Collective Memory in St. Louis:
Recollection, Forgetting and the Common Good,
“Memory and the Religious Imagination”
Fontbonne University and the St. Louis History Museum
October 21-23, 2010
Recollection, Forgetting and the Common Good,
“Memory and the Religious Imagination”
Fontbonne University and the St. Louis History Museum
October 21-23, 2010
Shaping an Adequate Human Anthropology
What is imagination?
If we are to answer this question, it will be helpful to provide an
adequate human anthropology as a context for our answer. The popular
trilogy is body, mind, and spirit. But is this adequate? Where are the emotions in such a triad? Are they included in body, or perhaps they a part of what we call mind. More, where would we locate the imagination in this familiar trilogy? Is the imagination part of what we call body, or is it better located in what we refer to as mind. And precisely what do we mean by the human spirit? Is it a natural part of the human being or some kind of ghost in a machine? The lack of clarity as to what we meanby the words we use, I suggest, comes from a lack of clarity of what weunderstand by the words we use. The ambiguity of the terms body, mind, and spiritpresent
a real block to understanding the dynamic roles of human emotion and
the imagination in the full creative function of the human being as we
struggle today to develop full human potential for the progress of human
culture.
Do
we have an alternative? Is there a way of clarifying both what we say
and what we understand what we say to mean? I suggest there is. First,
we will clarify the words we use. I suggest the terms organism, psyche, and spirit might be clearer and more inclusive. [1]
By
organism we will mean all the physical systems that belong to our
embodiment: circulatory, digestive, auditory, visual, neurological,
respiratory, etc. By psyche we will include our capacity to image,
whether in dreams, fantasy, or in the complex linking of images we call
imagination, and the human emotions. Aristotle and Aquinas differentiate
what we will call the spontaneous emotions (love, hate, desire,
aversion, joy, sorrow) and the considered emotions (courage, fear, hope,
despair, and anger). Spontaneous emotions are much more rooted in feelings and
bodily sensations. Considered emotions are influenced more by thought.
Finally, by the human spirit we will specify those operations that
distinguish the human from the animal realm. We experience wonder and awe. We question for understanding and meaning. We judge the correctness or lack of truth in the factual data given us. And finally, we evaluate, choose, decide, and act. These functions are performed by an attentive consciousness that can be aware of itself doing each of these operations.[2]
With
this new anthropological framework we have a possible new way of
thinking about the soul. Operationally the soul would be our psychic
energy and our human spiritual functions. Body would then be psychic
energy and the organism with its systems. This enables us to locate both
imagination and emotion. Both are part of our psychic reality. They are
differentiations of psychic energy in a distinctive human soul, and
both play key roles in cognition and decision. Imagination and emotion
are the stuff of therapy, for the psyche can become as wounded as our
organism can become ill because of disease. A strategic question for our
purposes is what relationship imagination and emotion might have to the
spiritual operations of attentiveness to experience, intelligent
inquiry, reasonable judgment of fact, and responsible decision making.
The Religiously Differentiated Consciousness
What is consciousness? Perhaps the simplest reply is human awareness. It
is psychic energy become aware of itself. When we are conscious we are
aware that we are aware. We can be conscious that we are questioning. We
can be aware that we have reached a judgment of fact, true or false. We
can be conscious of making a deliberate choice and carrying it out.
This is intentionality. We can intend these operations or not intend them.
We are conscious to some extent even when we dream. It is only in dreamless sleep that consciousness rests. When we attend to
ourselves experiencing, questioning, judging, and deciding, we are
fully conscious. When we attend to the Holy, we experience awe.
Contemplative wonder is evidence of the spiritual nature of the human being.
The consciousness is religiously differentiated when
it experiences the Holy. It might question that experience. It might
reach the judgment that “God has moved in my life!” It might prompt a
change in behavior or life direction. This experience will be stored in
the psyche, imprinted on its feeling memory, and either lapse into
forgetfulness or become the motivation for my new choices and behavior.
Religious experience thus changes the psyche; it opens consciousness to
what is beyond the human, beyond matter, to that which is transcendent;
it expands what experiences or images the psyche holds. What is stored
in the psychic memory can be called up later or repressed. What is
stored can influence how we do self-reflexion, or refuse to do it. The
experience of the Holy, stored in the imagination of the psychic memory
can greatly influence the levels of operations of the human spirit: what
we admit into attentive awareness, what we allow to be questioned,
whether our judgment is reasonable, and whether our decisions are
responsible.
Where
does intentionality come from? What is its source? I suggest that it is
the very life force of the soul. It is released from the human love
energy of the parents in conception, and this love energy is powered by
the very Personified Love we call God, whether acknowledged by the
parents or not. Life comes from the One Who Is. Materially we are made
from star dust. Spiritually we are spun out of Love.
This
origin of the life force flows from the very ground of the soul, the
center, core, apex,[3] name it as you will. When the human becomes aware that it has been grasped by the Holy (Rom. 5:5) the relationship that is grace begins. The person is religiously in-love. The person is different.
