the other hand, is able to reflect on his own mind as it understands reality. Metaphysics does not involve the discovery of any new knowledge, but brings to conscious understanding, that which may be unconscious in most people.

 

 

 

----

----

----

 

Scientific vs. Phenomenological Reality

Scientific vs. Phenomenological Reality
---------------------------------------




-------------------
By Jim J. McCrea

It is believed by many, that the mathematical means used to model nature, constitute a valid and intrinsically comprehensive means of understanding reality. Religion and religious experience, it is believed, certainly has a place in the modern scheme of things, but it is viewed as a projection of personal meaning onto the life we experience. It is not seen today as statements of and contact with an objective reality.

The modern scientific method of description is mainly quantitative. Reality is reduced to measurement (This is a legacy of Descartes). For example, suppose you were to show a scientist a table and ask him what it essentially is. He would first describe it as a top supported by legs. Both the top and the legs could be described as rectangular solids (These are geometrical entities). In describing the material, he would discuss the various molecular and atomic bonds which exist within the substance of the table. These would be described in terms of bonding angles (a quantity), and electrostatic forces (another quantity). This, in turn, depends on quantum mechanics (reducible to probability). For specific phenomena, reality is reducible to the measurement of a ruler or the reading on a meter. For general phenomena, mathematical formulae are applicable.

Is this view sufficient, or is there something more? To answer this we have to invoke an analytical method known as phenomenology (phenomenology as a method of investigating reality, was developed by the philosopher Edmund Husserl early in the twentieth century). Phenomenology is an analysis of our immediate and pure perceptions of reality, which puts aside all preconceptions about it (you attempt to clear your head of all biases, prejudices, and mental comments on what you see. You perceive things purely and simply). This is fundamental knowledge which precedes all systematic descriptions of reality. In order for an individual to make any statements about reality, he must begin with what his consciousness perceives. Phenomenological reality is precisely that which is perceived by the mind, before any thinking about it takes place in the intellect.

An example may help to clarify this. This example will use the phenomenological method itself. Let us imagine that you are on a camping trip in the north, and let us consider a small time period within that trip:

You are at a point in the day when you decide to build a fire. You feel the air beginning to cool. The trees cast long shadows as the sun begins to set behind the mountain. You see a dead tree which is still standing. You pick up the ax and feel its weight. The application of the ax to the tree has a certain dull sound to the ears and sharp feeling to the hands. After the wood has been cut and the fire started you sit down and relax. The forest is dark now and the air is cold. The fire provides light to the immediate area and warmth to your body. The smell of burning wood hangs in the air.

What can be considered the truth of the camping trip, as it is presented to you? The very truth of the camping trip is what is purely and immediately experienced, as described above - prior to any intellectual analysis (This is provided that the intellect and senses are functioning properly. We must realize that the truth perceived here is not the subjective experience, but the subject's perceiving of an objective reality). This is *primary truth,* which is the phenomenological reality. This involves all five senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. It involves our entire body. The intellectual analysis of our experiences (which is science), on the other hand, is *secondary truth* and primarily involves our brain. It is called secondary truth because it is derived from primary truth. Phenomenological truth is knowledge of reality, while scientific truth is knowledge about reality. Scientific knowledge, in general, consists of superficial featuresabstracted from phenomenological knowledge. Mathematical modeling is so useful for understanding reality because a large number of physical phenomena have features which closely approximate mathematical forms (Aristotle mentions this in his Physics).

Another example may help to clarify this principle. Suppose an engineer is to model an electronic circuit. A very simple model is initially chosen. Resistors are modeled with current proportional to voltage, and capacitors are modeled with current proportional to the derivative of voltage with respect to time. All the other components are modeled with such simple relations. The equations roughly approximate the behavior of the circuit. The modeling may be improved by considering non-linear effects within the resistors and parasitic effects within the capacitors. The model may be improved still further by considering electromagnetic effects between components.

The point is, no matter how refined the modeling process becomes, the full essence of the reality of the circuit board escapes the modeling methodology. This is because while the board is considered in more and more detail, the methodology is simply the consideration of superficial features derived from its phenomenological being. These aspects may be likened to a wire frame which approximates the outline of an object. The frame may be constructed in more and more detail, but the outline of an object never amounts to the object itself. The real "stuff" which fills these frames is its phenomenological reality. This is the real being, of which scientific reality is merely an approximate description. This is why metaphysics is required, in addition to the particular sciences which describe the universe. If the quantitative sciences alone were sufficient, all that would be real would be abstract measurements, with no actually existing things that they would apply to.

Although the true reality of the object is not contained within these mathematical forms (since these forms are mere abstractions from reality), these forms are still necessary for the understanding of material reality. They stand to phenomenological being as a skeleton stands to a living creature. They give phenomenological being its structure.

The conclusion is, we need not invoke religious faith directly (as a starting point) to understand the existence of a reality which transcends the empirical scientific method of thought. As explained above, such a reality is immediately present to our natural perceptions. If reality (as has been shown) is not confined to the scientific/mathematical mode of understanding, it may also be possible to infer the existence of levels of being above the level of phenomenological reality we have discussed (The deadlock of reality being confined to the traditional materialistic scientific mold is broken). By further analysis, the existence of a non-material soul may be inferred, as well as the existence of a supreme being. This would establish the validity of religious faith, which in essence, consists of statements about and contact with an objective reality.

 

----

----

----

 

Critique of the Intelligence

Critique of the Intelligence
--------------------------



-------------------
By Jim J. McCrea

One of the central problems in philosophy, today, is that of the intelligence. The problem is this: How can we know that our knowledge reflects reality - or, how can the mind know truth. Today it is commonly thought that we cannot. A psychological argument put forward, to advance this, is that our beliefs are a result of our experiences of the past, our needs of the present, and our goals of the future. If a judgment is made about something, it is always conditioned by the above factors. Since these factors are different for different people, it is said that a number of different people observing a single situation will result in a number of different views on that situation. This view of human knowledge, where it is thought that no absolute truth can be attained, is known as skepticism.

A physiological argument is put forward to support skepticism, as well. It is said that all information that we receive from the outside world must pass through sensory channels before it reaches the brain. It is argued that we do not have direct contact with the outside world (because of the mediation of the sensory channels) and that we cannot tell how much the data from the outside world has been processed or distorted, going through the connecting nerves, before reaching the brain. It is argued that, since we do not have a direct knowledge of reality, we cannot compare reality with what our brain receives via the senses, to determine if our knowledge of it is correct.

The modern problem of how our mind accurately knows reality began, in earnest, with Descartes (17th century). He postulated that we can only know, with certitude, the nature our mental states, and that the reality of the outside world must be inferred through a laborious process of reasoning. Later on, Kant (18th century), said that the objects we perceive with our mind are merely impressions of things. The real nature of the things causing these impressions - that is, the thing in itself - is not directly perceived and known.

Defense of the intelligence is vital in the face of today's intellectual and moral decline. How can this be accomplished? First of all, we see that the skeptic's argument contradicts the everyday facts of human life. Each person who possesses a functioning mind constantly makes judgments about the outside world - attesting to truth, falsity, good, and evil. This would seem to indicate that the philosopher who constructs a system of thought which is at variance with these natural insights (which he has when he is off duty as a philosopher) is not really interested in truth, but has some ulterior motive in mind. In these spontaneous, pre-philosophic judgments of truth, the mind is not only saying "I perceive that this is the case," but is also saying "this is true that this is the case." In constructing philosophies which are at variance with these spontaneous judgments, skeptical thinkers contradict themselves - that is, they split themselves in two.

The problem of how we can compare the contents of our mind with objects outside of ourselves is not truly real. It is a pseudo problem. The contents of our minds are the objects outside of ourselves. No real problem exists as to how we get outside of ourselves to attain to the outside world. As the philosopher Martin Hiedegger stated, the person (which he termed the dasein) is already outside and dwelling among things.

