The following is the paper given at the August, 2013 Fourth International Lonergan Conference in Jerusalem.

Religious Love

in

Bernard Lonergan

as

Hermeneutical

and

Transcultural

Carla Mae Streeter, OP

Aquinas Institute of Theology

St. Louis, Missouri

USA

Abstract

Does the fact that a scholar is religiously in love have any impact on interfaith relations? This question lies at the heart of this essay. Lonergan seems to think so, as indicated in these words:

“In the measure that one’s love of God is complete, then values are whatever one loves, and evils are whatever one hates…affectivity is of a single piece. Further developments only fill out previous achievement.” (Method in Theology, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1971:39) In previous work (a 1986 thesis) the hermeneutical and transcultural aspects of this title were emphasized. In the present essay religious love will receive the emphasis. The essay will affirm that religious love does indeed alter cognition, and this change has everything to do with Lonergan’s inner core and outer manifestations as applied to interfaith dialogue.

Table of Contents

I.                    Religious Love in Bernard Lonergan

A.     In Insight

B.     In Method

C.     In the Later Works

II.                  Religious Love in Lonergan: Anthropological Adequacy

A.     Shaping an Adequate Anthropology

B.     When Charity Becomes the Form of the Virtues

C.     Human Conversion and Theosis

III.               Hermeneutical and Transcultural Implications

A.     Religious Love and Cognition

B.     The Inner Core

C.     The Outer Manifestations

IV.              Conclusion: Impact on Interfaith Dialogue

I.                   Religious Love in Bernard Lonergan

It is well known that Romans 5:5 was an underlying theme in the thought of Bernard

Lonergan as was his phrase “grasped by religious love.” We understand that the

Religious love he was referring to was the God who is love. The impact of this love on

the transformation of the human being that we call conversion presents a rich field for

exploration. In order to begin this task, we will first sketch what Lonergan offers on the

subject of religious love as it comes into contact with the human condition and the

reality that condition creates in culture.

In Insight

The significant references to religious love in Insight can be found in the chapter on “Special Transcendent Knowledge.” (1992 709ff, 1978 687ff) My reflections below are taken from that source. Here Lonergan sets the context in which he will link religious love with the transformation of the human being. He introduces the notion of new conjugate forms, and indicates they will influence the human intelligence, will, and sensitivity as habits. Because the human intelligence is an “unrestricted potency,” it is open to these habits, he states. The will is good when it follows the intelligence, and human sensitivity is “a lower manifold under the higher integration of intellectual and volitional acts” and can be adapted to those acts.

This discussion takes place in the context of the problem of evil and its solution. Lonergan insists that the solution to evil will somehow include the introduction of these conjugate forms and that they will in some sense be transcendent or supernatural. They will not arise from nature. These forms will need to deal with human bias. Conjugate forms will constitute a higher integration of human activity. They will not be imposed, but will be received willingly by human beings with their consent. This willingness, he writes, will be some type of charity. It draws the will to the good, and ultimately that good is God. Charity then is a way of being “in love” with God.

In addition to the charity by which the will is made good, there will be the hope by which the will makes the intellect good. The desire to know is spontaneous, operating prior to our insights, judgments, or decisions. To remain pure, this desire needs to be indeed unrestricted, reaching beyond empirical science and common sense. It needs to long for the unrestricted act of understanding which is God. The conjugate form of willingness that reinforces this pure desire is a confident hope that God will bring human intelligence into some form of possession of God’s very self.

Finally, the solution to the problem of evil needs to involve the human intelligence itself. Hope is the expectation of knowledge, not its realization. The knowledge we possess will then supply hope with its object and the will’s charity with its motives.

There is need for a “…universally accessible and permanently effective manner of pulling men’s minds out of the counter-positions, of fixing them in the positions, of securing for them certitude that God exists and that he has provided a solution which they are to acknowledge and accept.” Now knowledge can be generated immanently, Lonergan suggests, or it can come from being in touch with those whom one knows to know. This is belief. It is imperative, then to present belief as an intelligent and reasonable procedure.

In reality there are few items of immanently generated knowledge that are completely independent of beliefs. Generally, belief implies “…a sustained collaboration of many instances of rational self-consciousness…” There is a symbiosis of knowledge and belief. Lonergan then dissects belief into five clear stages:

1.)    Clarify the source of the belief and the accuracy of the communication from the source.

