Lonergan selected (perhaps, the only) two truly universal features for his existential model.

The first is “self-transcendence”.  Each one of us is a self.  The “self” is a universal.

The second is “be holy, loving and responsible”.  This command attempts to be completely other oriented, towards meaning (holy), persons (loving) and nature (responsible).  Put the word “self” in front of any one of these and you have a perversion of the command.  The “other” is a universal.

As noted in the aside on our current national religion, unauthenticity involves all the characteristics of authenticity, but in a biased selective fashion.

Unauthenticity involves selective attention, selective intelligence, selective rationality, selective responsibility and selective affection.

What is being selected?  The “surd” of “absurdity”.

The surd seems to be going somewhere, but it is only digesting itself.

Authenticity does not give directionality to the surd.  Authenticity simply does not feed it.  It does so by giving directionality to the soul.  One of the meanings of the prefix “ab” is “to”.  Authenticity is the opposite of absurd.

Now, I will take another step.

According to Lonergan, within the social surd, the human is faced with disorienting biases.

Lonergan’s adoption of the word “surd” is both clever and ironic.  “Surd” is the root of “absurd”.  The prefix “ab” means “toward”.

To me, by leaving out the “ab”, Lonergan contradicts the directionality or “selectivity” that unauthenticity always seems to have.  This makes the surd appear to be like matter – already there – the existential milieu for human development.

Still the surd is alive.  The surd eats, dragging everything into its yawning chasm.

The unintended consequences of stupid humans are evil.  Normal humans are destructive automatons.  Consequently, the Progressive Intellectual is justified in making their decisions for them.

This is the Progressive Doctrine of Justification by Education Alone.

The command (transcendental norm, Judeo-Christian, for superstitious normal folk) “be holy, loving and responsible” transforms into “be enlightened” for the intellectual power broker and “conform” for the normal bloke.

For the existential possibility that is situated by decisions, formerly “the project of self-transcendence”, a variety of projects have been entertained, the most mind-boggling being “the project of social justice”.

The “project of social justice” embraces those with a desire to control others but cannot supersize their intellects.  This is where the Progressive saints come in.

The Progressive camp also contains the supermoral (example, the ones who insist on “fairness” and “justice”, such as Nobel-Prize winner Jimmy Carter), the superreligious (example, the ones who deceive in order to further the cause, such as Nobel-Prize winner Paul Krugman), plus innumerable wannabes as well as cynical players who benefit from the implementation of Progressive (sovereign) programs.

In this fashion, Lonergan’s methodological theology may by applied to the symbolic order now (2012) constituting itself as a social construction outside the symbolic orders of the Founding Documents (& the free market) and of Christianity.

In this wide-ranging applicability, Lonergan’s methodological theology is truly modern, that is, scientific.

Progressives are intellectuals and saints.

Progressive intellectuals ignore Hayek, who argued that the population at large knows more information than any intellectual.  Intellectuals propose that the intellect of the normal person is inadequate, especially when it comes to their field of expertise.

Education changes the nature of the human to superintellect(moral(religious)) from merely intellect(moral(religious)).

In addition, normal humans have feelings, ethical stances, and ideas that always have unintended consequences (hence, are responsible for the social surd).

In short, the decisions of normal people are always stupid.

This, in a nutshell, is the Progressive Doctrine of Original Sin.  Normal people are always stupid.   This is similar to the Doctrine of Total Depravity.

According to Wiley’s reading of Lonergan, the social “surd” encourages us to harden our hearts, so we are no longer faithful (“fidelity”) to the command to “be holy, loving and responsible” nor to the project of self-transcendence.  In addition to hardening our hearts, the social “surd” darkens our intellects and favors passions (non-religious feelings).

Wiley quotes Lonergan in this regard, but I want to step aside and imagine how Lonergan’s methodological theology sheds insight into the religion-du-jour of the USA, Progressivism.

The previous blog raises the problem of development.

Lonergan’s model of human nature is intellect(moral(religious)).

Lonergan’s model of our existential situation is (“be holy, loving and responsible(decision(self-transcendence)).

