I'd like to start a new discussion which I see as a continuation of what we're talking about in the Freeman's book review.

I'd like to discuss three things, if you want to:

1) the nature of "false self" as spiritual writers (Merton, Keating, Phil) understand it,

2) the relationship between the "false self" and "fallen nature" as our condition broken by the sin of Adam and Eve.

3) what is greater sin - the sin committed "under the influence" of the false self, or committed by free act of the will in complete awareness of the consequences.

I'll start with the last, because that's what's fascinated me for some time now. As I see, theologians seem to agree that people addicted to something are less morally responsible, because their actions are not free. I don't know if it's true, but from popular culture I can see that some addicts have also a certain way of speaking about their actions: "it's not me, it was the booze" etc., as if there was a good, true self, and the addicted self that is out of control. I wonder whether it's supported or confronted in 12 steps groups. Anyway, it seems that addiction indeed diminishes greatly our exercise of free will. But the same would go for other psychological disorders. Acute anxiety states, deep personality disorders - they all have serious consequences for the people around the disturbed person, but actions of the person seem not to be totally free. On the other hand, there's no point in saying - he's not guilty, it's his personality disorder that is to blame. In psychoanalysis there is a whole way of thinking about "subpersonalities" which can be activated, e.g. by trauma or other stimuli. And people act as if they were "posessed". They do a lot of harm, but how sinful those actions are?

So my question points to the fact that a mortal sin requires knowledge and freedom - the Satan's sin was is so grave, because he had the most knowledge and freedom among all created spirits, and yet he sinned. Adam and Eve too. It seems the more we are free and aware, the graver sin we can committ. Toddlers don't committ sins, even if their actions are destructive, hurting, vengeful, greedy etc., because they don't possess much knowledge and freedom (their ego is not developped enough, but they have quite powerful superego, hence strong guilt in children). Sometimes, when I think of it, it seems that a saint is the most capable of committing a mortal sin, just because he/she is so aware of God's love and purity.

On the other hand, should we think that people with little awareness, knowledge and freedom are not capable of sinning? I know people so full of anxiety, anger, and insecurity, that their choices seem to be almost forced, because they do everything to protect themselves from imagined threats. Are they free? Do they sin gravely? And psychopaths? If their personality is damaged (no superego), they don't have guilt and shame to protect them from intended bad deeds. But they understand and know what is right and wrong, they just can't care about that. Are they "sick" or sinful?

Those are just questions, I think only God knows the heart and all conditions of our actions, we shouldn't try to know is someone a sinner or not. But, on the other, hand we are doomed to make some judgements on actions we perceive, seeing them in a context. For me it presents a certain paradox - most of so called "sinners", seem to me just people pushed by various forces, enslaved and addicted to the things of this world, not free spirits choosing to reject God's love. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine someone possessing knowledge and freedom, who consciously committs something he knows is wrong. But - king David did it! Maybe enlightened, "spiritual" people are those who are more endangered? When I think of David, I cannot help thinking that even one very wrong action, like adultery, in a context of a whole life dedicated to God, cannot be considered similar to what the Satan did. Sometimes we hurt people we love consciously, but it doesn't automatically annihilate our bond and love. Intentions are crucial, of course.

I see, naturally, connections between this question and the 1) and 2), because "false self system" functions as addiction and St. Paul says "I do what I don't want to do".

quote:

Originally posted by Mt:
... we are doomed to make some judgements on actions we perceive, seeing them in a context. For me it presents a certain paradox - most of so called "sinners", seem to me just people pushed by various forces, enslaved and addicted to the things of this world, not free spirits choosing to reject God's love. ...

This is what troubled me deeply about most Christians (prior to my conversion). I just couldn't stand the labelling of human brokenness as sin, when most bad 'choices' seemed to come from lack of knowledge about the sinner's inner world and make-up. The choices for certain sins seemed determined to a great extent by forces outside their control. We note that the nervous system is damaged by abuse and then the compulsion to repeat (as victim or perpetrator or both) the pattern of internalized abuse. So, no easy answers from me. I just assume that God meets the humble who recognize their weaknesses and want to be healed.

BTW, there is a thread started "False self and original sin," which I just glanced at. It's a one-pager that looks like it gets at some of your same questions, Mt.

https://shalomplace.org/eve/for...?r=27910095#27910095

Yes, we've had several discussion threads on this topic, but we can keep going on this one.

