TRUE SELF – FALSE SELF

Below is a sidebar conversation I was having with someone else re: the Rohr-Keating retreat, where the

subject of the true-false self terminology came up. I thought I'd tack it on here:

It turns me off in this sense. It is bad terminology. Unfortunate use of words. But we work with them

because of their heritage in our tradition.

Why unfortunate? Because of what you said: False self is not bad.

that many unduly put off the journey to such things as transformation and even adulthood.] The early stages

of formation and transformation are good. So are the later. And nothing that takes place on our early

journey is abandoned. The false self represents our socialization, moving from little animals to humans. It

represents our humanization. And our humanization and divinization are inextricably intertwined, not really

distinguishable really. The more fully human we become, the more we reflect the Divine Image, the imago

Dei. So, we don't abandon the false self. Not at all. Rather, we take full possession of it in order to

surrender it to crucifixion. [And one cannot surrender what one does not form and possess.] We give it up

in order to be radically saved (from sin and death); it is no mere pious gesture. Thus the seed falls to the

ground and dies ... Thus every other metaphor for the Paschal Mystery ...

This is my False Self.

I give it up for you.

We awaken to the True Self when, like Ignatius, we see ourselves as God sees us. We awaken to our True

Self when we realize that being socialized and a good citizen and a good person and more perfect ain't what

it's about entirely; rather, its about being a Lover and being beloved and about being saved from sin and

death by Jesus. It is a VERY big deal, the biggest thing anyone's got going. It is THE grail for which we

quest and is wholly, wholly holy and holy, holy whole.

Subject: True Self/False Self and Merton

Below are some of my notes and ideas on Merton

as they pertain to the True Self. I will mark in bold type those that you

may want to scroll down and read first, in order to get his main thrust. One

thing I would emphasize is that, in one manner of speaking, we must build a

false self at early stages of human development. That false self is what we

acquire as our parents and teachers work to transform us from animal beings

to social beings. If you talk to teachers nowadays, you might get the

impression that we are not very successful at even that!

In other words, this false self is what results from our socialization. We

take on a social persona. This is an indisepensable step in human

development, in my view. If I am hearing Merton right, we do want to help

people form these social personae, which are part of what our false self is

all about. So, to some extent, our pedagogy and catechesis is not incorrect,

when dealing with young folks in a developmentally appropriate way. The

chief problem, which I think is what you have really caught onto, is that

socialization is but one part of transformation and humanization. We, as a

Church, need to teach people how to come into full possession of this

false-self/social persona in order to surrender it!

But, life is a better teacher, here, has been my experience.

[Or as Rohr points out, there are two paths to the realization of the true self:

mysticism and suffering.]

Most people do not surrender their false self or social persona without first passing

through an existential crisis.What the Church must do, perhaps, is to stand

ready with a special program or pedagogy or catechesis for those who have

recently experienced an existential crisis, such as with spiritual direction

and grief counseling and other specialized small groups. To some extent,

this is the strength of AA, Al Anon and other such support groups. As I

write, below: The ultimate idolatry, then, is our self. So, we take this

socially-formed self and crucify it and it is not like going to a movie or

coming into an Internet discussion forum but is, rather, much more like

walking into a fire. All of this is a massive upheaval of the way things

have been for us --- cognitively, affectively, morally even, for it is no

longer a mere following of the rules that brings one closer to God, although

that part of our formation was absolutely necessary. The soul now approaches

the God, Who needn't approach, Who dwells within, and the heart remains

restless that has not made God its all. Rooted in God in radical trust and

surrender, a new reward and reinforcement system gets set in place, where

Love of self for sake of self has been transcended by love of God for sake

of self, which has been transcended by love of God for sake of God, 'til,

finally, our true self emerges and we love that self for the sake of God.

The dialectic takes us back into self-possession, paradoxically, by

self-surrender.

