Probabilities

In his little book, Insight, Lonergan has this wonderful remark about the relative probabilities of an unconnected aggregate of events, and a connected set of events that he calls 'scheme of recurrence.' The probability of the former, he points out, is the product of the individual probabilities, while the probability of the latter is the sum of the individual probabilities.

Since probabilities can be written in terms of fractions, it is easy to see that the product of a set of fractions is far smaller than the sum of the same set of fractions.

Which means that the probability of an event occurring jumps when it forms part of a scheme of recurrence.

Some months ago I had a wait-listed ticket from Thivim to Dadar which eventually became RAC. That meant I could board the train, but it also meant that I had only a seat: I had to share a berth with someone else. Now if you have ever shared a berth on an Indian train, you will know what that means. But my point here is different: the point is that, despite the fact that I had a rather good wait-list number (I think it was in single digits), all I got was an RAC seat, and not a proper berth. I discovered the reason for that in the train: there was a huge college tour group on the train that day. The TC pointed out that such groups do not easily change their reservations. If there was no such group, he said, I would have stood a better chance of getting a berth for myself.

Now here is an interesting situation: a group, vs a set of unconnected people. The probability of my getting a berth would have been higher in the latter case.

How would that compare with Lonergan's remarks? I am still trying to work that one out... Any help?

Jung's refusal to bow

Catherine Whittle - who is a nurse with some 30 years of practice behind her - did not know, but was not surprised to learn, that Jung, in a dream, had refused to bow to God.

She said it was the scene from Milton: better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. She said it made much sense, and that she had always felt a disease reading Jung, and having so many priests tell her to read Jung.

Must find Robert Doran's article where he makes the above reference to Jung and his refusal to submit.

What psychology can contribute to theology

Inspired by a dialogue with Catherine Whittle at tea this afternoon:

Possibly an article for the Indian theological public on the contribution of psychology to theology. How Lonergan has learnt from psychology, and integrated these findings into his method.

Distinguishing, of course, different types of differences; dismissing those rooted in data, in perspectives, to concentrate on those that are truly radical and dialectical. These are rooted, not in data, not in perspectives, not in development, but in fundamental options – philosophical, moral, religious. These options are the presuppositions of all argument, proof. All proof, all logic, presupposes a system; and the system itself is rooted in fundamental options, which cannot be proved.

What then? Only: objectification of these options; bringing them to light; raising / objectifying horizons. Objectification of subjectivity. The crucial experiment.

But also: ensuring an irenic atmosphere. [McShane, SURF 2, 11: “Yes, there are two levels of dialectic, but it seems to me that if the second is done properly, there is no need to add dialogue…. The second level of dialectic is very discomforting dialogue of colleagues who share the Standard Model. The latter point is very important to absorb: the cycling is not done with adversaries, but with colleagues within the Standard Model. See http://www.philipmcshane.ca/SURF-02.pdf.] Also the venerable theme of friendship as a condition for philosophy - and for theology.

And: creating community. How to give and receive feedback. How to handle the customary (emotional) blocks to communication. How much of current interaction in philosophy, and especially in Christian theology, is an interplay of ego, emotions, and so on...

Lonergan's Grace and Freedom: as yet unsurpassed

In a review of Fergus Kerr's Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians, William L. Portier notes Kerr's evaluation of Lonergan's Grace and Freedom:

In Lonergan's early work, published in English in 1971 as Grace and Freedom, Kerr finds "an as yet unsurpassed analysis of Aquinas' theory of divine transcendence and human liberty" (Kerr 115). [Portier 497.]

In a note he adds:

Kerr's estimate is shared by Reinhard Hutter, who regards Lonergan's Gratia Operans (Grace and Freedom) as "still to be the benchmark analysis of Aquinas's profound treatment of this utterly complex topic." See Hutter, "Desiderium Naturale Visionis Dei - Est autem duplex hominis beatitude sive felicitas: Some Observations About Lawrence Feingold's and John Millbank's Recent Interventions in the Debate Over the Natural Dsire to See God," Nova et Vetera 5/2 (2007) 81-132, at 103 n. 42. [Portier 497 n 5.]

William L. Portier, "Thomist Resurgence. A Review Esay of Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians: From Neoscholasticism to Nuptial Mysticism by Fergus Kerr." Communio: International Catholic Review 35/3 (2008) 494-504.

The meaning of 'God'

We use the word 'God' so freely across religious traditions - but does it really mean the same thing? What would be the proper equivalent of the Christian word 'God' in India? There is a range of choices: deva, bhagavan, isvara, paramesvara, brahman, parabrahman.

When someone in India is called Bhagavan, what might that mean? Bhagavan Sri Rajneesh, Sri Swami Samarth, Sri Swami Suryanarayan... or even Sai Baba and Satya Sai Baba...

The whole area of translation is so fascinating - and so influential in the inevitable cross-cultural forays today.

What would have happened if Christ had been born in India? Would he have been able to reveal his identity as Son?

Which brings us once again to the question of the transition from description to explanation: it is not enough to use words; one has to determine the set of terms and relations of which it forms a part, and within which alone its proper meaning is fixed.

Against the background of his learning, Richard De Smet used to say that Brahman is perhaps a better word for translating God than Isvara. It is the Parabrahman, the nirguna Brahman of the Advaitic tradition, that might give us a proper equivalent finally.

But when I mentioned it in class some years ago, a girl pointed out to me that this kind of choice would unnecessarily privilege 'a particular community.' She happened to be a Christian girl of Dalit origin, and she brought to my notice this angle which I (and De Smet) had quite ignored. The many ramifications of translation besides the strictly metaphysical!

Aquinas' cogitativa, Freud's superego, and Lonergan

Lonergan never ceases to amaze. See, for example, this appropriation of Aquinas' (now little known) cogitativa:

“Incidentally, re anxiety, what the Freudians call the Super-Ego is Aquinas’ cogitativa: just as the little birds know that twigs are good for building nests and the little lambs know that wolves are bad, so little human beings develop a cogitativa about good and bad; it reflects their childish understanding of what papa and mamma say is good or bad and in adult life it can cause a hell of a lot of trouble” (quoted from the 13th of 129 written communications of Lonergan to Crowe, some as short as Christmas cards, some several pages long. This letter is dated 27th December 1955.)(From P. McShane, SURF 4: The Financial Crisis, note 57)

Truncations

I am reading McShane's SURF 4: The Financial Crisis, and this made me laugh (even though reading McS is far from being a laughing matter):

Human studies generally are, at present, a truncated mess: it does not take rocket-science Lonergan competence to glimpse this: indeed the little bit of research that consist in reading indices of psychology and sociology to find that, regularly, there is nothing there between pubic hair and rat except, perhaps, questionnaire. (P. McShane, SURF 4)

That much of research I have done. Like browsing through the indices of Epistemology books at Blackwell in Oxford, to find mention neither of Lonergan nor of insight.