Maybe it would be helpful to note that we can speak of sin as both a condition and an act we commit. Original sin is more of the former and personal sin the latter, with original sin weakening the mind and will and predisposing us to personal sin. As most of our experiences of sinning are done in such a context rather than as free, pre-meditated acts, it's difficult for us to imagine doing any such thing. But someone asked on another thread if we could sin in the true self, and yes, of course, we can, and do. As the old saying goes, even the greatest Saint falls at least seven times a day, though from minor sins, I'm sure. As Mt. noted, too, Adam and Eve sinned, and so did Satan. What theology does teach us is that it's impossible to sin if we see God . . . i.e., there is no sinning in heaven.
- http://www.reasonablefaith.org...=NewsArticle&id=6101 for a good reflection on this.

The question of "culpability" for sin is complicated. There is one sense in which it doesn't make any difference, however. If you kill someone while stoned on meth, the horrible act is just as irreversible as if you did it in full consciousness. A good defense lawyer could possibly get you off on a lesser charge of manslaughter rather than murder, so even our legal system deals with issues of culpability. When it comes to moral and spiritual culpability, however, we just do not know -- not even with regard to many of our own actions. That's where I hear Christ telling us not to judge -- to let God sort it out.

I agree there might be some sort of sinning in someone united with God, but also:

(1 John 3:9) Everyone who has been fathered by God does not practice sin, because God’s seed resides in him, and thus he is not able to sin, because he has been fathered by God.

Perhaps St. John meant what we call "mortal sin" here. Not to say that people who are in union with God do everything "right", but there's a certain deep loving which seems to exclude the possibility of rejecting God's love in an act of conscious sin. Of course, it is possible while we here on earth.

I like your thoughts on that, Phil, that we just don't know and can't know exactly what's going on in other people and ourselves. It requires some deep humility not to judge and at the same time not to confuse right with wrong living in this world.

(You remember this Buddhist phrase?: "There's no right and wrong, but it doesn't mean that there's no difference between right and wrong". Or something like that )

quote:

Perhaps St. John meant what we call "mortal sin" here.

The early Church really struggled with this one, didn't they? On the one hand, it seemed as though adoption and the gift of the Spirit signified a life ruled by God, and that is indeed the case. A new energy and direction does come into the soul, but old habits of mind and will also remain, not to mention relationships with people who aren't committed to God (often quite selfish). The distinction that emerged was that one can indeed still sin, but not have one's life ruled by sin. For those who have come into adoption, sin happens, but with regret and remorse, which moves one to repentance and contrition. It was for this reason that rites of reconciliation were eventually developed, becoming what we now call the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (Confession).

I'd like to write a bit about the 2) from my first post in the topic.

Some psychoanalysts used an idea of two fundamental drives - life (love) and death (agression), which operate unconsciously in every human being from the very beginning of our life. There are, perhaps, more authors who claim that so-called death-drive is not innate, but a reaction to frustration of love-drive. I think both hypotheses can be looked at from a spiritual point of view, since it seems quite obvious that something like death-drive or aggression seems to be at the center of false-self or original sin. In the infancy death-drive takes form of murderous phantasies, hatred, sadism, envy, greed etc. If there's more love/life in a child's internal world, agression is tamed and structured, although it's always a part of unconscious dynamics. The more psychologically healthy we are, the more our aggressive impulses are expressed non-sinfully. Our love-drive also needs to be tamed, dealth with etc., since it's inevitably selfish from the beginning. We can have an autonomy which means that the pressure from drive doesn't push us to personal sin that often.

I don't think that the destructive force needs to be seen as "evil" or "sinful". Ocean has a powerful destructive force, but the ocean isn't evil, it's good. Predators need a destructive force to kill and eat other animals. Perhaps there's no creation without destruction - like carving in stone or new, revolutionary ideas. Jesus had a powerful destructive energy which he used to shake people, make them alive and change their ways etc. However, in an infant destruction operates mainly in phantasies of devouring, destroying, ripping into parts etc. In time this innate destructive force is transformed into the structures of healthy personality.