What happens as we make the turn and drop the persona, which, again, was

formatively necessary, is that we seek enlightenment out of compassion for

the world, which constantly suffers our unenlightened selves. No longer are

we in search of consolation or sensible positive affect because Perfect Love

is its own reward, is totally unconditional, entirely kenotic.

We lay down our false selves, not for our own benefit, not because we are

tired of the pain it causes us, but because of the pain we are transmitting

to our loved ones, to the world. Any pain that is not thusly transformed,

however neurotic or psychotic or emotional or idiopathic, we transmit to

others.We seek to be rid of this pain that we may desist from transmitting

it to others. Let me insert this here. Losing something like fear does not

mean that we have come to any pollyannish conclusion that all of the bad

things that could happen to us are not going to happen --- rather, it means

that, we know full well they are even likely to happen but are nothing,

ultimately, to fear.

Part of the nondual experience, then, is the existential realization of It

Isn't Me --- not this creation, not these feelings, not these thoughts, not

any rule-following or goodness, iow, It Isn't Me cognitively, affectively or

morally, that's responsible for starting all of this, holding it all

together and taking it anywhere.

One of the richest reflections on this I have ever come across is in Merton's __New Seeds of

Contemplation__, especially in the preface and first three chapters, which reflect on what contemplation is

and is not and what the true self and false self are. The most concise summary I could come up with would

be that, 1)for our true self, our joy is found in God's glory; 2) our will is oriented to God's love; 3)the work

of our journey is to co-create with God our identity through and with and in God; 4) that we may become

wholly in His image, holy in His image; 5) when we do have our memory, understanding and will

integrated and holistically operative, we experience our true self but 6) this co-creation of our identity and

this surrender of our memory, understanding and will to faith, hope and love are effected through

theological virtue gifted by the Spirit by an elevation of nature through grace and transmutation of

experience through grace and not by a perfection of the natural order by our natural efforts, which is to say

7) we are in need of salvation to overcome both death and sin and the most fundamental vocational call we

answer is 8) to be saved and then 9) transformed. In other words, we don't enter the monastery or undertake

a life of prayer to make us better human beings -- rather, we urgently and in crisis and seriously and

radically place the utter dependency and abject poverty of our selves (which are nevertheless good) at

God's disposal in order to be dramatically rescued.

Teresa of Avila did say that we must desire and occupy ourselves in prayer not so much

so as to receive consolations but so as to gain the strength to serve. Still, a careful reading

Agape, however, does not extinguish or negate eros, but, rather, transvalues it and

transcend it with agapic love.

Merton teaches on Bernardian Love: 1) Love of self for sake of self; 2) love of God for

sake of self; 3) love of God for sake of God; 4) love of self for sake of God (and I like to

add for sake of God and others, including the cosmos).

None of these transcendent movements is intended to negate the earlier movements but,

rather, transvlaue and perfect and recontextualize them.

In other words, the Old Covenant still works. Imperfect contrition is all that is needed to

enter the Kingdom, which is to say, I detest all my sins because of thy just punishment

(consequences to me). The New Covenant transvalues the Old, moving beyond what we

might call a) imperfect contrition, b) eros, what's in it for me? and c) enlightened self

interest (love of God for sake of self) and inviting us to a) perfect contrition (but most of

all because I have offended you my God, and my people, and the cosmos), b) agape,

what's in it for all beside me? and c) true enlightenment, which results from a compassion

that ensues from our awakening to our utter solidarity. Thus you take care of yourself and

desire consolations to strengthen yourself to serve God and the people you so very much

love (love of self for sake of God and others). We seek consolations so we can empty

ourselves of them in service and love.

When they don't come ... perhaps ... we are being told to ... Give it a rest ... (or to quit

backsliding, it depends) and we are being reminded that Someone else is in charge. And

when we persist in loving service even in utter desolation, our consolation comes from

conforming ourselves to our Redeemer, Who did not deem equality with God something

to be grasped at but emptied Himself ... and loved unconditionally (but conditions are

okay in our finitude and human condition).