It is important at this point to look at the related problems of knowledge in more detail. The first datum of all knowledge are things as wholes – not things reduced to their component parts. Things as wholes are the true atoms of reality (This is a doctrine of Aristotle). To help demonstrate this, we can show that a thing is not simply its parts. A heap of car parts is not a real car. Only when the parts are properly assembled does an actual car exist. In terms of intelligibility and reality, the parts of a thing are less fundamental than the thing itself. The engine of a car, for example, only has meaning in terms of the car it goes into. The wheels of an automobile only make sense in terms of the automobile they go onto. The same principle holds true for the human body. The parts of the body are less fundamental than the body itself. The various organs of the body – the heart, liver, brain, lungs, etc. - only have significance in relation to the body they are a part of. The body itself is most fundamental. From the other end, we can see that the individual thing (or res), is fundamental in relation to the universal and the collective. For example, the concept of a collection of things only makes sense in terms of the individual items that go into making up that collection. In terms of relations between things or persons, the individual is metaphysically most fundamental. Marriage, which is a bond between two people, is only intelligible in terms of the persons which are united in marriage. With respect to universals, essence (which is the fundamental constitutive element which makes a thing what it is), only has meaning in terms of the thing it is an essence of. For example, "catness" which constitutes the essence of each and every cat, only has meaning in terms of actual or possible individual cats. The idea of a universal essence which does not refer to any type of individual, would make no sense.

We can look more closely at the intellect's visualization of things as wholes. This immediate perception is *primary,* whereas its analysis into its component parts is *secondary.* Our visualization of things as wholes, can be thought of in terms of four metaphysical moments. These are (1) essence, which determines to our mind what a thing is; (2) existence, which means that it has actuality and reality and is not a mere concept or possibility; (3) individuality, which means that it possesses its own identity, and not the identity of something else; and (4) externality, which indicates that it exists in the outside world, and that it is not a product of our own mind (i.e., a dream, hallucination, or figment of the imagination).

The distinction between these four metaphysical moments can be better understood if we consider situations with some of them absent and some of them present. For example, we could describe the essence of a vase which could be situated on a table, but which actually does not exist (it only exists as a conceived possibility). We could describe its shape, its smoothness, the material it is made of, and the features it has on its surface. In this we are describing the essence of a vase without existence. Externality is an element in this consideration of the potential vase because we are considering it as the possibility of something existing in the outside world. Individuality is an attribute because we are considering it as the possibility of a given vase, which would not be another. An object in a dream would have essence because, generally speaking, it is intelligible. It would have existence, because it has reality in its own right. It, however, lacks externality because it is a product of the mind and does not exist in the outside world. If you pick up a coin and ask "what is it?" and get the answer, "it is a penny," this addresses the principles of essence, existence, externality, but not individuality, because the answer only gives information as to what kind of thing it is and not what particular thing it is.

One fundamental fact that demonstrates that the intellect is a component of a non-material soul, is the fact that it is able to go outside of itself to attain to the outside world. If you observe the contents of a room you are in, you may observe all types of objects: tables, chairs, stereo components, books, etc. When these objects are observed, a real contact is made with them, with the observing intellect. The contents of your consciousness are these actual objects, and not merely impressions of them. Our introspection, when perceiving things, should tell us this. Those who philosophically deny that we can have this direct knowledge of things, may lack a reverence toward being which would enable them to simply listen to being (without bringing an agenda to it), so that it may reveal its true properties. They are not open to all of what being would tell them, but only that part of being which conforms to their preconceptions. For example, someone with a materialistic mindset may say that we are not in direct contact with the outside world because of the physical chain which links the outside world to the centers of perception in the brain (i.e. light bounces off an object, which then goes into the eye, which then activates the sensing cells on the retina, which in turn activates impulses in the optic nerve, which stimulates the proper parts of the brain, which results in perception). They mistakenly reason that this physical chain is the essence of perceiving, whereas it is merely the means by which the perceiving intellect is brought into a direct contact with things.

The main logical fallacy which materialists commit, when they deny metaphysical or spiritual realities, is that of confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition. Simply because something is necessary for our understanding of a given reality, it does not follow that it is sufficient. Something more may be required.

A fundamental contradiction exists in the philosophy that we have no direct contact with objective reality. One could not even have the idea of objective reality as a concept unless one were, in some way, in direct contact with an outside reality. This is because the very concept of objective reality must come from objective reality itself. It cannot come from something which is not itself. It is axiomatic that the unreal cannot be the cause of the real. The idea of objective reality cannot be mediated by something which is not itself for the same reason. We would have unreality mediating reality. For this reason we can see that Descartes' and Kant's theories, that we do not have direct contact with objective reality, and that we can have no contact with it at all, respectively, are false. The very notion of the objective reality they are denying, is being surreptitiously given to them by an objective reality they are in contact with. For the same reason, it must be asked, where the Buddhist gets the concept of the reality he then subsequently denies (he must have the idea first, in order to then reject it), when he says that all we perceive is nothing but illusion.

On a final note, those who deny that we cannot know if we have accurate knowledge of outside reality because of the mediation of the sensory channels, between the outside world and the brain (because we cannot tell how much the signals are distorted going through these channels), contradict themselves. Such an argument would only be valid if we had accurate objective knowledge of the sensory channels themselves. But this premise contradicts the conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

----

----

----

Effective vs. Ineffective Prayer

Effective vs. Ineffective Prayer

-------------------------------

 

 

 

-------------------

By Jim J. McCrea

 

I have had experiences in my life of unanswered prayers and bitterness towards God over certain serious situations.

 

But at other times, I have had the most wonderful answers to prayer and have seen God's power work in the most striking way.

 

What is the difference?

 

To know the difference between prayer that does not work and prayer that does work, we have to understand what prayer is. I have learned this from experience and God's grace.

 

First of all, prayer is not a formula to get God to do what you want - to say so many Hail Marys and you will get such and such a result. Forget all those publications that say that if you say this novena in such and such a way, and then publish the success of your prayer, you will get an answer to what you want infallibly.

 

Prayer is in essence an opening of our hearts to God. The essence of prayer is heart to heart commune with God. All our rituals and formal prayers are only a means to that end. Real prayer is to become so united with God that we know what His will is, so that we can so much more effectively pray.

 

Of course we ask that God grant us our needs in prayers of petition. God has specifically instructed us to do that. That type of prayer is not a "force" we apply to God to make Him change His mind. People make this mistake in praying Rosary after Rosary in an attitude of applying sufficient "prayer power" to get God to do what they want. Such prayer is generally not answered. Such prayer can actually lead to greater problems in life.

 

If that is not the prayer of petition, then what is?

 

The prayer of petition is an opening of our hearts to God so that He can give us what He desires to give us. That may involve prayer in our own words, or something more formal like the Rosary. But the most important thing in such a prayer is not the words we say or the rituals we act out (apart from our duties as Catholics in obedience to the Church or other lawful superiors), but the attitude of heart we adopt. We must adopt the attitude: "I seem to need this Lord, but you know what is best, so answer the prayer in the way you see fit." Such prayer is done quietly and confident in the Lord's power and love, rather than rattling it off quickly and fretfully as if the Lord is deaf and reluctant (arm twisting prayer).

 

"Arm twisting" prayer can make things worse in a person's life because it is but another way of asserting one's own will over God's. Even thought it seems to be prayer, it can actually shut God out. Correct words alone do not make for real prayer. Prayer is a matter of the heart. If the lips are saying "thy will be done" but the heart is saying "my will be done," it is not real prayer and is not pleasing to God.

 

Even though the Lord can give us anything without asking and He knows all of our needs, He still wants us to ask Him for what we need. This is because doing that instills a sense of dependence on His providence thus facilitating union with Him. Union with God is the end of all prayer.

 

Of course, we can never get all that we want in life and cannot be relieved of all suffering in this life. The prayer of petition can never be directed to that end, but only to the carrying out of God's will - a will that leads to peace in this life, the supplying of all of our real needs, and perfect and eternal happiness in heaven.

 

 

----

----

----

 

The Eucharist and Metaphysical Being

The Eucharist and Metaphysical Being

---------------------------------------

 

 

  

-------------------
By Jim J. McCrea

At Mass, bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, by the priest as an instrument of the Holy Spirit.

Neither bread nor wine remain, but the appearances of them do remain – their look, their feel, their taste, etc. remain.

That is the Eucharist, and it is *THE* mystery of the Faith.