In any case, there's no need to see aggression or a need to destroy in humans as being caused by the fall. The fallen nature would be, then, broken, because humans cannot grow psychologically in such a way as to successfully manage those instinctual forces and use them for good. Like in case of sexual desire which can be turned into concupiscence. One way to look at this is to say that the parents who cannot love unconditionally transmit to the child their own brokenness. But - at least from a psychodynamic point of view - we also have to take into consideration a possibility that parents do their job quite well, but there is something inside an infant, operating from birth, that makes it very difficult or impossible to manage the drive(s) successfully. Psychologists picture growth of personality as something very fragile and vulnerable, something always can go wrong. Perhaps, it is so because of the fallenness.

What I'm trying to say is that we cannot actually see, observe, put a finger on what causes the false-self system to activate and perpetuate in a child, we only see the outcomes (sinful acts). If we follow Augustine on that, there is "ignorantia" and "difficultas". First is a brokenness in our capacity to know, the second in our capacity to choose. We can imagine that Adam and Eve had much more acute knowledge of reality, themselves and God, and much more powerful freedom of will. That's why the drive(s) didn't cause them to sin as they do to us.

My point is that our actual experience of temptations and inner battle, is not an experience of our fallen nature per se, but of outcomes of the fallen nature. Fallenness manifests in our personality as "false-self system" which could be just a organization of personality normal for all humans. It includes phenomena such as need of external approval, anxiety, difficulties with sexuality etc. Psychotherapy cannot "cure the personality", it can only help us live with the personality we have in a more autonomous way, but we still experience our fallenness. Only grace, theosis, can transform a human being so completely that the false-self system vanishes (does it really...?).

Thomas Keating tried to define false-self system in terms of "lower energy centers" - a need for security, esteem and the third I don't remember. Phil - you say false-self system is based on a fear that we are not loved and that we have to earn love. But maybe everyone is a unique false-self system which is nothing but our personality structure which developped in a state of seriously diminished knowledge and freedom? Then theosis wouldn't "remove" the false-self, but increase our knowledge and love, which heals and integrates our personality, giving an impression that there was a "something" that diminished/vanished in time.

I'm curious whether you actually experience your false-self? I can say I thought I experienced "that" and I struggled a lot with "that", but now I think it wasn't false-self I was fighting with, it was just a set of emotions, desires, defenses, reactions which arised from a neurotic part of my personality, and which made it difficult for me to love God, others and myself as much as I wanted to. The actual experience was like I had something bad inside me that fought with me all the time, and I prayed so much to God to remove that thing from me. Especially, during periods of aridity and spiritual night, the sensation of this bad self in me was painfully present. After couple of years of therapy and spiritual life I can see, for example, that a need to do something un-loving arises in me, then most of the time, with God help, I decide not to do this, but I don't interpret it necessarily as my bad self trying to have his way. Sometimes I think that what I experienced was a part of me which wanted to be perfect trying to get rid of a part of me which wasn't perfect while not being able to do it. But there was a spiritual dimension to it, I'm sure.

Friends,

I'd like to get back to this interesting discussion and the other threads too. Right now, though, I've got too much
going on to contribute. Will get back when I can jump back in.

*****************************************************************************************
Mt:
“I like your thoughts on that, Phil, that we just don’t know and can’t know exactly what’s going on in other people and in ourselves. It requires some deep humility not to judge and at the same time not to confuse right with wrong living in the world.”

and
“ I agree that there might be some sort of sinning in someone united with God”
*****************************************************************************************
Relative to not being able to know what’s going on in OURSELVES: If what is stated were true, then one couldn’t really make a confession. Most certainly I CAN know that I have done wrong (1 Jn 5:17 All wrongdoing is sin). Certainly I can deal with my conscious. I may not always know the WHY [all the unconscious and subconscious motivating factors and lack of psychological freedom that influences my wrongdoing (my sin)], but nonetheless I can know WHAT my actions were. I can know that I have transgressed God’s law. And I can know that I have transgressed the commandments whether or not malice was involved or not. [Absence of malice is not a determining factor for sin to be existent].