I suppose I am suggesting that purity can and even should very much involve something

in return; God would have us be on the lookout for His blessings -- our Dayenu -- at

every turn. Or maybe I am saying impurity, of a sort, is okay. But our intention is indeed

impure/suboptimal if it does not seek the greatest glory of God (ad majorem Dei gloriam,

AMDG). Even if apokatastasis were true, universal salvation, which is to suggest that

Christ's sacrifice was so efficacious all will be saved, eventually -- the true Lover would

not rest or be content or indifferent -- but would always be seeking Ignatius' degrees of

humility 1) not to commit mortal sin 2) not to commit venial sin 3) not to offend God in

the least but to in fact imitate Him in His passion, seeking not only His Glory but His

Greatest Possible Glory!

Like a parent ... as a Parent ... I think God wants us to know and seek what's in it for me

when we visit. His refrigerator, cookie jar and pantry and playroom and television are

ours for the asking. I know He'd have us leave refreshed and to go forth and serve others,

too --- and has suitable chastisements in store when we don't. But more than anything

else --- God wants us to know the joy of being parents, which, in my experience, will

very much include the willingness to be taken for granted.

Curiously, I believe He leaves us in desolation sometimes --- maybe --- for the purpose of

allowing us to love Him and others unconditionally, being taken for granted by others

and even taken for granted by God! And thus we get to imitate Him perfectly as we are

conformed to His likeness in unconditional love.

There is a paradox here: Lord, make me holy, but only as holy as you want me to be.

Lord, let me imitate You, but only as much as You want me to!

After a time, I have been less and less able to discern the difference, emotionally,

between desolation and consolation. I think I just surrendered and quit caring and

worrying about it. When I run out of steam, I stop. When my batteries are recharged, I go.

I desire to do His will and do not know if I am or not but I do not worry about that either

-- for I know that my desire pleases Him if nothing else (Merton).

This is not wholly unrelated. There is a fallacy in any stage theories and developmental theories that takes

the form of negating lower stages rather than integrally transvaluing them. My whole discussion above can

apply to the kataphatic and apophatic devotions, too. Although there are prayer movements and practices

that now emphasize sensation and perception, now emotion and motivation, now discursive and now

nondiscursive approaches -- an integral approach implies the whole human knowledge manifold or

evaluative continuum is placed at the Spirit's disposal for God do to what She will when praying in us, for

no prayer is initiated other than by the Spirit -- not kataphatic, not apophatic. Our entire being-in-love is

placed at God's disposal. Apophasis and kataphasis are held in creative tension whereby kataphasis glories

in God's intelligibility through metaphor and apophasis glories in God's impenetrable mystery and

incomprehensibility as we acknowledge our metaphor is but a weak analogy. We hold on loosely but don't

let go, as the song says.

The analogy would be -- when I speak metaphorically and analogically, you and i both know it without me

having to explicitly point it out, usually. Conceptually, when I am having a kataphatic experience, it is

simultaneously being apophatically qualified, especially when we are speaking cognitively. The point of

clarification might moreso surround the affective aspect. No need to reinvent that wheel insofar as both the

sanjuanian and ignatian discussions of consolation and desolation and discernment treat this robustly?

Which would be to suggest that -- how one responds to distractions, to desolation, to consolation -- in

prayer and living --- cannot be captured in a one-size fits all prescription? Sometimes they should be

ignored and sometimes embraced and often times even shunned -- it depends.

now pertaining to how good we are and are not:

One thing about Benedict that differs from JPII is his augustinian versus thomistic thought. This makes for

a distinctively different theological anthropology, among other things, one that is moreso pessimistic vs

thomism's optimism and much more pessimistic than the transcendental thomism of Rahner and Lonergan

(which WAS too optimistic). This has practical implications for any theories of how grace builds on nature

insofar as it describes, in terms of goodness, how much nature brings to the table before grace does its

thing, how much humankind can accomplish, for instance, in discerning natural law, before being apprised

of divine revelation.