2.)    Engage in a reflective act of understanding that seeks to grasp as virtually unconditioned the value of accepting a particular proposition.

3.)    Arrive at the consequent judgment of value based on credibility.

4.)    Engage the decision of the will.

5.)    Assent in the act of believing.

The result of such a process is not knowledge but belief, for it ends in with an assent to a proposition that could the person could not grasp to be unconditioned by oneself. This process of belief is from knowledge in one mind to belief in the same truth in another mind. Returning now to Lonergan’s suggestion of conjugate forms as vital to the solution to the problem of evil, the knowledge involved in that solution will be a harmonious continuation of the actual order. But it will involve and new and higher collaboration. Beyond the collaboration of humans with one another, it will seek human co-operation with God in solving the problem of human evil. The solution, in fact, will principally be the work of God. The entry into this higher form of collaboration will be some species of faith. Faith is the required conjugate form that the solution brings to the human intellect. This faith will be a transcendent belief, universally accessible, yet in no way violating the probabilities of the natural order of the universe. Thus although human beings cannot originate or preserve the solution to the problem of evil, they nevertheless need to be intelligent, reasonable, and responsible in entering into it.

Insight then proposes that religious love, God, will collaborate with human beings to bring about a solution to the problem of evil. This collaboration will be possible because God will provide three new conjugate forms, habits offered to human potentiality that will give the human will, intellect, and sensitivity a new orientation. These conjugate forms effect a transcendent or supernatural reorientation through charity, hope, and faith thus fully engaging the human in a divinely originated collaborative solution to the problem of evil.

In Method

With Insight’s introduction of conjugate form as religious love’s first move to engage a  human anthropology purged of bias, Method (1971) will declare in its very first chapter that the operations of basic transcendental method rest upon “…a rock on which one can build.” (19) In a footnote on that same page Lonergan refers to Chapter Four which will uncover “…the more important part of the rock…” in his treatment of religion and thus the question of God.

Being grasped by religious love, by God, brings about religious conversion. Lonergan describes it (240-41) as other worldly falling in love, a total and permanent self-surrender without conditions, qualifications, reservations. Yet it is such a surrender as a dynamic state that becomes the principle of subsequent acts. It manifests itself “…as an undertow of existential consciousness, as a fated acceptance of a vocation to holiness, as perhaps and increasing simplicity and passivity in prayer.” Here Lonergan makes direct reference to the fact that “It is interpreted differently in the context of different religious traditions.” Elsewhere Lonergan comments that the experience of the mystery of love and awe is not objectified, remaining as “…a vector, and undertow, a fateful call to a dreaded holiness.” (113) Sinfulness can then be described as “…the privation of total loving; as a radical dimension of lovelessness.” (242-43)

In the Later Works

Second Collection is dated 1974, three years after Method. In the essay “The Future of Christianity,” Lonergan refers to the gift of God’s love to us as “…the crowning point of our self-transcendence.” (153) He goes on to say that it is not something we achieve; rather it is something we receive, accept, and ratify. Coming quietly, secretively, we notice it when we notice its fruits in our lives. It is the human spirit’s profoundest fulfillment, giving us a peace and a joy that endures despite profound sorrows. Furthermore, religious love grounds faith. Lonergan writes that being in love with God determines the total context, and faith is the eye of that love. This love overflows in love of the neighbor. (154) 

Here again there is reference to other world religions. The gift of God’s love is not restricted to Christians. (155)  What distinguishes the Christian is not God’s grace, which is shared with others, but the centrality of Jesus as the mediator of that grace. In particular it is the fact of Jesus’ rising from the dead which Christians offer as the revelation of the destiny of human beings and we need one another to come to understand this gift. (156)

II.                 Religious Love in Lonergan: Anthropological Adequacy

Shaping an Adequate Anthropology

With this minimal sketch, an important question now will be, “What kind of anthropology is adequate to explore the impact of this religious love on the will, intelligence, and sensitivity of the human being?”