I needn’t judge the degree of my culpability. St. Paul stated that he didn’t judge himself but left that to God (1 Cor 4: 3&4). So too, our focus must be on our acts when wrongdoing is involved and the degree of reflection and consent of our wills that was present when we made our acts (commissions or omissions). We might very well know WHY to some degree as well. (Like it was jealousy or envy or fear that made me say what I said, or steal what I stole , or lie like I did when I denied you assistance or forgiveness.) What I need to do is confess my sin, ask forgiveness, and endeavor to repent. (And of course one can only confess what one is conscious of having done). As we live our lives acting rightly, the Spirit may in turn enable the understanding of WHY we are motivated to act as we do, or He may inner heal whatever needs healing without our understanding of WHY even being required , or deliver us from some demonic bondage at play. So, this ‘we can’t know exactly what’s going on’ mindset is kind of a non-issue. We are able to know what went on. Phil has a Here, Now In Love book. In the NOW I work with the WHATS of my behavior and wait on the LORD for knowledge of the WHYS -- or for the healing -- or for the deliverance. But we can and do commit sin (commission and omission). 1 Jn 1: 8-10 says: ‘If we say we are free of the guilt of sin we deceive ourselves: the truth is not to be found in us’.

Relative to not being able to know what’s going on in OTHERS: Perhaps we need to distinguish IN others from BY others. Scripture 1 Jn 5: 16 states ‘Anyone who sees his brother sinning should petition God…’ Therefore, scripture states that we are able to see / judge sin by others. In 1 Cor 5:1-13 St. Paul censures the community for failing to judge! In verse 13 he says; ’Expel the wicked man from you midst!’ Also, there is the fraternal correction passage in the Gospel (Matt 18: 15-18). Correction involves having made a judgment of evident sin. Sometimes it requires humility TO JUDGE - - to not be concerned with the approval of others. Paul didn’t have a problem with it. Peter didn’t have a problem either -- with Ananias in Acts 5:3-5 for example.

Mt provides the scripture from 1 Jn 3: 9 -- ‘No one begotten of God acts sinfully because he remains of God‘s stock; he cannot sin because he is begotten of God ’ (plus some Buddhist thought that in truth was mud to me. God‘s Revelation gives us insight into what‘s right and wrong ).

One scripture does not a Bible make; and we know too, that the devil quoted scripture in his attempt to trip up Jesus. So, let’s consider if there are other scriptures that also bear on this issue of ‘cannot sin’ so as to assure ourselves that we have a proper understanding and are not being deceived. And we’ll draw from John and Paul and Peter to have a good sampling--though of course we can’t look at every applicable scripture.

‘My little ones, I am writing this to keep you from sin.’ (1 Jn 2:1). Addressed to believers in Christ (and not the as yet unconverted), this scripture implies that John believed that followers of Christ could indeed sin and he was concerned that such a possibility not occur among those believers he was writing to.

‘Take care, my brothers lest any of you have an evil and unfaithful spirit and fall away from the living God.’ (Heb 3:12) Addressed to believers in Christ, this scripture implies that Paul too, believed that followers of Christ could indeed sin and fall away from God.

‘So Beloved, make every effort to be found without stain or defilement.’ (2 Pet 3:14) Addressed to believers, this scripture implies that Peter also believed that followers of Christ could indeed sin.

Clearly then scriptures indicate that members of the Mystical Body, those in the Vine, can and do sin and can and sometimes do lose their inheritance (salvation). So ‘united with God’ as Mt expresses [“ I agree that there might be some sort of sinning in someone united with God” ] requires some qualification in understanding. As does the scripture he points to 1 Jn 3:9 and the concept of ‘cannot sin‘ as stated there. Meantime, here are some other scriptures that also need consideration.

2 Pet 1:10 -- ‘Be solicitous to make your call and election permanent, brothers’ (it’s not a given)
2 Pet 2:20 -- ‘.. and then are caught up and overcome in pollution once more’ (it’s possible)
2 Pet 3:17 -- ‘Be on your guard lest you be led astray .. And forfeit the security you enjoy’ (possible)
1 Jn 5:16 -- ‘Anyone who sees his brother sinning…’ (therefore it must be possible for brothers in Christ to sin AND for others to know their brothers are sinning).
Heb 10:26-27 ‘If we sin willfully after receiving the truth, there remains for us no further sacrifice for sin --only a fearful judgment and a flaming fire…’
1 Tim 4:1 -- ‘.. in later times some WILL turn away from the faith and WILL heed deceitful spirits..’ (believers - one can‘t turn away if not already there)
2 Cor 12:20 -- ‘I fear that when I come I may not find you to my liking… I fear I may find discord, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, slander and gossip, self-importance.. ‘
1 Jn 1:8 -- ‘If we say we are free from the guilt of sin we deceive ourselves.’
Ja:4:17 -- ‘When a man knows the right thing to do and does not do it, he sins.’
Ja 5:16 -- ‘..declare your sins to one another, and pray for one another..’