One thing of immediate interest to me is Pope Benedict's augustinian rather than thomistic perspective,

which has large implications for our theological anthropologies. To keep it simple, I would just say that

Pope Benedict's perspective on human nature is more pessimistic than JPII's.

One major issue such a perspective will address, for example, is what human nature is capable of without

the benefit of Divine revelation. Another issue would be to ask just how depraved we are vs how good we

are (on a continuum, of course), before grace builds on nature, which is to ask, perhaps, what type of

foundation does human nature afford the Spirit as each soul begins its journey of transformation?

Pope Benedict, in relying so much on Augustine, will be very aware of the very best that Luther had to

offer by way of critique and is in a very authoritative position, theologically, to advance ecumenical

dialogue with Protestantism. This would make for a great papal legacy and great strides have already been

made, for example, regarding the joint accord between Catholics and Lutherans on the doctrine of

justification. [Much credit is due Hans Kung, too, whose role has, regrettably, been largely

unacknowledged.]

Benedict will also be in a position to point out what he would perceive as Luther's shortcomings insofar as

he informs his augustinianism with the Catholic analogical imagination over against the Protestant

So, when it comes to human nature, it is essential that we flesh out our presuppositions regarding our

theological anthropologies. The most pessimistic versions would be any like a radical, augustinian

Protestantism and the most optimistic would be any like a transcendental thomism (of Rahner and

Lonergan).

JPII and Benedict's perspectives would fall in between, JPII more optimistic than Benedict but less than the

transcendental thomists, Benedict more optimistic than Luther but less than JPII.

This not only has important implications for theosis, for spiritual transformation, but also for our

ecclesiology, how we conceive church. The more pessimistic view is going to give impetus to a more

centralized governance, for example, reserving more teaching authority for the magisterium and imputing

less docility to the Holy Spirit to us anawim? This view is surely tempered though by our incarnational

approach, which sees God's grace and the Spirit's indwelling in all creation, in every creature, particularly

the human being, who is made in the very image and likeness of God!

One of the better balancing acts regarding theological anthropology and optimism-pessimism is that of

Jesuit theologian Donald Gelpi, who tells us that the truth about human nature lies somewhere between the

belief that we all long spontaneously for the beatific vision and the belief that creation and humanity are

totally depraved and devoid of goodness due to God's radical absence and rare disclosure. Gelpi employs a

foundational theology of conversion and I think this is right-headed --- because how the institutionalized

church (sacramentally and otherwise) facilitates conversion is the ultimate measure of doctrinal orthodoxy.

It is important to recognize that, whatever their theological anthropologies, Benedict and JPII and Paul VI

and John XXIII and Rahner and Lonergan and, to some extent, even Luther, were in unity regarding

essentials of our faith and what we are deliberating will invite a plurality and diversity of perspectives

regarding various accidentals.

With Augustine, then, and Benedict, in essentials, may we celebrate our unity; in accidentals, our diversity;

and in all things, charity. [And this is not to deny that there is some disagreement on what exactly is

essential and what accidental.]

So, that's an intro of where I will be coming from: listening to the disparate voices and praying for our

discernment for our next good steps as individuals in response to these considerations.

Reflecting on the augustinian perspective reminded me of its account of the Trinity, which, analogously,

exhibits faculties of memory, understanding and will, which is reflected in humanity. These faculties are

fully and perfectly integrated in the Trinity but humankind experiences them as sometimes attempting to

operate autonomously or, as I would say, in a dis-integrated manner, which is to say, not holistically. Now,

to the extent these comprise, in part, the human evaluative continuum or knowledge manifold, perhaps it

would be fair to say that they try to operate autonomously and disintegratedly in our false self but then,

through ongoing transformation into the imago Dei, are re-integrated and begin to more often operate

holistically and in a more fully integrated fashion, like the Trinity, in our True Self. What would be the

implications for prayer?