I propose that it is the ambiguity of the answer to this question that weakens the theology of grace as it is addressed in contemporary theology and spirituality. The typical description of the human as body, mind, and spirit as an example, makes no reference to human emotion. Thomas Moore’s famous best seller, The Care of the Soul does not define the soul that is to be cared for. What are the clear dimensions of the human being? Who are we who are to be “grasped by religious love?”

We are a triple composite. We are a physical organon and a human spirit. These spiritual and material components are fused by psychic energy. In us psychic energy sublates to  rational and volitional functions. These distinguish us from the animal realm. As the form and very union of our material and spiritual components, psychic energy refers to our soul. With John of the Cross and others, we understand the human soul to have a lower and upper set of functions. Its lower functions are psycho-somatic: biological and psychologically subconscious. Its upper functions are psycho-spiritual: psychologically conscious, cognitive, volitional, and open to transcendence. Rather than being a “part” of the human being, the soul is that which unifies or makes us whole. It integrates our various functional components. We can then speak of organism, psyche, and spirit and identify functional operations in each of these dimensions.[1]

The organism is clear to most of us, as its systems and functions are the field of the medical sciences. Digestive, reproductive, circulatory, neurological, and respiratory to name just a few, their functions call upon the skills of our doctors and medical technicians.

The psyche is the focus of the psychological and psychiatric sciences. This is the realm of image, sensate memory, imagination, dreams, fantasy, and powerful emotions. Standing with Lonergan, who distinguishes feeling as more bodily focused, I nevertheless stand with Aquinas as he, following Aristotle, identifies eleven powerful psychic motors, or “passions.” With more modern terminology as “spontaneous” and “considered,” the medieval terms of “concupiscible” and “irascible” take on clearer meaning. The spontaneous emotions are love and hate, desire and aversion, and joy and sorrow. The considered emotions are fear and courage, hope and despair, and anger. The four typically treated in therapy are “glad, sad, mad, and scared” as the little sing-song diddy goes. The four refer to joy, sorrow, anger, and fear. Lack of reference to this vital area of the human being leaves us with a critical area of human experience unaddressed.

The functions of the human spirit, as Lonergan has charted them, come into clear relief, and can become part of an intelligent discussion among natural and social scientists and theologians. Experiential awareness is psychic energy become conscious. Both the data of sense and the data of consciousness can now be reflected upon. Questioning for understanding the data then can be identified. Reaching a judgment of fact regarding the data can be distinguished. The shift from intelligence to volition happens when the questions seek value rather than fact, and choice and decision follow. The fact that the human spirit is open to ultimate reality and meaning is simply a human fact, unable to be denied by scientist and theologian alike. The question of who or what that ultimate reality is opens up the realm of religion, and good scientists will stand at the door and remove their shoes. Theologians will enter, and kneel down.

An adequate anthropology is important for interdisciplinary dialogue. If the above sketch is faulty, then it too needs correction to serve better, for ambiguity about our humanness is the common foundational reality in which we all stand. We need to know the territory.

When Charity Becomes the Form of the Virtues

The cardinal moral or “hinge” virtues that Thomas Aquinas discusses are prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. These common human habits are the stuff of good parenting. “Tommy, wear your sweater; it’s cold outside.” “Play fair, Jimmy, give others their turn.” “I know you don’t want to go to the dentist, Suzy, but we’re going to go anyway.” “No, Joey, you can’t have a popsicle now – we’re going to have supper in ten minutes.” These major human habits are the sources for other virtues or habits that help us to act in ways distinctly human. Our sensitivities are engaged, our cognition is influenced, and our choices are affected. These dimensions of the human have been identified in theology and in popular spirituality as the memory, the understanding, and the will. Moral virtue operates or is stunted in its operation whether one is religious or not.

When a person is religiously in-love, the presence of the Spirit of God permeates the psycho-spiritual operations of the person. This permeation of grace has a three-fold spectrum we have named faith, hope, and charity. We have called this presence “indwelling.” But where the Spirit is, the Father and the Word are also. It is interesting to note that mystics such as Catherine of Siena relate the three theological virtues in the soul to each of the persons of the Trinity.[2] The Father brings to the sensitive psyche an ache, a longing, a desire born of religious love called hope. The Son’s gift to the cognitive operations comes as faith, the knowing born of religious love. The Spirit floods the will with charity, active choices born of religious love that give shape to the person’s belief and hope. The person begins to act because of the religious love that permeates the intentionality. Some might call this “getting religion.” Generally it is identified as religious conversion.