If one claims to be Catholic, but does not believe it, he simply is not Catholic. It does not matter if he was baptized Catholic, attends Mass every Sunday, and believes everything else the Church teaches.

The Eucharist is the *heart* of the Catholic Faith.

If the Eucharist is neither bread nor wine, but merely appears as bread and wine, how far does this appearance go?

The answer is completely.

Not only does the Eucharist appear as bread and wine to the senses, but has absolutely the same physical effects as bread and wine on anything else.

Any possible scientific experiment would show that it is bread and wine.

The Sacred Host would nourish the body, as real bread would do, and the Precious Blood would inebriate if taken in sufficient quantities, as real wine would do.

Jesus Christ is present under the appearances of bread and/or wine as long as those appearances remain (as verified by St. Thomas Aquinas). So as soon as they corrupt, Jesus Christ is no longer present. The Sacred Species behave so much like bread and wine, that what they corrupt into is exactly what real bread and wine corrupt into.

Any way you can slice it physically or scientifically (and there are an infinite number of ways of slicing it), the result is physical bread and wine.

However, supernatural faith cuts through the subtlest and most sophisticated physical reasoning to see Jesus Christ contained within those appearances of bread and wine.

With that, the human intellect is elevated infinitely above what it is capable of naturally (faith being a supernatural illumination of the intellect, by God, to allow it to assent with certitude to the mysteries that God reveals).

How do we answer the objections of those who say that if something has every characteristic of a thing, that it must be that thing?

How do we answer those who say that if the Eucharist has all the physical characteristics of bread, it must be bread? We do this by distinguishing between *phenomena* and *being.*

Phenomenon is what appears to the senses and what has an effect on physical things as the physical sciences can determine it.

Being, on the other hand, is "that which is."

For something to act upon our senses or scientific instruments, it first must *exist* - that is, it first must have being, which is actuality existing outside of nothingness.

Something first exists and then it acts (in the order of operation, not time), in that action has a basis in a really existing thing.

As a result, there is a real distinction between being and action.

If this is true, then it is intrinsically possible to separate them.

This is exactly what happens with the Eucharist, as the being of it is one thing (Jesus Christ), and the physical action of it is another thing (bread).

This separation is effected by the omnipotence of God who causes the physical action or behavior of bread and wine without the underlying being of bread or wine.

 

II.

Proper metaphysics is essential to the Catholic Faith (this is not the metaphysics of New Age).

Metaphysics is the science of being as being, or the science of the ultimate nature of reality.

This is necessary, because only upon a proper conception of reality can the Catholic Faith be based.

For example, if it is believed that everything is divine, then it makes no sense to say that the Father sent His Son into a sinful world to save it.

The metaphysician is a rare but vital part of the Catholic Faith.

The metaphysician ensures that our understanding of the foundational truths of reality are correct.

The 20th century Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain maintained that a requirement for the metaphysician is that he have an "intuition of being as such" or alternatively, "a metaphysical intuition of being."

The intuition of being as such, is the ability to see past mere phenomena (or what appears to the senses or registers on scientific instruments) to perceive the being, or "that which is," that underlies phenomena - that is, to see the actuality of it that is opposed to nothingness - and to see this actuality *as such* with the intellect.

Superficially, that may seem obvious, but many famous philosophers throughout history did not possess this intuition. Neither Immanuel Kant nor John Locke possessed it. All that they affirmed in their investigations of reality were phenomena.

Not all philosophers have the intuition of being as such, for they do not attain to being as being with their philosophy. Not all who claim to be metaphysicians are such. Many of those are psychologists. They investigate reality on the basis of how the human mind associates and distinguishes different things. These do not reach being as such.

What are some of the fundamental principles of being?

One of these principles is the fact that being is *good,* *intelligible,* *unified,* and *beautiful;* and any evil, nonsense, disunity, or ugliness in something is but a lack of being that is due to that thing (for example, blindness as a physical evil is not a positive being, but is a lack of what is due - namely sight).

This affirms that anything that has being in a positive way is good and is created by a good God, but at the same time, explains the reality of evil in the universe.

Also, created being is *contingent.* It is not the nature of created being to exist on its own, so it must have its explanation in a being whose nature it is to exist on its own, which is God.

All true metaphysics leads to the supreme being, who is God.

True metaphysics is the natural foundation of the Catholic Faith.

Many people do not realize the fact that the great loss of the Faith that has occurred in our time has been chiefly caused by philosophical errors that have been passed down through the centuries - from famous thinkers such as Ockham, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Locke, and Mill.

A philosophical error known as *empiricism* has done much to undermine belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

Empiricism holds that physical objects are nothing but groupings of sense qualities, such as hardness, shape, color, etc. rather than those being *beings with* those sense qualities. If empiricism is true, then anything with the sense qualities of bread can only be bread (since a being is reduced to these sense qualities). But if there is an underlying being to these sense qualities, then Jesus Christ can exist as this being as the sense qualities of bread remain.

But for one who holds to empiricism, but who wishes to believe in the Real Presence, the best he can hold to is the idea that Jesus is somehow present in the bread as real bread remains, thus affirming the Lutheran error of *consubstantiation* (to which many Catholics unwittingly hold. A Catholic scientist can be subject to this error because he is liable to reduce physical things to their physical properties, due to his training, not realizing that there is metaphysical being underlying them).

To get people in society back to the Faith again, it is not sufficient to evangelize them with the truths of the Faith.

The erroneous notions of reality that they hold must be corrected first.

That is why a correct philosophy of being - or a correct metaphysics - must be given to them.

To evangelize people, we first have to deprogram them of what is false and reprogram them as to what is true concerning the nature of reality.

 

 

 

----

----

----

Suprageometricity

Suprageometricity

------------------

 

 

-------------------
By Jim J. McCrea

A line of thinking, following in the wake of Descartes (d. 1650), maintains that all of physical reality can be reduced to mathematical descriptions. This is because Descartes believed that the material world is nothing but a vast variation of shapes, sizes, and motions of undifferentiated matter he terms “res extensa” (Latin: extended substance). Much modern thinking lends to the idea that the essence of this may be captured mathematically. This also includes biological entities such as plant life, animal life, and human bodies.

Indeed, Descartes himself developed what is known as "analytical geometry" which has been proven to describe many physical attributes of things. Analytical geometry has been essential for the development of modern science. Modern science and technology could not exist without it. With analytical geometry, the shapes (or motions) of things are explained by mathematical formulae, as that shape is plotted on an x-y co-ordinate grid (or x-y-z for three dimensions, or x-y-z-t if the fourth dimension of time is included). For example, a circle is described by the formula:

x^2+y^2=r^2

An object thrown into the air inscribes an arc, which is a parabola, indicated by the formula:

y=x^2

(where '^' is to the power of).

The thesis of this paper is that only certain features of physical things can be described mathematically (an example of such is the circularity of a wheel). Physical things, in that even though they are ordered as God created them (or as man has fashioned them well), cannot in their entirety be captured mathematically but have an order that exceeds mathematics. This order, I shall call "suprageometric." I also apply the concept of suprageometricity to spiritual things to show that they too follow the order of God in their truth, beauty, and goodness, and these even less so can be captured geometrically or mathematically. Spiritual things are thus more suprageometric than physical things. Being more suprageometric they are a higher manifestation of reality, so suprageometricity far from being a deficiency (because it escapes a geometrical or mathematical description) is an indication of its superiority over pure geometry or mathematics. This, I will explain in this essay.

Some personal examples of mine can be given. I live[ed] in a small rural Ontario town. It has winding roads interspersed with small lakes. In the area out back, there are patches of meadows, in which each patch is creatively different from the others. The houses are in a rustic arrangement that has escaped the hands of urban planners. All in all, everything has a "haphazard" layout. However, the area is not disordered, but has a suprageometric order. That is what gives it its really good feel. It is unlike those city parks or estates of the rich which are manicured to a cold exactness.

A while back, I acquired a cat (named Kit Kat). There are certain things that cannot be explained or read about, but can only be known by experience. Observing the cat in action, observing the "personality" of the cat, I understood definitely that there is a creativity, spontaneity, and responsiveness that can not be reduced to cold mechanics - that is, capturable by mathematical formulae. There is a positive suprageometric behavior in the animal that points to levels of being far above the materialistic conception of the universe of a mechanism that can be described by finite laws.