Prayer, in the false self, would be as noisy as a churning cement truck but as powerful (transformatively

efficacious) as a sewing machine.

Prayer, in the True Self, would be as quiet as a sewing machine but as powerful (transformatively

efficacious) as a cement truck (or Sherman Tank, choose your own metaphor).

In the false self, prayer would variously employ this or that aspect of the human evaluative continuum

willy-nilly and based on temperament and human biases, such continuum not holistically engaged, not fully

integrated.

In the True Self, prayer would employ such a human evaluative continuum as mirrors the fully integrated

memory, understanding and will of the Trinity and, as such, it would be holistic and, hence, simplified.

Here we are talking about simplicity in its most superlative sense. It means the whole person is pray-ing

and at the disposal of the sovereign Spirit, Who will guide it in all manner of consolation, desolation and

therapy, all such movements to be interpreted through traditional discernment exercises and helping to

direct our next good step.

[The next paragraph is my embellishment of what I heard Fr. Rohr saying.]

So, we pray in that manner that best silences the false self, quieting it and its faculties, however discursive

or nondiscursive, and this manner may be for some the rosary, for others the Eucharist, for others walking

meditation or this or that practice coupled with this or that discipline. And we thus pray in a manner that

most fully engages the True Self, allowing it to commune with God in utter simplicity and most holistically

and integratively --- as quietly as a sewing machine but as powerfully as a cement truck.

Being quiet and simple and powerful results from being holistic, single-minded and whole-hearted -

praying the True Self.

Being noisy and complex and inefficacious results from being disintegrated, monkey-minded and divided

in one's affections - praying the false self.

It is not so much what temperament or which faculties we bring to prayer or not but, rather, which s/Self.

Now, some have called any prayer from the True Self contemplation. Others more narrowly conceive it,

differentiating contemplation from other prayer in many different ways (such as charisms differentiated

from infused gifts of the Spirit, etc). Those conceptualizations and usages are not my concern here.

As we consider prayer from lectio, oratio, meditatio, contemplatio, operatio, glossolalia and so on, I would

suggest that it is not any of these formulae that we'd prescribe as generally normative --- for these will vary

per temperament and charism and/or gift from a sovereign Spirit, Who initiates all such promptings.

What is a norm to which we should all aspire is prayer from the True Self, which knows gentleness and

compassion for the false self, one's own and others'. And these false selves are good and necessary selves

for us to function in the human condition in this world but are still otherwise suboptimal for communing

with God and realizing solidarity with others.

Thus it is that all prayer lives are oriented through time toward increasing simplicity --- not so much from

alternating and purposeful engagements and disengagements of various aspects of the human evaluative

continuum as from the purposeful engagement of the True Self and disengagement of the false self; hence,

the quieting disciplines and silencing practices are directed at our false self but not really at the human

evalutive continuum as constituted in the True Self.

Now, it just so happens that the human evaluative continuum of the True Self is quieter and simpler --- but

this moreso results from its efficient integration and powerful holistic deployment (and does not require any

particular, narrowly defined practice or privileged asceticism).

This is a personal clarification. It is my view that Fathers Keating and Rohr have substantively and not

superficially engaged The Cloud and other Classics in our Tradition and that they have depthfully and not

facilely employed the many elements of the contemplative tradition in their approach to CP, which is to say

that I do not resonate with any notion that there are fallacies in their logic and I would not want to

caricaturize their approach and thereby dismiss strawmen.

What is at issue for me is not the validity of their logic (these folks are excellent critical thinkers) but

perhaps the soundness of certain conclusions regarding what exactly takes place in this or that practitioner

of CP. Discerning the soundness of these conclusions is something that can only be done in the crucible of

experience and this process of discernment must avoid its own set of fallacies, one of which is that the

abuse of something is no argument against the use of something. To properly get at the soundness of their

conclusions, the discerning community will have to go beyond personal anecdotes to sociological and

psychological studies to measure the effects of this or that practice on intellectual, affective, moral,

sociopolitical and religious conversions.