Etc etc.

Some Protestant denominations believe in the ‘once saved always saved’ thing. The Catholic teaching (based on many of the scriptures above mentioned and others as well) is that we must never be presumptuous and that indeed we can lose our salvation. We must persevere in running the race. It’s not a done deal. St. Peter says the just man is saved only with difficulty (1 Pet 4:18). Sin blinds and it weakens the will as well. Failure to repent of sin and backsliding can result in Deadly sin -- apostasy and final impenitence. 1 Jn 5:16 & 17: ‘…There is such a thing as a deadly sin;….True, all wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin is deadly.’ (Blasphemy of the Spirit is deadly sin and will not be forgiven).

One doesn’t fall away into apostasy or final impenitence overnight, but very well can, and might, do so over time. Who among us does not have some family member that no longer practices their faith?

I’ve heard several priests relate being chased off upon endeavoring to offer confession and Eucharist to death bed Catholics. Acts 5:1-10 re Ananias and Sapphira is quite sobering. Again, as noted above, scripture clearly says that in the later days some will turn away from the faith. There will be a mass apostasy.

Being, as Mt put it, ‘united with God’ in the context of being baptized into the Vine / Mystical Body is not identical in equivalence to what STA and SJOC term transforming union -- the goal towards which we are to strive. (strive implying not a done deal). The transforming union attained at the end of the unitive phase in Carmelite terminology is not easily arrived at in this life. John and Teresa had differing opinions interestingly, as to whether one could still sin after having achieved this level of growth.

When we consider St. Paul, who was the recipient of great mystical graces -- graces as yet not attained by most of us visiting SP (any?), having stated that He lived , now no longer I, but Christ (a statement many use to discuss transformation and/or deification) we need to focus in truth on the ‘no longer I’ conditional reality within us. Has my dysfunction, weakness of will, the flesh -- all really been fully dealt with? Has my purgation and my realization of true freedom from the encumbrance of sin that clings to us (Heb 12 :1) really been realized as yet? Can I truthfully say ‘no longer I’? When and If (by the grace of God) I get that far along in my spiritual growth I can perhaps dialog with STA and SJOC on which of the two mystical doctors is right regarding the ‘cannot sin’ of 1 Jn 3:9. Thomas Aquinas would be involved as well.

That scripture I believe, taken in context of all the others, does not mean that every one presently in the vine does not have free will (and a weakened will at that) and therefore the potential of sinning and of failing to remain in the vine, nor of the need to be wary of overconfidence nor distractions, but rather that when one’s will has been made perfect in strength, and has been fully donated to Christ (the outcome of a process of supernatural gifting accomplished via contemplation) and the fullness of their interior freedom realized, I cannot any longer sin. (This scripture is probably SJOC’s supporting rationale). The testament to the fact that we ‘cannot sin’ is that we ‘do not sin‘. It’s an evidenced reality -- not an already-realized potential reality. It’s a come-to-fruition reality. And it’s a reality that can only be demonstrated in the NOW. (As opposed to presumed into the future).

My thoughts on this all. I am a post or two behind the group, I realize.

Pop-pop

I always liked the verse in John Donne’s poem ‘A Lecture Upon a Shadow’: Love is still growing, or full constant light, and its first minute after noon -- is night.

Pop-pop,
by united with God I mean "via unitiva" and transforming union of the Carmelite mystics is a particular expression of that state.

I don't have your confidence with regard to what is sin and what is not.

For example, someone steals 1000$ from another person. It's bad, because stealing is against God's law. Philosophically, we don't know if the person internally made a created thing his last end or wanted to accomplish something good but in a disordered way. The first would be mortal sin (which is quite hard to committ, as I see it), the other venial sin, which doesn't destroy the union with God in any meaning of this term. The stealing might not be a sin at all - e.g. if the thief is blackmailed in some way to do this. But there cannot be a clear borderline between being free or forced to do something.