Nature itself is suprageometric. Scientists have attempted to replicate nature with computer simulation, using fractals and other mathematical objects. Mountains, clouds, plants, wavy water, and animals in motion are the things that have been replicated. Such a simulation can come across as extremely beautiful and interesting, especially when those scenes of artificial reality are animated so that one thing changes to another in spectacular and creative ways. Superficially, it may even seem far better than nature. But man, with his science, has not bested nature. Looking deeper, there is always a coldness and lack of naturalness to such a thing. One quickly grows tired of it. It is what one would call "pseudo-suprageometric." It resembles the suprageometricity of nature, but the whole thing is reducible to cold mathematics.

As computer simulations are artificial, nature is natural. Nature is truly suprageometric. If one observes the flora and fauna, the lakes and streams, the blue dome of the sky, and the starry firmament, their essence cannot be captured by mathematics or geometry. Certain features of them can, as for example when we observe the various symmetries of flowers that have something of a geometrical form. As one always tires of computer simulations, one never tires of nature. It can continue to refresh, console, and inspire through one's life. Nature has a type of infinity to it, so the human understanding cannot exhaust it. Suprageometricity, specifically, has a property of infinity. More and more statements can be applied to a suprageometric thing and one never exhaustively explains it, for there is an infinite number of true statements that describes it. In contrast, something that is purely geometric has a finite number of statements that can describe it.

All real things are suprageometric to one degree or another (which means that suprageometricity is a transcendental property of being). Even a billiard ball, which appears so simple, is suprageometric which means that an infinite number of truths can be applied to it. Science with its finite methodology can investigate some of these truths. A billiard ball is spherical in shape. Spherically is one abstracted feature of the ball which can be described by the formula:

x^2+y^2+z^2=r^2.

It is a truth about the ball. It is a geometric truth of a suprageometric thing. If the ball is in motion, then we can apply the formula:

p=mv

to describe its momentum (where m is mass, v is velocity, and p is momentum). Momentum is another abstracted feature of the ball, which is another geometric truth about it.

We can get an idea that there is an infinite number of such truths that can be applied to the billiard ball by examining its responses to all possible outside influences that can be applied to it. It can be shot with a bullet, it can be bombarded with a beam of microwaves, it can be dropped in acid, and an infinity of other things can be done to it, each eliciting its own response from the ball . For each of these three examples of the bullet, the microwaves, and the acid, each can be applied in an infinite number of possible ways, each bringing forth a unique response (for example, various types of acids at various temperatures and pressures can be used and there is an infinite possible number of configurations of microwaves that can be used). Science can investigate this sort of thing, but it must do so by choosing specific features or truths from an infinite manifold. The scientist must set up the specific experiment he wishes to conduct on it (of which there are an infinite number possible). The infinite manifold itself, which is the entire truth about the billiard ball, science can never reach.

** Footnote - Possible experiments on the billiard ball may be divided into *destructive* and *non-destructive types.* The destructive types would be the bullet shattering the ball and acid dissolving the ball. A non-destructive type would be observing the scattering of microwaves from the ball which would not harm it.

The materialist argues that only the physical world is real with its measurable observable properties. Anything spiritual or supernatural is denied by such a materialist. Even things such as beauty, love, goodness, etc. are seen as purely subjective experiences of a conscious person. Their objective truth value is denied. Such a materialist basis that on the claim that he is only looking at the facts of reality objectively. However, such a viewpoint is the result of seeing reality in a very specific way. What one is doing in that case is looking down on things. Only that is accepted which one can dominate with the understanding *from above* - putting things under one's thumb, so to speak, so that they are understood with a comprehensive clarity (this is the approach that Descartes promoted in understanding reality. According to him, things are only accepted if they fit into a system of clear and distinct ideas).

As a result only those aspects of reality are recognized that are amenable to clear and comprehensive understanding. That is why so many today accept only the material sciences, with their mathematical and logical methodology as truth. In this, only the geometric aspects of being are recognized as being real. The suprageometric properties of being are missed, which are almost all the important attributes of being. To see these suprageometric attributes, one must *look up.* Rather than dominating reality from a superior vantage point, one must let one's understanding be drawn upwards towards being in contemplation, awe, and wonder, to abide in the mystery of it. This is the only condition of joy in life. In looking down on everything, there may be a form of pleasure that is the result of pride, but there can be no joy or happiness. Joy and happiness can only come from what is above us, never from what is below.

As a result of this stance of looking down, existence is severely truncated, and is not seen as it really is. Much modern secular university education promotes this and indoctrinates students in such a view. That explains why the higher the education that one has, the less likely that one is religious. Higher education causing a loss of faith, does not prove the falsity of faith as many claim, but demonstrates the defective and ideological nature of much higher education. Not only does this promote a sterile form of control over the material world, which shuts out true joy and happiness, but as knowledge (of that type) multiplies, so do world problems. This is because without a suprageometric view of things, there is a near infinity of material facts known, but little wisdom attained.

The elements of the Catholic faith are infinitely suprageometric. This is why modern culture with its need for control from above, may incapacitate one for receiving the faith. The Eucharist is where Christ is present body, blood, soul, and divinity, in all His power and glory, as substantially existing as He does at the right hand of the Father, under the appearances of bread and wine. The Eucharist is infinitely and supernaturally suprageometric. It is infinitely above what can be captured in any rationalistic way, through mathematics, geometry, or Aristotelian logic. A certain supernatural humility is required to accept it, because in its presence, we are drawn infinitely above ourselves to reach a mystery which is nearly absolute. The Eucharist is almost completely beyond the earthbound human intellect's ability to understand. To worship Christ in the Eucharist is eminently pleasing to God, because it is the complete antithesis of the proud attitude that wishes to dominate everything from above.

Supernatural faith, in general, is eminently pleasing to God for the same reason. This is because with that we are drawn infinitely upwards to make contact with God, as He is in Himself, with our intellects. Many atheists say that they would accept God's existence if they could find proof, but they claim that they cannot find any. This is because they are looking down to find God with the same methodology that they would use to do physics. God can only be found by looking up. God Himself is infinitely and supernaturally suprageometric. That is why dark faith is the means to reach Him. As Christ said, one must become like a little child to enter the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt 18:2-4). Children, generally, have the attitude of looking up to things in wonder and awe, and they are open to the truth that is presented to their minds. Adults, on the other hand tend to be much more closed, accepting only what will agree with their prejudices and conform to their preconceived ideas. This is why it is always far easier to evangelize children than adults. Even though children generally have far less raw knowledge than adults, they most often take a proper suprageometric stance towards reality and thus see things as they really are.

** Footnote - Even the supernatural infinitely suprageometric things of God have geometrical aspects. Theology proper is the deduction of certain conclusions from the data of divine revelation via a process of finite logic. That branch of metaphysics known as natural theology, which brings us to the existence of God and many of His attributes by the unaided human reason, uses a logical chain of reasoning based on natural first principles. In this, we move "geometrically" to God. However, such knowledge is only a knowledge by analogy, in which we do not know God as He is in Himself. It is the supernatural light of faith and divine revelation that brings us to this intimate knowledge of God (although in an obscure manner. The face to face vision of Him is reserved for the next life). Natural knowledge via 'geometry' is necessary to form the basis of faith and revelation. For if we can naturally deduce that God exists and is all perfect, we then know that what is given in faith and divine revelation is perfectly reliable. For it is axiomatic that grace builds upon nature.
------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

Part II: Topics in Suprageometricity

------------------------------------

(1) Suprageometric Time: The Physics of Heaven

--------------------------------------------------

Heaven completely transcends this earth. Mystics have said that the music in heaven has no beat. That is because heaven does not have time - or at least the type of time that we have on earth. In heaven, the inhabitants do not experience the absolute eternity of God, where He experiences all of time all in an instant in an everlasting "now." With God, there is no time absolutely, and no motion whatsoever. The infinite richness of God, in His eternity, does not require motion, whereas with us, each particular moment is so poor that we constantly need to be moving to the next one.

