The previous blog raises the problem of development.<\/p>\n
Lonergan\u2019s model of human nature is intellect(moral(religious)).<\/p>\n
Lonergan\u2019s model of our existential situation is (\u201cbe holy, loving and responsible(decision(self-transcendence)).<\/p>\n
According to Lonergan, if a person practices fidelity to the project of self-transcendence, that person achieves authenticity.\u00a0 Un-authenticity derails human self-transcendence from the intended endpoint.\u00a0 Un-authenticity is easier.<\/p>\n
\u201cPractical intelligence\u201d (fear of the Lord, deliberation, and humility) guides fidelity.\u00a0 \u201cSpontaneity\u201d (concupiscence, foolishness, and pride) guides one to immediate benefits, satisfaction and further impulses of desire.\u00a0 Spontaneity is natural.<\/p>\n
Practical intelligence and spontaneity operate in a milieu of intersubjectivity.\u00a0 The person is situated by the group.\u00a0 Group intersubjectivity creates a field of biases, some supporting and some alienating.\u00a0 Biases often pull practical intelligence and spontaneity in opposing directions.<\/p>\n
Even more disturbing, many of the biases appear to operate on one level but effect change on another level.\u00a0 For example, a biased definition of \u201cbe holy, loving and responsible\u201d (such as, by killing unwanted fetuses) targets a woman\u2019s decisions.\u00a0 Power, the command (or taking over) of one person\u2019s decisions by another, effects all three levels of individual subjectivity for both persons.<\/p>\n
Consider the nature of the bribe.\u00a0 The \u201cbribe\u201d is an act of power where the individual subjectivity of both giver and receiver is altered.\u00a0 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).<\/p>\n
The results are, what Lonergan calls, \u201cfalse facts\u201d, \u201cthe actual existence of what should not be\u201d, or more eloquently, \u201cthe social surd\u201d.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The previous blog raises the problem of development. Lonergan\u2019s model of human nature is intellect(moral(religious)). Lonergan\u2019s model of our existential situation is (\u201cbe 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.\u00a0 Un-authenticity derails human self-transcendence from the intended endpoint.\u00a0 Un-authenticity is easier. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-198","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-the-science-of-original-sin"],"yoast_head":"\n