I believe this is what Lonergan means when he writes of conjugate forms. These powers, habits, or virtues, given to the human being by the very presence of religious love in the soul, are like divine “plug-ins.” They irradiate the human operations, providing a divinely sponsored collaborative solution to the problem of evil.[3]

Charity then becomes the form of the cardinal virtues and orients them toward the new relationship that has been forged by religious love. As theological virtue is directed to the three major dimensions of the human, sensitivity, intelligence, and will, so the moral virtues, now also raised to refer to the relationship forged by religious love, will draw the person to repeated choices and activity in the dimensions of sensitivity, intelligence, and will. All virtue, theological and moral, manifest at the fourth level of consciousness as decision. But the “stuff” of these virtures will be the fine-tuned dimensions of human behavior in the ordinary day-by-day decisions of life.

Justice guides the will in its choices. Prudence permeates the intelligence in its cognitive functions. Fortitude and temperance redirect the sensitive psyche, temperance influencing the spontaneous emotions (love/hate, desire/aversion, joy/sorrow) and fortitude strengthening the considered emotions (fear/courage, hope/despair, anger). Theological virtue reorients the person to God, and moral virtue, now informed by charity, empowers the intentionality to carry through in the day-to-day living.[4]

Human Conversion and Theosis

Lonergan suggested four forms of conversion. Robert Doran adds a fifth. To Lonergan we owe a challenging discussion of religious conversion, which we have sketched above. In addition there is distinctly Christian religious conversion, explicitly addressing the central position of the God-man, Jesus. Moral conversion reorients the person from short term solutions to long term results, from mere satisfaction to true values.[5] Intellectual conversion, rather than being a mere change of conceptual furniture, is simply knowing how one knows and consciously intending its recurrent pattern.

Robert Doran, after discussion with Lonergan about his neglect of further work on dramatic bias, took on Lonergan’s challenge to deal with it through psychic conversion. Dramatic bias or scotosis exerts a censorship of image, the very root of dynamic questioning for understanding. Caused by an emotional scarring in the drama of one’s life, certain images are like hot irons, and the psyche consciously or unconsciously avoids them. This avoidance can limit the questioning one needs to do for adequate understanding. The result is bias. Its healing, brought about by therapy or contemplative prayer often accompanied by tears, is called psychic or affective conversion.

This gives us five forms of conversion: religious and Christian, moral, psychic, and intellectual. These forms of conversion describe a turning, a change in consciousness, and focus our attention on what happens to the human in its functioning. Equally important is the Eastern Orthodox preference to direct our attention to what happens to human identity.

The Western Catholic community would do well to incorporate the insights of Eastern Orthodoxy’s theotic viewpoint.[6] This viewpoint is eschatological in that it points to the final destiny of the human being, and it deals with the results of what Western Catholic call conversion. For the East, the paradigm is the transfigured and resurrected Christ. The human nature is transformed, indeed deified. No molecule is lost. There is no pantheism here. The human remains human, but using a more colloquial term, becomes goddized. Lest we think this is new age, the mysteries of the transfiguration of Jesus, his resurrection and ascension, and the assumption of Mary the Mother of Jesus actually celebrate this reality, as does scripture when we read, “We know not yet what we shall be.” Science too must ask where human evolution goes next, for who says it is complete in its present form? Perhaps the intuition of the “trans-human” is onto something, yet not the grotesque and militaristic form it is presently taking.

III.             Hermeneutical and Transcultural Implications

It is clear from our reflection thus far that the impact of religious love on the human consciousness has an effect on the person experiencing it. What is even more significant is the effect it has when this person reads the religious literature of another tradition, either in one’s own culture or another.

Religious Love and Cognition

When a person is grasped by the love of God, the power of the Holy Spirit floods the soul. We have defined that soul in its lower operations as the sensitive psyche that holds in the feeling memory all the events of life’s drama. In its higher operations we have referred to Lonergan’s analysis of consciousness as identifying the operations of the human spirit: attentiveness to data, inquiry through questions for understanding, judgments of fact, and finally judgments of value which prompt decisions. We can identify the first three conscious operations as cognitive and the fourth as volitional.