It's quite common among my friends to live a sexual life that from the Catholic point of view is disordered, more or less. But I never judge them or what they do as mortal sin, because I just don't know. I see that two people live together and have sex without being married, but although I know and I'm sure it's not how it should be, I don't make judgements. If e.g. some hypothetical Jack and Kate live together and have sex, are you always sure if they committ mortal or venial sin?

quote:

I needn’t judge the degree of my culpability. St. Paul stated that he didn’t judge himself but left that to God (1 Cor 4: 3&4). So too, our focus must be on our acts when wrongdoing is involved and the degree of reflection and consent of our wills that was present when we made our acts (commissions or omissions). We might very well know WHY to some degree as well. (Like it was jealousy or envy or fear that made me say what I said, or steal what I stole , or lie like I did when I denied you assistance or forgiveness.) What I need to do is confess my sin, ask forgiveness, and endeavor to repent. (And of course one can only confess what one is conscious of having done). As we live our lives acting rightly, the Spirit may in turn enable the understanding of WHY we are motivated to act as we do, or He may inner heal whatever needs healing without our understanding of WHY even being required , or deliver us from some demonic bondage at play.

I agree, pop. It's probably always best to confess actions that are recognized, on an objective level, to be sinful, especially if we know we have given some degree of consent to doing them and we are sorry for having done so.

I think it does get complicated, however, if one knowingly does something that is generally considered objectively wrong, but circumstances are such that the act is justified. C. S. Lewis and many others had some good reflections on this around the time of World War II, and an example he gave was that killing another human being is indeed forbidden, but doing so in self-defense is a circumstance that changes the moral character of the act. Even so, he noted, one ought not wish the Nazis harm and ought to prefer not having to kill them. Doing so out of anger and for reasons of vindictiveness would render the act more evil, even in circumstances of self-defense. So there we see the three classical "ingredients" (objective nature of act, circumstance, and intent) interacting in different ways that do impact the sinfulness of an act. To my thinking, it would still be a good idea for a soldier to confess all killings, even if s/he thought them justified.

It's a lot more complicated with regard to sexuality issues, I believe. Sex is sex (I'm referring to acts by consenting heterosexuals, here), and so circumstance and intent are what determine the morality of the act. It is difficult for me to imagine two unmarried people saying they were regretfully placed in a circumstance where they, against their intentions, ended up having sex. That's usually not the case. So there are lots of choices being made about pre-marital and extra-marital sex and, therefore, a high degree of culpability. I know there are situations where culpability is reduced, and the problem that Mt. mentions of people not even thinking circumstance (being unmarried) is a big deal. But this is an area where Christian moral theologians seem to be in strong agreement: that premarital and extramarital sex is sinful because it does violate the proper circumstance for sex(marriage). One might disagree with Church teaching on this -- say it's OK if you really love one another, intend to marry, etc. -- but that's about intent, not circumstance, and the biblical teaching on sex is much more about proper circumstance than proper intent or act. Ignorance of the biblical p.o.v. is another matter, of course, but, even then, there will usually be negative consequences suffered because of the sin.

Yes, the church teaches that seriousness of matter as well as reflection and consent are requisite for assessing mortal vs venial.

When I mentioned culpability I wasn't thinking along the mortal vs venial lines, but more to the consideration of interior freedom lost because of traumas faced in upbringing. (I think Shasha has concerns that such issues be included in the context of culpability- legitimate concerns). Also, I wanted to not leave Mt's non-specificity regarding what he meant by 'united with God' hanging on his post such that future readers might be confused with what was being said.

That said, I recommend reading 1 Cor 5:1-5 for consideration of how St. Paul dealt with sexual immorality and also the issue of judging. Judging is so non-PC these days.

Pop-pop

quote:

Originally posted by Mt:
... The more psychologically healthy we are, the more our aggressive impulses are expressed non-sinfully. Our love-drive also needs to be tamed, dealth with etc., since it's inevitably selfish from the beginning. We can have an autonomy which means that the pressure from drive doesn't push us to personal sin that often.

I don't think that the destructive force needs to be seen as "evil" or "sinful". Ocean has a powerful destructive force, but the ocean isn't evil, it's good. Predators need a destructive force to kill and eat other animals. Perhaps there's no creation without destruction - like carving in stone or new, revolutionary ideas. Jesus had a powerful destructive energy which he used to shake people, make them alive and change their ways etc. However, in an infant destruction operates mainly in phantasies of devouring, destroying, ripping into parts etc. In time this innate destructive force is transformed into the structures of healthy personality.