What most seems to be at issue, as best I can discern, can be illuminated by distinctions drawn by Maritain

and byMerton. Maritain distinguishes between philosophical contemplation, intuition of being, natural

mysticism and mystical contemplation. Merton distinguished between apophatic/kataphatic,

immanent/transcendent, natural/supernatural and existential/theological. There are all sorts of other

distinctons that come into play, too, such as between passive and active meditation, open and closed,

receptive and concentrative, attentional and intentional and relational. There are the distinctions between

active and passive and infused contemplation, between charisms and gifts of the Spirit, and an

acknowledgment of the Spirit's sovereign action on the soul, notwithstanding our efforts. There are

manifold psychological considerations that come into play also as we integrally and holistically conceive

the human. Clearly, we must concede a depthful knowledge of these distinctions to all of the participants in

this dialogue.

The distillation of the concerns is this: There are manifold and varied asceticisms and disciplines and

practices in our contemplative traditions, all of which can serve to dispose one to receive the gift of

contemplation, all of which can facilitate our cooperation with grace as it builds on nature. Which of these

practices should be pursued only with the guidance of a prudent, learned and experienced spiritual director,

following certain caveats, for instance, because they facilitate receptivity/docility to the Spirit with a

greater tendency to facilitate concommitant experiences of natural mysticism, enlightenment, kundalini

arousal/awakening and such (which can be most efficacious but also, in many ways and in a word, unruly)?

And if things do get unruly, have we provided resources for dealing with same? Is the jury still out on this?

Has enough evidence come in? I dunno. I am not competent to answer that. The issues raised are important.

And I am confident that the major players involved with them are prudent, learned and experienced, folks

of large intelligence and profound goodwill.

I will close with Thomas Merton:

quote:

What one of you can enter into himself and find the God that utters him?

Finding God means much more than just abandoning all things that are not God and

emptying oneself of images and desires. If you succeed in emptying your mind of every

thought and every desire you may indeed withdraw into the center of yourself and

concentrate everything within you upon the imaginary point where your life springs out

of God; yet, you will not really find God. No natural exercise can bring you into vital

contact with Him. Unless He utters Himself in you and speaks His own name in the

center of your soul, you will no more know Him than a stone knows the ground upon

which it rests in its inertia.

And what Merton says is true. Nothing we can do other than to dispose our self to receive the gift of

contemplation. Like the stone, we exist because God sees us. We are good because God loves us. Unlike

the stone, and Merton doesn't say this here but he wouldn't deny it, we can through natural exercises

experience a natural mysticism, an intuition that we are receiving our being as we stand on the face of

being looking in. This opens us to immanent being and an existential awareness and initiates us in

apophasis and, if pursued further, can even give a metaphysical hint at creatio ex nihilo and creatio

continua (for pantheism and even panen-theism are too riddled with incoherence). And one would have to

believe that, pursued even further, some of the great nonChristian mystics moved even past deism to a

relational encounter, which begins to properly nuance a pan-entheism and an indwelling of Being in being,

standing, then, on the face of being looking out.

But, there is more and, even though, anticipating the teilhardian perspective, Duns Scotus metaphysically

suggested the Incarnation was foreordained from all eternity and not occasioned by any felix culpa, who

woulda thunk it that the Logos would be uttered in Mary's womb, born in a manger, nailed to a cross and

then raised to glory? Even thought this was all foretold in the OT, still, nobody thunk it! If anyone had gone

beyond the attentional to the intentional to the relational, still, they had not conceived of the intensely

and have their kataphatic devotion even more robustly experienced through moderate apophasis.]

Merton:

quote:

Our inner self awakes when we say yes to the indwelling Divine Persons.

We only really know ourselves when we completely consent to receive the glory of God

into ourselves.

Mary went first. May we follow like her.

On the one hand, the emphasis on nondiscursive method coupled with the use of a mantra would seem to

moreso expose the average CP practitioner to experiences of natural mysticism, enlightenment and such

with their concomitant energy upheavals and psychological by-products. This is one way of judging the

practice, as you say, given its methodology.