When the love of God floods the heart, we esperience the influence of the theological virtues: hope in the sensitive psyche, faith in the cognition, and charity in the will.  All will manifest in behavior, for virtue becomes evident in action. I suggest that the charity, when it becomes the form of the moral virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, then becomes a type of “lens” through which the cognition gazes as it engages the written texts of others who are also religiously in-love. For such a person the interpretation that is the task of hermeneutics is influenced by charity in a way that is not the same for one not religiously in-love. Charity, as the human acting out of religious love, becomes a hermeneutical tool to understand the text of another like oneself, one who is religiously in-love. This is possible, I believe, even if there is no acceptance of the significant beliefs of the other tradition or the values of the culture in which it functions. Lonergan clarifies this by distinguishing between the inner core and the outer manifestation.of a religious tradition. It is the inner core alone that is transcultural.[7]

The Inner Core

What Lonergan calls the inner core consists of a human and a divine element. The human element is the recurrent pattern of consciousness in the desire to know. The divine element is religious love being poured out into the human heart.

It is not difficult to agree that the human consciousness works the pattern of its inquiry no matter in what culture or religious tradition it operates. What is more difficult to distinguish is the conscious operation itself from the judgments of value reached by the person in the tradition. To have faith in the mystery of the Holy as it has grasped you is one thing. What your beliefs are regarding the holy is quite another. Religious experience is common, although many will not, or do not know how, to speak of it to others. Articulating what it means in terms of that tradition will require that one will need to attend to the data experienced, question it for understanding, reach a judgment of fact concerning the truth of it, and arrive at a judgment of its value as a belief. This is a decision, and bias can play its part in causing the judgment of fact to be rash with its consequent judgment of value also to be rash. A word needs to be said here about the biases that can distort this process.

Dramatic bias can abort the very images that need to be present to allow for possible new notions, insights, ideas, and concepts. Memories of injury, brutality, injustice, and hatred can callous the psyche with scotosis, the often unconscious censorship that cripples the process from the start. If the imagination cannot allow certain images to be considered, the questioning process will be selective or biased from the start.

The second level of consciousness, questioning for understanding, can become biased in three ways. Individual egoism has no use for information that does not fit its criteria. Its partial understanding is closed to what others might offer. This may come from fear. “If I listen to you, I might have to change my thinking.” Group egoism is the same blockage become corporate. “Our way is the only way. We are number one…our nation, our race, our sex, our church, our business…” Group egoism is the dis-ease of prejudice. Again, it can come from fear, the fear of expansion, new insights, new challenges. Finally, there is what Lonergan calls general or theoretic bias. The motto of this mindset is “We have always done it this way.” It shows itself in an intelligence that is settled in its comfort zone of common sense. It can be blatantly anti-intellectual, resisting the intellectual vigor needed to create new possibilities.[8]

Because of the ever-present threat of these biases, the religious person needs to be constantly on guard for them, for they can distort the process of seeking the truth. They can also convince the seeker that certitude has been reached in religious matters and the search has ended.

The inner core alone, the fact of the pattern of consciousness and the grasp of religious love, is transcultural. But what about its outer manifestation?

The Outer Manifestation

The explicit formulation of what the inner core experiences is historically conditioned.[9] It is not transcultural. Outer manifestations can be “…corrected, modified, complemented…” and I would like to add expanded. What is transcultural is the reality to which these outer manifestations refer: the experience of the human process of truth-seeking and the experience of being grasped by religious love.

The outer manifestations of religious traditions can be described in terms of what religion is, a system of creedal beliefs, moral directives, and forms of worship. All three of these need to be ready to be ready to be corrected, modified, complemented, and expanded, for they are the result the work of the inner core, the recurrent pattern of consciousness grasped by religious love.

This does not mean creedal beliefs will be abandoned or compromised. But it may mean they will be worded and explained in a way not heard before. Moral directives will not cease to be guidelines for the faithful life, but they may be expanded by a compassion not possible in former times. Worship will not cease to identify a particular religious tradition, but it may move its participants from rote and tired expressions to those that challenge a people to live by the songs they sing or by the postures they assume.