What the inhabitants of heaven experience, theologians tell us, is something between physical time and the absolute eternity of God. This type of time is known as "aeviternity." With physical time there is what is known as a "metric." The metric of time is the measuring rod of time. It ensures that any given one second interval, or one minute interval, or one hour interval is equal to any other one second, one minute, or one hour interval respectively. This is based on regular physical processes in the universe. In fact, one second is defined as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a cesium atom, and this is consistent from one second interval to another. The metric of time in our universe is defined by that.

But in heaven, such a thing does not exist. Aeviternity is something which transcends this. It is based on the on thought processes or other events considered holistically. Each event is so unique that it cannot be measured against another. A clock cannot be applied to its duration, but simply the fullness of it is experienced as it happens. This is what we would call suprageometric time. Likewise rulers cannot be applied to the dimensions of things in heaven. They are likewise suprageometric.

(2) Suprageometric Music

---------------------------

This is a quote from the book "Metamagical Themas" by Douglas R. Hofstadter. It is a large tome on the essence of pattern in reality. He has many fascinating things to say. I quote what he says on the topic of music:

"...With Chopin though, preoccupation with strict pattern never took precedence over the expression of heartfelt emotions. One must distinguish, it seems to me, between 'head pattern' and 'heart pattern', or, in more objective-sounding terms, between *syntactic* pattern and *semantic* pattern. The notion of a syntactic pattern in music corresponds to the formal structural devices used in poetry: alliteration, rhyme, meter, repetition of sounds, and so on. The notion of a semantic pattern is analogous to the pattern of logic that underlies a poem and gives it reason to exist: the inspiration, in short. [that is, the meaning] That there are such semantic patterns [meaning patterns] in music is as undeniable as that there are courses in the theory of harmony. Yet harmony theory has no more succeeded in explaining such [semantic meaning] patterns than any set of rules has yet succeeded in capturing the essence of artistic creativity. To be sure, there are words to describe well-formed patterns and progressions, but no theory yet invented has come close to creating a semantic sieve so fine as to let all bad compositions fall through and to retain all good ones. Theories of musical quality are still descriptive and *not* generative; to some extent, they can explain in hindsight why a piece seems good, but they are not sufficient to allow someone to create new pieces of quality and interest. It is nonetheless fascinating, if not downright compelling, to try to find certain earmarks of greatness, to try to understand why it is that one composer's music can reach in and touch you innermost core while another composer's music leaves you cold and unmoved. It is a mystery."

Section III. Chapter 9. Page 181.

Here Hofstadter is talking about the suprageometric quality of good music (referring in particular to Chopin). With something that is merely geometric, each element in a pattern can be deduced from a general formula. Many materialists today think that all of reality is measurable and reducible to formulae. They believe that when all of the laws of nature, mathematically described, are discovered, reality will be comprehensively understood. That was Descartes' dream. However, reality is largely suprageometric. It is ordered, but transcends formulae. Nature is like that. Personality is far more suprageometric still, and the realities which are the object of supernatural faith are infinitely still more. Good music is suprageometric. That is why a mere computer program cannot suffice to compose good music. The human soul, made in the image of God, with intellect, will, and spiritual affectivity has that creative ability which transcends the generative power of mere algorithms (automatic processes). True artistic work cannot be generated mechanically. As Hofstadter says, certain features of music can be analyzed in hindsight to give insight as to why it is good, but analysis cannot explain the entire pattern. Only the human soul with its intuitive faculty can judge it as good and as having meaning.

(3) The Trinity and Reality as "Revelation"

------------------------------------------

It is a teaching of the Catholic Faith that the truth of the Trinity cannot be derived by reason, but must be revealed by God. This is because the doctrine of the Trinity is a suprageometric doctrine. No analysis of language or concepts can derive it. Remember, that a suprageometric form cannot be derived by something prior to it, but must simply be given.

Reality itself, being suprageometric, must be "revealed." When we are "thrown into" reality, what we encounter there (in the main) cannot be derived by any logical or computational process. This is why experience is absolutely essential to learning. Even an infinite computing mind, if it were in a void, could not deduce the nature of the least being that a child would know who lives in this world.

However, certain *features* of reality are geometric, as opposed to suprageometric. A form of logical or mathematical analysis can deduce them. This is what makes physics or engineering possible, which heavily utilizes mathematics. For example, a tire has circularity which can be described by the formula:

x^2+y^2=r^2.

The circularity of a tire is a geometric truth of it. Circularity is a truth of it, but it is not it. A wheel is not a mere circle. The wheel itself is suprageometric, which transcends any geometric formula. The wheel has quality, texture, thickness, pattern etc, which as a whole cannot be derived mathematically. The essence and existence of the wheel - in short its being - is suprageometric and cannot be derived mathematically. This is why, even though mathematics is essential to the work of an engineer, empirical experiments are also essential in his work. For the mathematics gives the initial outline of the device to be developed, but as the device is developed, empirical experimentation is required in the development process to ensure that the specified device materializes. An empirical experiment is simply doing something and experiencing what happens. That experiencing of what happens is a "revelation" that cannot be derived either logically or mathematically.

(4) Suprageometric Living

---------------------------

Life can be frustrating. We are constantly making plans and having them upset. The true Christian knows that all things happen only by divine providence. How does divine providence fit into the upsetting of our plans? It fits in, simply because as fallen creatures, our need to plan is often inordinate. A certain amount of planning is necessary in life. For example, we have to ensure that we keep our proper appointments with other people. But the thing is, we tend to take planning too far. This destroys spontaneity in life. Spontaneity is the key to joy in life.

All in all, the properly balanced life is a combination of planning and spontaneity. In other words, the properly balanced life is a combination of geometric and suprageometric behavior. What the upsetting of our plans in life does, is tend to cut down and humiliate our tendency to excessively plan. It is this type of cross, which if patiently endured, sets us free over time.

What we are being set free from is being a "control freak" which makes ours and other people's lives miserable. One we become free of that, we learn to "go with the flow" and we and other people are much happier.

A perfect human society would have the divergent qualities of order (planning) and freedom (spontaneity) in perfect balance - or geometric (planning) and suprageometric (spontaneous) behavior in perfect balance.

 

 

 

----

----

----

 

On Balance

On Balance
------------



-------------------
By Jim J. McCrea.

One of the things which characterizes the truth of the Catholic Faith is that it consists of precisely the right balance of innumerable factors. A real Catholic considers the Catholic Faith as the true faith. This does not mean that all Protestant Christian denominations, all other religions, and all other systems are completely wrong, but that only the Catholic Faith has the fullness of divinely revealed truth and means of salvation. All other beliefs are right to the extent that they participate in the truth and means of salvation, of which the Catholic Church has the fullness alone. Some are closer to the truth, and some are further away.

If the Catholic Faith is a precise balance of elements, anything else would have imbalances more or less, depending how close or distant it is from the full truth. What this means is that in any system which is only partially true, certain things are given undue emphasis and certain other things are neglected. An error on one side of the truth may excessively emphasize A while ignoring B, while with an error on the other side, it is the other way around. A is ignored, while B is unduly emphasized. The Catholic mind would recognize both A and B together, in the proper balance.

To explain this, let us consider the example of modern post-Christian paganism and classical Protestantism, which can be considered as two things on opposite sides of the truth.

Modern post-Christian paganism completely rejects supernatural Faith, and in general with the materialist variety, any transcendence is rejected - that is, anything "above" the material realm is not accepted. However, much that is good and true can come from someone with a modern pagan mind-set. The pagan can make advances in science, mathematics, technology, and medicine. He can have insights into psychology which sheds light on the situation of man and which can be of help in solving man's problems. He can even arrive at an ethical system which is a help in establishing social harmony. All in all, he validly believes in the powers of human reason. We certainly cannot dismiss the thinking of the modern pagan as completely false.

Classical Protestantism is the opposite of modern post-Christian paganism. Unlike the modern pagan, Protestants believe in the divine. Unlike the Catholic they reject the powers of reason to understand deep and divine things. They hold to faith in Christ as revealed through the Bible. They have faith in the Bible first and from that they have faith in Christ. If they do not deliberately reject truth in its fullness (which the Catholic Church alone has), and have basic good will and receptivity to God, Christ's grace will give supernatural light and strength to allow them to live in a way which is pleasing to God and which will secure their eternal salvation. Protestants, in our society today, constitute a powerful leaven in preventing our society from being completely ruled by atheistic and materialistic principles. Much of God's goodness and light are shed on our society because of good and faithful Protestants. Fervent Protestants make up for many lukewarm Catholics.