The Place and Role of Imagination
Our
capacity to image and imagine is thus different. The Holy and our
relationship to this Holy One is now in our conscious horizon. The
religiously differentiated consciousness is a seedbed for images no
longer limited by material boundaries. The new limit is the
Transcendent. The imagination has become the fertile ground of
possibility no longer held captive to empirical measurement. Its
measurement is what is appropriate to a new relationship of love. The
law, be it of physics, the body politic, or social mores, is respected
but can no longer limit possibility. Like some transparent membrane, the
imagination is free to draw images from the past, from present natural
and human science, from poetry, art and literature, from history and
economics, and from the richness of revelation and faith to spin future
possibility. Like a drunk on a binge, the soul dances with the
intoxication of one who is in love and this “condition” will deal with
the human woundedness and blockage that stunts cognition.
But,
you will say, what about our biases, our propensity to ruin everything?
This is where we need to honestly face the particular bias that
cripples the imagination and thus severely limits attentiveness and
intelligent questioning. This bias we will call dramatic because it infects us in the drama of life as we encounter crisis, hurt, and pain.[4]
Therapists
know the scene well. A client cannot entertain certain images because
they are like asking the consciousness to touch a hot stove. The images
are buried, repressed in the psyche, and so “shoot from the bushes”
unbidden and without permission. The result is a form of emotional
crippling, the avoidance of images that bring memories of violation,
hurt, or pain. The term scotosis refers to a blockage, a covering
over, or we might say a psychic callous.[5] To touch it is simply too
painful. A bit of reflection brings home the clear understanding that
images that are too painful to entertain will never become fertile
images for new ideas. The cognition is thus crippled at its earliest
stage, the forming of the image or phantasm needed for fresh thought. In
the area of the pain, the thinker is effectively shut down. This bias
needs to be dissolved.
Dramatic
bias dissolves under the skillful care of the therapist who will bring
up the image from the recesses of the psyche and empty it of its
toxicity. The result will often be tears of release. Being grasped by
religious love can also dissolve this psychic blockage in the intimacy
of contemplative prayer. The result again will often be tears of
release.
Few
if any philosophical or theological thinkers address this issue. It is
clear that left unaddressed, dramatic bias can abort clear and creative
thinking related to the topic that has caused the bias in the first
place. The subconscious memory then becomes the tomb of the imagination,
binding it in the depths of repression and making it sterile in the
initiation of creative thought. It is the imagination, free from
bondage, that offers the fertile possibility for creating a new
understanding and a new future. It is the unbiased imagination,
unrepressed, that can draw from memory’s storehouse the stuff to dream
possibility. As the feeder of our cognition, the imagination is the
creative architect of our human future.
Bibliography
Crowe, Frederick E. “The Role of a Catholic University in the Modern World”-An Update. Communicanting a Dangerous Memory, Soundings in Political Theology.Fred Lawrence, ed. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1987: 1-16.
Doran, Robert M. “Psychic Conversion,” The Thomist, 1977: 200-236.
—– “Soul Making and the Opposites,” Psychic Conversion and Theological Foundations. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981: 137-154 (especially 148 ff.).
—– Subject and Psyche. Milwaukee, Marquette University Press, 1994 (Second Edition): 197-228.
Lonergan, Bernard J. F. Insight: A Study of Human Understanding. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Frederick E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran, eds., 1992: 210-219.
—– Method in Theology. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1971.
—– Collection. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Frederick E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran, eds., 1988.
—– A Second Collection: Papers by Bernard J. F. Lonergan, S.J., William F. J. Ryan, S.J. and Bernard J. Tyrrell, S.J., eds. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974.
Schepers,
Maurice. “Discovery of Mind and Psyche in the Development of the
Theologian: The Conjunction of Intellectual and Affective Conversions,” African Christian Studies 7:3 (September 1991): 36-45.
[1] This triad was suggested to me by the Jungian and Lonergan scholar Robert M. Doran, S.J. of Marquette University.
[2]
The differentiation of consciousness into distinct levels of operation
that can be empirically verified by self-observation is the unique
contribution of economist, philosopher, theologian Bernard Lonergan,
S.J. Insight provides an introduction to only the first three
levels dealing with cognition. The fourth level of evaluative judgment
and decision appears in Method, chapter one, and the impact of religious love can be found in chapter four.
[3] This term is used by Lonergan in chapter four of Method (107) and his explanation of it is “the peak of the soul.”
[4] Lonergan treats dramatic bias with more length in Insight than
the other three biases (individual egoism, group egoism, and general or
theoretical bias). Establishing its capacity to shut down inquiry, he
then drops it. It took Doran to approach him on this, only to be told,
“You do it; I was interested in cognition.” So the treatment of dramatic
bias through psychic conversion became a focus for Doran’s work as is
clear from the entries in the bibliography below.
[5] The term scotosis appears several times in Insight (e.g.215).
Lonergan describes it as an unconscious process, a blind spot, a
censorship that “governs the emergence of psychic contents.”