Conclusion: Impact on Interfaith Dialogue

The purpose of this paper has been to query into religious love as Bernard Lonergan presents it, to ask whether it has any influence on the hermeneutic we bring to the texts of other religious traditions in other cultures. The answer from our exploration is a definite yes. Drawing mainly from Lonergan, but with help from Aquinas and others, we can sketch this influence.

From Lonergan’s writings we gain the clarity that the religious love we are speaking of is the very nature of who God is. When grasped by this love, the soul (psyche and human spirit) are permeated by a Trinitarian indwelling. The divine Guest brings three gifts. Lonergan calls faith, hope, and charity conjugate forms, a divinely sponsored collaborative solution to the problem of human evil. As charity floods the will, it becomes the form of the moral virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance by which we live our human lives.

If our anthropology is adequate, and we have suggested that organism, psyche, and spirit as a framework address the major dimensions of the human being, then the presence of hope in the sensitive psyche, faith in the intelligence, and charity in the will begin to effect a transformation unto a godliness that is the destiny of every human being.

The permeation of the intelligence by religious love creates a state in which all intellectual activity, including the interpretation that is the hermeneutical task, is influenced by that religious love. The “lens” this love provides allows the religiously converted person to detect this love operating in a context other than its own. Love bridges the interfaith divide at the level of the inner core, while dialogue remains keenly aware of the creedal, moral, and worship differences of the outer manifestation of those traditions. Religious love in Bernard Lonergan is hermeneutical and transcultural.

Bibliography

Catherine of Siena The Dialogue. Suzanne Noffke, trans. New York Ramsey Toronto: Paulist Press, 1980.

Helminiak, Daniel A. Religion and the Human Sciences: An Approach via Spirituality. New York: SUNY, 1998.

Lonergan, Bernard. Insight: A Study of Human Understanding. Frederick E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran, eds. Toronto Buffalo London: University of Toronto Press, 1992.

----- Collection: Papers by Bernard Lonergan. Frederick E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran, eds. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988 (1967).

----- Second Collection: Papers by Bernard J.F. Lonergan, S.J.  William F. J. Ryan and Bernard J. Tyrrell, eds. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974.

----- A Third Collection: Papers by Bernard J.F. Lonergan, S.J.  Frederick E. Crowe, ed.

New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1985.

----- Method in Theology. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1971.

Streeter, Carla Mae. “Organism, Psyche, and Spirit – Some Clarifications: Toward an Anthropological Framework for Working with the Neuro-Psycho Sciences,” Advances in Neuroscience: Social, Moral, Philosophical and Theological Implications. St. Louis, MO: ITEST Faith/Science Press, 2002.

----- “Technology and Human Becoming: The Virtual and the Virtuous,” Computers, Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality: Social, Moral, Philosophical and Theological Implications. St. Louis, MO: ITEST Faith/Science Press, 2004.

----- Foundations of Spirituality – A Systematic Approach: The Human and the Holy. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012.

---

[1] See Carla Mae Streeter, OP, “Organism, Psyche, and Spirit – Some Clarifications: Toward an Anthropological Framework for Working with the Neuro-Psycho-Sciences,” Advances in Neuroscience: Social, Moral, Philosophical and Theological Implications. St. Louis: ITEST Faith/Science Press, 2003: 51-71.

[2] See Catherine of Siena the Dialogue, translated by Suzanne Noffke, OP. New York, Ramsey, Toronto: Paulist Press, 1980: 108, 180-181.

[3] See Insight (1972) 750, (1953) 729-30. Love in Lonergan’s “Finality, Love, and Marriage” also invites revisiting.

[4] See Carla Mae Streeter, The Foundations of Spiritualtiy – A Systematic Approach: The Human and the Holy. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2012: 72-94.

[5] Method 240. See the index under Conversion for more references, for intellectual conversion as well.

[6] This viewpoint is introduced in the context of other philosophical viewpoints by Daniel A. Helminiak in Religion and the Human Sciences: An Approach via Spirituality. New York: SUNY, 1998:123ff.

[7] Method 282ff discusses this and includes a reference to Rom. 5:5, God’ love poured out into our hearts.

[8] See the index of Insight for the discussion of each of these biases.

[9] Method 283 clearly distinguishes the inner core from the outer manifestations in terms of general and special categories which have been omitted in this essay due to space. The reader is encourage to explore this primary source.