The Catholic mind, as opposed to the post-Christian pagan or Protestant mind, holds to both supernatural Faith and human reason together. It is true that God created us to look upward through supernatural faith, but he also created us with the powers of reason to work out many things which Faith does not give us directly. Most Protestants would agree that we have reasoning powers to find truth in science, but where they would likely disagree with the Catholic is in the notion that we have the powers of intellect to work out truth in philosophy and theology. That is where the Protestant may say that human reason was completely corrupted by the fall, so in that area we have to rely on the word of God alone. For example, if asked why there is no alteration in God, the Protestant would reply: "the Bible has God saying: 'Surely I, the Lord, do not change' (Malachi 3:6)." The Catholic would certainly refer to the word of God, but may add something like: "God is primary as creator, therefore, He must be self-existent. If He is self-existent, He must be infinite. The infinite cannot change since nothing can be added to or subtracted from something which has the totality of all perfection by its very nature."

This type of philosophical and theological reasoning is vital to have a proper concept of God so that we can honor and love Him properly. Man's intellect will conduct theology and philosophy in any case. This is true for both the Catholic who accepts a belief in reason and the Protestant who rejects it. It is the very nature of the human intellect to do this. If it is not disciplined and trained in a proper system, its activity will grow and develop like wild weeds. One common error which arises from consciously rejecting theology and philosophy, is that many adult Christians acquire a theology which consists of a childish notion of God as an old man in the sky. This renders God as radically finite and limited - simply as an exalted creature out of a fairy-tale. As a result, these Christians may fail to worship the true God, but instead may worship a creation made in their own image. Many atheists are in reality not guilty of rejecting God Himself, but a caricature which is presented as God. Such a false notion of God constitutes a stumbling block for non-believers.

** footnote - In Catholic art, God the Father has been depicted as an elderly man. But such a thing is only a symbol of the Father, not what He really looks like.

Natural Theology (theology which is accessible to human reason alone) maintains that God is Being Itself - that is, He is the Pure and Infinite Act of Existing. God reveled Himself to Moses as "I AM" (Exodus 3:14). This means that God is simply Existence Itself, without qualification or limitation. He is the primordial, necessary, ultimate reality. He is the infinite and self-existing core of reality (who subsists in three relations or persons). As Being Itself, God contains all possible attributes of goodness and attractiveness. Such knowledge gives us an incentive to lead a holy life and avoid sin. With this knowledge we can then realize that everything good and attractive in creation is only a very small reflection of what is good and attractive in God (since the cause must be greater than the effect). With this, when we are tempted to sin we can realize that we are being tempted to choose the very much less in favor of the infinitely great. That is a tremendous incentive not to sin. Only the Catholic mind analyzes such concepts to their furthest possible logical limit (in my other articles is a more detailed analysis of such ideas). This helps us to avoid serious errors, works out many logical consequences of Revelation which our intellects would thirst for, and serves as a proper guide for practical living.

The problem with modern paganism, on the other hand, is that it is totally inadequate to address the true needs of man. Even with the good it contains, it is radically limited. Man's aspirations are supernatural. He will not fully rest until he rests in the infinite goodness of the beatific vision (the vision of God in heaven). All striving for more and more, in this life, is an effort to reach that infinity. With the modern post-Christian pagan without Faith, no matter how much pleasure, wealth, or power they have, they often strive for more. This is an attempt to fill the infinite God sized hole in the human soul with enough earthly goods. Such an attempt of course is futile, but it is that hunger which fuels the desire for ever more. As opposed to what the modern pagan has, God gives the Christian believer the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. These are supernatural, which means that they are infinitely beyond what is visible. Faith gives us the power to know truths which are infinitely beyond the powers of the natural human intellect to know - such as the Trinity. Hope empowers us to anticipate a good which is infinitely beyond our natural desires and natural powers to attain - which is God Himself and all that God wishes to give us through His omnipotent generosity. Charity gives us the power to love a good which is infinitely beyond any natural good - which is God for His own sake and everything else that is good for God's sake. When man reaches his final goal in heaven, faith turns to vision, hope turns to possession, charity remains but is completely perfected. In this, we will have a happiness which is infinite and which will last forever. This is what each and every human heart desires.

Even with the ordinary virtues that we must practice from day to day, modern paganism is radically deficient as a guide. The modern pagan would have maxims such as "do not steal," "do not murder," and "do not cheat on your partner." These are good as far as they go, but generally they do not recognize Catholic moral teachings on divorce, fornication, contraception, and homosexuality. These moral teachings are intelligible in the light of natural law, but practically speaking, because of man's fallen nature, they may be illusive to many people. This could be because of a lack of light in the understanding, pride, or a lack of light caused by pride. The light of supernatural faith is of great assistance in making such teachings intelligible as morally right. Supernatural faith is an objectively real light which comes from God. It is a participation in His own mode of knowing (although dark and obscure). It enhances the powers of reason in allowing it to determine what is true and right. Supernatural hope and charity allow the soul to effectively love what is right. It is analogous to turning on a flood-light, whereas before, there was only a candle for illumination. The intelligibility of the moral law in its fullness can then be seen.

God's law concerning sexual morality (which is only taught in its completeness in the Catholic Church) is vital for the physical, emotional, and spiritual health of an individual or nation. This is because sex in humans is central to their power to love. That is how God designed it. Terrible consequences result when this power is misused. In the long run, boredom, frustration, and despair are these consequences (which is often attended by psychological and physical violence). The carnage today, which has been the result of abandoning the moral law that says that sex wait until marriage, is very evident. However, many people today vehemently insist on their "liberty," even if the cost is their happiness and order in society. Someone with supernatural faith, hope, and charity would not be as likely to make such a wrong-headed bargain (one with sanctifying grace and charity may make such a bargain. In this, they commit mortal sin and lose sanctifying grace and charity. For the Catholic, this is ordinarily restored through the sacrament of confession. For this, sacramental confession is required before receiving communion)
Next, we will consider how Catholicism strikes the right balance between the phenomenalism of post-Christian paganism and the "Jesus only" approach of Protestantism.

One of the things which Protestants often accuse Catholics of doing, is adding "superfluous baggage" to the "pure teaching of the Gospel." That which they would consider excess baggage is honoring Mary and the Saints, using images, and having sacraments. They would claim that the only thing necessary is to "go to Jesus." However, this idea is based on a huge fallacy. It is the result of the failure to shed light on one's beliefs through proper reflection through a valid theology. With religious belief, there may be many unwarranted assumptions which are not examined. The staunch classical Protestant may think that he knows Christ well. After all, he becomes so emotionally moved at the "powerful" sermons given at the revival halls. However, Christ is far larger than any concept we have of Him. Most conservative Protestants do not realize this because they do not properly reflect on what they believe. They tend to think that if something is evident to their awareness, that is all there is. In general, the Protestant does not recognize the existence of mystery. Nothing exists to the classical Protestant but the evident facts of life he is aware of (and these are extrapolated to heaven and to God). The Catholic mind understands that there is far more to reality than what appears on the surface. Serious effort must be applied in understanding our ideas and beliefs. This is why the Catholic mind accepts sciences such as psychology, philosophy, and theology.