On the other hand, given what is actually taught and emphasized about CP within the context of a life of

prayer that is otherwise kataphatic (reception of Eucharist, sacraments, lectio divina and such), one would

not expect the average CP practitioner to experience natural mysticism or enlightenment, should such

occur, in exactly the same way as one who is practicing TM or Zen, especially given where CP seems to

aim, which is an intimate and affectionate and illuminating loving, personal relationship with God.

So, what we have is CP's claim that it is not Zen or TM even as it employs a very Zen-like methodology

coupled with CP's claim not to be a technique or method but, rather, a relational communing. What we also

have is some evidence, no too few anecdotes, that many CP practitioners have experienced unruly energy

upheavals.

So, I am suggesting that, to get to the bottom of what is going on, we really need some sociological surveys

to discern what mostly goes on with CP practitioners, what seldom goes on, what often goes on and such ---

because the practice, its aims, its methodologies, it teachings and its emphases have some built-in

ambiguities [not necessarily bad] due to its innovative blending of contemplative traditions.

And we must carefully probe to discern how faithfully practitioners have practiced and how frequently and

intensely and such. Some energy upheavals and psychological perturbations could occur with any practice

or formulae engaged with great frequency and intensity. To this day, I attribute my own kundalini-like

symptoms to glossolalia, but it could have happened with the Rosary, even, prayed somewhat

nondiscursively. Of course, all prayer has a tendency to move toward simplicity in the life of an earnest

pray-er. And should have some integrally transformative efficacies. If there are inefficacies, we need to see

precisely where they lie: in the practice or the practitioner. You and others have raised important questions.

We'll one day have the answers, sooner than later, I believe. Meanwhile, people should proceed with some

caution and with spiritual direction should certain perturbations present or unruly disturbances manifest.

To some extent, it is the very nature of apophasis to invite us beyond image, beyond affect, beyond concept

... ergo, what is taking place during the apophatic experience is necessarily not going to be explicitly

Christian or anything else for that matter, except for the remnant of relational intentionality that the

Christian pray-er brings to the moment of prayer as a pray-er at the outset. This is all very dialectical and

not in the hegelian sense of synthesis but in the catholic approach of both/and/neither.

The connection to the goal of our spiritual tradition is, in my view, to reinforce the Dionysian mystical

logic of 1) God is | x | and 2) God is | not x | and 3) God is neither | x | nor | not x |, which ties into our

theologies of the univocity and analogy of being, where our statements about God are acknowledged not

only as metaphorical but as very weak analogues, where no univocal predications can be made between

God and creatures but only equivocal predications. The roles of kataphatic affirmation and apophatic

negation and eminent predication (e.g. God is beautiful but not beautiful like us or creation but Beautiful

most pre-eminently) are complementary and not over against each other. They offer perspectives and

cannot be blended or intertwined (again, no synthesis) without violating the integrity of each of these

moments or movements. It is the preservation of this integral nature of apophasis and kataphasis that

Keating attempts to maintain by distinguishing between the practice of lectio divina and CP, affirming both

movements but advising against their facile combination.

So, the bigger concern for me is not at all theological but that which I expressed re: energy upheavals and

psychological perturbations, like the examples you provided (and like your and my own!). I am wondering

how much this is happening and exactly why, although I think we have more than a clue as to why. At the

same time, my upheavals were rather orderly, still ... there has got to be a better caveat emptor.

In my opinion there isn't enough apophasis in our tradition and this leads to a bad malady all its own ...

radical fundamentalism(s). At the same time, I agree that the jury is out on whether or not CP is one of the

cures for this, among the others that already exist in the normal flowering of a prayer life, in the ordinary

journey of the soul awakening to the true self, in the conversions facilitated by the institutional church and

its sacraments and sacramentals and manifold and multiform liturgical/spiritual exercises.