According to Lonergan, if a person practices fidelity to the project of self-transcendence, that person achieves authenticity.  Un-authenticity derails human self-transcendence from the intended endpoint.  Un-authenticity is easier.

“Practical intelligence” (fear of the Lord, deliberation, and humility) guides fidelity.  “Spontaneity” (concupiscence, foolishness, and pride) guides one to immediate benefits, satisfaction and further impulses of desire.  Spontaneity is natural.

Practical intelligence and spontaneity operate in a milieu of intersubjectivity.  The person is situated by the group.  Group intersubjectivity creates a field of biases, some supporting and some alienating.  Biases often pull practical intelligence and spontaneity in opposing directions.

Even more disturbing, many of the biases appear to operate on one level but effect change on another level.  For example, a biased definition of “be holy, loving and responsible” (such as, by killing unwanted fetuses) targets a woman’s decisions.  Power, the command (or taking over) of one person’s decisions by another, effects all three levels of individual subjectivity for both persons.

Consider the nature of the bribe.  The “bribe” is an act of power where the individual subjectivity of both giver and receiver is altered.  The decision (existential activity) to give or take a bribe lacks fidelity to the project of self-transcendence (existential mission) and betrays command to be holy, loving and responsible (existential subjectivity).

The results are, what Lonergan calls, “false facts”, “the actual existence of what should not be”, or more eloquently, “the social surd”.

For Lonergan, sin is grounded in the self-contradiction produced by the refusal or absence of self-transcendence and leads to the problem of sustained unauthenticity: that is, the incapacity to sustain development.

The modern advantage of formulating human nature as intellect(moral(religious)) comes from the fact that each of these levels can be observed.

Lonergan asks us to observe activities related to each level: experience (for religious); judgment (for moral); understanding (for intellect); and decision (for all three).

Each of these activities has a corresponding transcendental norm or “subjectivity”.  These are “be attentive” (for religious), “be reasonable” (for moral); “be smart” (for intellect) and “be holy, loving and responsible” (for all three).

Note how one feature in each of Lonergan’s lists steps out of the nested model of human nature (which parallels the medieval static, logical and essentialist perspective) by reflecting all three levels.

The activity, “decision” and the subjectivity “be holy, loving and responsible), belong to the existential situation (which steps beyond the medieval static perspective).

These two existential features, which may be called “habitus”, are correspondingly nested: “be holy, loving, and responsible”(“decision”(missing feature)).

What is this missing feature that exists in the realm of possibility?

Lonergan provides a clue to the missing feature by claiming that the subject of human development is “self-transcendence”.

“Self-transcendence” makes “decision” possible.

“Decision” situates the possibility of “self-transcendence”.

“Be holy, loving and responsible” puts “decision” into context.

“Decision” makes “be holy, loving and responsible” actual.

To me, Lonergan’s existential experience of “conversion” is rooted in a model of human nature that is nested: intellect(moral(religious)).

Ironically, this nested model parallels the medieval (static, logical essential) model of anima (soul) joined to caro (flesh) by way of spiritus (an immaterial principle), once the medieval model is presented as nested:  anima(caro(spiritus)).

However, “parallel” does not mean “identity”.

To me, the parallel indicates that Lonergan – similar to many modern thinkers – assumes medieval definitions despite themselves.  This is not bad.  This is one of the ways to recognize postmodernism.

Postmodern thought channels medieval thought.

Methodological theology (evolutionary, scientific & historical) focuses on the “situation”.  Medieval theology (static, logical & essential) focuses on “judgment”.

Lonergan asked: Does the idea of “the infusion of sanctifying grace” refer to an existential experience?

Answer:  Yes, the experience of conversion.  “Conversion” denotes an inner reorientation of existential development.

Conversion is nested: Correct understanding(agency(being-in-love)).

The core is being in love with divine mystery.  Divine mystery exists in Peirce’s category of firstness.  Being-in-love has the character of feeling.

Feeling is situated by agency.

Agency is contextualized by correct understanding.

Conversion – reorientation – can start at any level.  It can start with confusion, in the shock of an event, or with the undertow of a feeling.