A great number of reflections of Christ, in creation, are required to even begin to build a proper concept of Him. That is the way our intellects work. That is why, in order to construct a proper concept of Christ in our understanding, a great number of facets of Him are required, which are gleaned from natural truths, images, sacraments, and saints. The true Catholic venerates and studies saints because each one presents a given facet of God's truth, goodness, and beauty. With a large number of recognized saints a large number of facets are available to us, allowing us to have a more complete picture of Christ. Each saint studied gives us more knowledge of Christ. Because Christ is so massive, and we are so limited, we need a great number of examples to even begin to approach having a valid concept of Him. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of the Child Jesus etc. each adds something, which allows us to understand Christ better. With the "Jesus only" approach of the traditional Protestant, they may have a concept of Jesus which is so narrow and impoverished, that it scarcely resembles Him at all. When they read about Jesus in the Bible, and it is only the Bible they read, they may fabricate a concept of Him from bits and pieces in their subconscious (without, of course, realizing it. This is where something such as psychology would help them to gain insight). For example, one may read about Christ's righteous anger, and then proceed to make the lives of those around one, a living hell because of the "sins" of those others perceived (which may only be unavoidable human weaknesses). This is all done in the belief that one is following the example of Christ and doing something pleasing to Christ. It is the riches of the Catholic Faith, which Protestants lack, which would help to prevent such a thing (such problems with Catholics would come from the rejection of those Church teachings which don't happen to suit them and/or from a lack of charity in their souls because they only go through the motions of the faith).

** footnote - Although the Gospels give us the richest picture of Christ, in practice (without a special grace) they need to be supplemented so that serious errors do not result. Not only with what has been said above, but above all, with the teaching authority of the Magisterium which interprets Scripture infallibly.

The fact that some Protestants are all charged up emotionally at church may cause them to think that they are close to Christ, when what may be happening is that the glands are reacting to emotionally charged words (Catholics on the other hand, may go through the rituals in an empty manner without charity or interior devotion). Real virtue may be lacking. Real virtue is to have faith and exercise charity, no matter what one feels. The saints give us examples, contained in innumerable real-life situations, of what real striving for holiness is. The best example of all is that of the Virgin Mary, who did nothing but the will of God perfectly all through her life. Protestants have real virtue to the extent that they escape from the classical Protestant mode of "Jesus only," and understand and imitate Christ through His very many reflections in creation - such as the goodness of other people, natural truths, or providential events. With the Catholic, the one focus is indeed Christ, but without a reliable guide we will miss the mark while thinking we have hit it. That reliable guide is the Catholic Church which Christ founded. When this was rejected during the "Reformation," all kinds of errors were spawned with disastrous consequences.

While traditional Protestantism has a lack of targets for the intellect, will, and affections, the modern post-Christian pagan mind has an excess. And this excess of targets has no proper order. As many targets exist for the modern pagan as there are worldly things to desire. With the true Catholic the very many things in this world are merely a means for union with God through Christ. With the modern pagan, each thing is an end in itself, insofar as it can satisfy a particular desire. It is the satisfaction of personal desire which is the real end for them. But such a thing is completely unsatisfactory. Such a thing does not bring happiness, because the soul was made for God and the order that He has willed. As mentioned above, it is the futile attempt to fill an infinite hole with a multitude of finite goods acquired in a disorderly way.

In the intellectual sphere, the knowledge of the modern pagan consists of a vast collection of uncorrelated information. When these items of knowledge are related to each other, it is only through psychological laws of association (not a true process of understanding). What results is a spaghetti-like tangle of concepts, whose overall structure does not have proper order but is more akin to chaos. This is evident when one hears or reads the pagan intellectual who lacks the light of supernatural faith. The possession of the light of supernatural faith brings order to the diverse elements of knowledge that one may have. With this light, everything becomes ordered into a vast system with each element properly related to the next, and in a hierarchy where certain elements can be seen to depend on certain other elements. In scholastic philosophy, faith is the perfection of the intellect as the intellect is the perfection of the senses. For example, when we see a chair, the senses receive a pattern of colors. It is the intellect which correlates these colors so that what we see is a unified essence "chairness," so that what we perceive is intelligible as one thing - as a chair. Similarly, when the intellect of the modern pagan perceives reality it sees a pattern of concepts corresponding to the things which are experienced. But it is a pattern without order. Only with the light of supernatural faith are these concepts ordered into a single universal structure, through which the real meaning of existence can be seen. Existence itself then becomes intelligible. This structure is hierarchical, with God at the top as the cause and goal of all. In summary, it is the Catholic mind which holds the right balance between that which is one and that which is multiple.

In the sacramentality of the Catholic faith, the right balance between the material and the spiritual is maintained. With the modern materialistic pagan, the intellect, will, and affections are completely immersed in the material. This constitutes an imbalance on the side of ignoring what is spiritual. With the classical Protestant approach of "Jesus only," it is forgotten that we are both body and soul. Here we have an imbalance on the side of neglecting the body. As opposed to the Protestant who prays with the soul (mind) only, the Catholic prays with both body and soul - that is, with his entire being. This is why things such as posture, liturgy, sacraments, and sacramentals are vital for the true Catholic. With confession to a priest, we see Christ concretely embodied in the priest, talk to Christ concretely embodied, and listen to Him concretely embodied. We are much more completely engaged in the process of repentance than if we confess to Christ privately with our minds only. The certitude of being forgiven in confession is much greater than when done privately. This is because our entire being is involved - of both body and soul, with engaging the faculties of speech, listening, seeing, thinking, and faith, rather than using just our mind and faith alone. In Communion, we receive Christ concretely and physically, in faith, under the appearances of bread and wine, in the act of eating. We are much more involved with Christ, doing this, than if we receive Him with our soul in faith only. In Communion we receive Him with both our body and soul, and receive His true body, blood, soul, and divinity. The presence of Christ can be much more readily experienced, and we receive far greater fruits from Him this way.

When looking at being, Catholicism maintains the right balance between intelligibility and mystery. Here we will compare Protestantism, modernism (under the aspect of agnosticism), and modern post-Christian materialist paganism. A distinguishing feature of Protestantism is that it does not acknowledge mystery. This is true of both liberal and fundamentalist conservative Protestantism. With liberal Protestantism, all mystery is eliminated and a humanism is affirmed which focuses solely on the here and now. Baptism, for example, is simply initiation into the humanitarian Church community, without reference to being grafted into a supernatural Christ. With conservative fundamentalist Protestantism, the Bible is held as true, there is a belief in heaven and hell, and there is an acknowledgment that one must accept Jesus as Lord to be saved. However, no mystery is affirmed there as well. Such a theology contains nothing but simple facts which are no different from the day to day facts that the average person encounters. When heaven is described it is done in terms of mundane events that could be seen on earth. For example, the symbolism of the book of Revelation is taken as a literal description of what heaven is.

With Modernism (which is a heresy in the Catholic Church), there is no transcendence that is attainable. God, to a modernist, is simply what is true, good, and beautiful in the things and people around him. That is their practical way of thinking about God. There is no raising of the mind through supernatural Faith to God who is totally other. Theoretically they may admit that there is a transcendent God, but he would be a noumenon which we simply cannot know. To them, all our religious beliefs are conditioned by our cultural environment. We are limited by a "horizon" which we cannot see beyond. And it is culture which determines that horizon. In this, modernism is a form of agnosticism (ironically, implicit in the argument of modernists is that they are able to transcend the limits of this culture to know that the thinking of the culture in Jesus' time was limited to that time and culture).

With the post-Christian materialist pagan, all that is real is that which can be seen by the senses. Anything higher on the scale of being, such as goodness, beauty, moral truth, are simply subjective and not true realities. For them, the spiritual realm does not exist at all. Only the material sciences can give us truth.

The true Catholic, on the other hand, maintains that being is intelligible, but at the same time understands that it has a dimension of mystery which makes it partially dark to our intellect. For example, we can know a given person. To us, that person is intelligible in his character. But we do not know him comprehensively. We can see that there is a dark unknowability that intensifies as our intellect proceeds into the depths of that person. It is the same with God. We know certain things about Him, by analogy - that He is omnipotent, omniscient, all good, etc. but we do not know what these things are in themselves. In this life, we cannot know God as He is directly - that is, face to face. We will see that in the next life. Even then, we will not have a comprehensive knowledge of God.

The agnostic modernist argument that God's transcendence makes Him unknowable forgets that the human intellect is designed to see the universality of being. We are able to see truth, goodness, and beauty in their absolute aspect. For example, both a car and a person could be called good. However, they are good in vastly different ways. The fact that both can be called "good" means that they share an identity, which is the metaphysical property called goodness. Goodness, attributed to something means that it is capable of completing something else, so that that something else can find its fulfillment. In the case of a car, its goodness means that it is capable of completing the needs of transportation for someone. In the case of a person, his or her goodness means that he or she is capable of completing the need for love. The metaphysical principle of goodness is identical in each case, but its "modality," or way of application is different. Similarly, when we call God good, this identical metaphysical principle of goodness must also apply to Him, or the word "good," as attributed to Him, would not mean anything. However the modality, or how goodness applies to God, is infinitely different and higher than how it applies to any creature. It is this modality, as applied to God, which is a complete mystery to us. This is how God can be both knowable and totally mysterious at the same time. This is how the principle of analogy works, which allows us to understand realities which are beyond the material realm and infinitely beyond us.

Modernists have a subtle and insidious manner of denying the Faith. They say that the doctrines and dogmas of the Faith are simply "stories" which have been created by the believing community's theological reflections and experiences. Given this, different experiences and reflections would have created different doctrines and dogmas. Modernists argue that doctrine cannot be fixed, but must constantly be changing with the times. This is nothing but a complete denial of the Faith, under the guise of improving on it. The reality is, doctrines and dogmas are literal truths which have been revealed by Jesus Christ Himself, transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, and guarded by the Magisterium. These are literal truths which God wills that the human race know. These cannot change. They are true for all time. To deny these as real truths is to deny the Catholic Faith. Such a thing is apostasy! The human intellect is capable of knowing these, because it is capable of grasping the universal (as described above). The Trinity and divinity of Christ are literally real. By a process of analogy the human intellect is capable of truly grasping concepts such as nature, relation, and person - even though they exist in a modality which is completely mysterious - allowing us to have a literal knowledge of Christ and the Trinity. It is real knowledge, but knowledge in mystery.

 

 

----

----

----

 

Quintessential Divine Attributes

Quintessential Divine Attributes
--------------------------------

------------------
by Jim J. McCrea


It is understood theologically that the three persons of the Trinity are distinguished by their "relations of origin." The Father begets the Son and the Son is begotten by the Father (this begetting is not physical but eternal and purely spiritual, as light emanating from light. God is utterly simple pure spirit). In fact, the only distinguishing factor between the Father and the Son is that the Father begets and the Son is begotten. In all other things they are the same. By extension, the only distinguishing factor between the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and not the other way around. In all other respects the Holy Spirit is the same as the Father and the Son. Because their differences are relative only and not absolute, when we consider them in their absolute being, they are exactly one and the same. Hence they are one being, hence they are one God.

However, is there more to it than that?

Can differences between the persons of the Trinity be postulated in addition to their *mere* relations of origin without violating the traditional theological understanding of the Trinity?

To answer this, let us look at the fact of the persons of the Trinity as being one being - or as being one God.

The fundamental attribute of God as God is *aseity.* Aseity is the property of self-existence. God exists because He is existence itself. Because of this, He does not require an explanation for His existence above and outside of Himself. That answers the question "who created God?" In this, we say that God is *necessary.* Created beings (e.g. us) are not necessary, but *contingent.* In this, it is not the nature of created beings to exist, but the existence they have must come from the necessary being who is God. Any created being that exists can possibly not exist. God, on the other hand, cannot not exist.

From God's aseity flows His infinite attributes. If He is being or existence itself (cf. Exodus 3:14 - God's name is "I AM"), He must have everything that being or existence can possibly imply. As a result, He is infinite power, goodness, intelligence, beauty, etc. (He would not contain evil because evil is not a positive being, but is the absence of being where it is due).


As the attributes of God as God flow from aseity, it can be postulated that special attributes flow from the relations of origin of the persons of the Godhead - so that as each relation of origin is different for each person of the Trinity, making Him the person of the Trinity He is, these special attributes that flow from these relations of origin would also be different for each person.

They are not the attributes of God as God, such as infinite beauty, power, intelligence etc. Those are common to all three persons of the Trinity. They also would not constitute differences in virtue because each person of the Trinity must have all the virtues in a pre-eminent way. What then would constitute their differences?

Each person would be different in *personality.* Now this is nothing as crude as the notion that the Father is strict and vengeful whereas the Son is kind and merciful. These personalities would be beyond the attributes of God as God that can be accessed through reason and philosophy (such as the fact that God is all powerful and all good). They would be beyond the attributes given by Revelation in the Church (such as the fact that God the Son became man). In fact, no human name or concept could be attributed to them. They would be mystery in the strict sense, known only by the blessed in heaven. These would be *quintessential divine attributes* because they go beyond the attributes of God as understood by philosophy and theology on this earth. They are attributes of personality because they belong to individual persons and not to the being - or the "what" - of God as a whole.

But something of that can be given to souls on this earth. Those who have attained to the Mystical Marriage (Seventh Mansion), may be given an intellectual vision of the Trinity (an intellectual vision is that which is given directly to the intelligence without an image. It is a pure imageless concept). In such an intellectual vision, a different "flavor" for each of the three persons of the Trinity may be discerned, although describing these flavors would be exceedingly difficult.

The different persons of the Trinity having different divine personalities is consistent with each of the persons having all perfection and goodness that is common to all three persons. We can give an example to clarify this. Suppose that we consider two men: one is quiet and reflective and the other is talkative and out-going. Each are equally virtuous, having everything that belongs to the integrity of a man, but their personalities are completely different. By analogy, the same situation may exist within the Godhead.


The quintessential divine attributes of personality within the Trinity combine into a oneness of virtue, goodness, and being. This is an expression of the *analogy of being.* With the analogy of being, the different elements that constitute a thing or situation have sameness and difference between them at the same time in the appropriate balances (without contradiction). Any excess of difference over sameness would constitute the evil of *equivocity* (clashing elements or elements at enmity with one another), and any excess of sameness over difference would constitute the evil of *univocity* (dull uniformity or unnatural fusion between elements).

Anything that is a reflection of the good, the true, and the beautiful conforms to the analogy of being. It becomes evil or inappropriate to the degree that it veers into either univocity or equivocity (most often, both, under different aspects).

Now, there exists a corollary to this principle. The greater the difference combined into the greater the union, the greater the goodness, truth, and beauty that is expressed - that is, the greater the analogy of being.

The twentieth century philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand delineated a concept known as the *coincidentia oppositorum* The coincidentia oppositorum maintains that what is in conflict on a natural level is capable of being united on a supernatural level. For example, the natural man tends to fall into either excessive harshness or excessive softness - either becoming the macho or the wimp. But the man who has been supernaturalized shows indomitable strength in standing for principle, but great yielding and kindness when it comes to persons.

With the coincidentia oppositorum, the higher the level of being, the more divergent the properties that can be combined without conflict. Heaven, which has a far higher degree of being than earth, expresses the coincidentia oppositorum to a far higher degree than what is possible on earth. Things can exist in heaven that are impossible on earth. For example, there would be objects that combine the majestic splendor of a mountain with the delicate beauty of a violet.


The geniuses of music, literature, and art, are able to delight us with their profundity because they have the gift of combining enormous difference with supreme unity in their work. They have the gift of applying the analogy of being to a very high degree.

Our delight in heaven would be far higher than even that, in seeing objects that combine in a profound unity, opposites of beauty such as the majestic splendor of a mountain and the delicate beauty of a violet. That expresses the analogy of being to a far higher degree than anything possible on earth.

The beatific vision, in which we see the Trinity face to face in heaven, would give infinite delight, as we would see the personalities of the persons of the Trinity (their quintessential divine attributes) infinitely different from each other, combined into an infinite unity of an identity of being. The Trinity is the infinite analogy of being, and hence is infinitely good, true, and beautiful.

The analogy of being in anything created, that expresses the good, the true, and the beautiful, is nothing but a reflection of the infinite analogy of being which is the Trinity - the analogy of being that has existed from all eternity, before all worlds.

 

 

** Footnote 1 - True humor of the incongruous (as opposed to mocking humor) is the sudden realization of extreme opposites put together into a supreme unity. The overflow of joy into the human organism from that sudden realization results in laughter.

 

** Footnote 2 - These quintessential attributes of the persons of the Trinity would be purely relational - that is, they would only be intelligible in relation to each other and would not stand on their own. This is analogous to how a key is only intelligible in relation to a lock and both are only intelligible in relation to opening or activating something.



----

----

----