In any case, there's no need to see aggression or a need to destroy in humans as being caused by the fall. The fallen nature would be, then, broken, because humans cannot grow psychologically in such a way as to successfully manage those instinctual forces and use them for good. Like in case of sexual desire which can be turned into concupiscence. One way to look at this is to say that the parents who cannot love unconditionally transmit to the child their own brokenness. But - at least from a psychodynamic point of view - we also have to take into consideration a possibility that parents do their job quite well, but there is something inside an infant, operating from birth, that makes it very difficult or impossible to manage the drive(s) successfully. Psychologists picture growth of personality as something very fragile and vulnerable, something always can go wrong. Perhaps, it is so because of the fallenness.

What I'm trying to say is that we cannot actually see, observe, put a finger on what causes the false-self system to activate and perpetuate in a child, we only see the outcomes (sinful acts). ...I'm curious whether you actually experience your false-self? I can say I thought I experienced "that" and I struggled a lot with "that", but now I think it wasn't false-self I was fighting with, it was just a set of emotions, desires, defenses, reactions which arised from a neurotic part of my personality, and which made it difficult for me to love God, others and myself as much as I wanted to. The actual experience was like I had something bad inside me that fought with me all the time, and I prayed so much to God to remove that thing from me. Especially, during periods of aridity and spiritual night, the sensation of this bad self in me was painfully present. After couple of years of therapy and spiritual life I can see, for example, that a need to do something un-loving arises in me, then most of the time, with God help, I decide not to do this, but I don't interpret it necessarily as my bad self trying to have his way. Sometimes I think that what I experienced was a part of me which wanted to be perfect trying to get rid of a part of me which wasn't perfect while not being able to do it. But there was a spiritual dimension to it, I'm sure.

Very interesting reflections here, Mt. I guess I'd see the propensity to sin and the false self as both stemming from our fallen nature. The false self is not our ONLY problem, is it? The very biology of our minds/spirits is broken. Unlike you, I think Adam and Eve had a perfect biology with NO aggressive impulses whatsoever, but we're left to contend with broken sexual and aggressive impulses built into our nervous systems. And I don't think unconditional love is enough to heal us of all of our brokenness--at least not unconditional love from people. Still unconditional love does go a very long, long way toward healing the false self, to be sure! Still, we are left with some lesser or greater unsavory impulses that produce tension and conflict to some extent.

Re: your last paragraphs, I don't know if it's possible to ever be rid of all neurotic stuff (while we're in exile). I agree with you that false self is an oversimplification to understand all of what feels "bad" in us. My problem is not that I fight against the badness as much as I may too readily accept it in me (when I see it). Different neurosis, same Fallen nature.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Shasha,

Speaking of false self, here and elsewhere at SP, I thought I'd share with you a FS scale I adopted from Phil's teachings on this subject.

Take a look at where you might have FS 'symptoms.' Of course, the limitation to a questionnaire like this is that it only measures what you're consciously aware of, but it can still be somewhat useful to alert you to some problem areas. My favorite questions below are the couple that relate to God directly, and I think are the most telling of spiritual growth. Can anybody think of other questions that may indicate false self problems that are not covered in the questions below?

Whoops, the scale didn't retain the formatting when I copied it, but you get the picture of how to use it, I'm sure. The 1-5 scale is supposed to be spread out across Not true to Very true with 3 being neutral/don't know.
---------------------------------------------------------

I am more in touch with what I want for my life than what God wants for my life.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

I frequently feel numb, empty, or cranky inside myself.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

I am afraid to discover what's really going on deep inside of myself, and so I try to avoid this by living on a more superficial level.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

When I become uncomfortable inside myself, I find some way to escape from this discomfort by using television, food, work, a relationship, alcohol, drugs, shopping, gambling, reading material, religious activities, or chatter.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

I am often critical of myself.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

I am often critical of others.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

My mind is often filled with anxious preoccupations about the future, and if I will be able to get or have what I think I need.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

It is difficult for me to just "be". I generally feel that I must be "doing something" to justify my life to myself.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5


I am trying to find happiness by getting something I don't have,, or getting rid of something I do have but don't want.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

In relationships with others, I generally feel like I have to play a role ', or wear a mask. If I would not do this, the other would probably reject me.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

Frequently, I do not even know what my true thoughts and feelings are.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

My self-concept or idea of myself is skewed, so that I see myself as inferior to others, or I see myself as superior to others.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

I am constantly comparing myself to others to determine if I am "ahead" of them or "behind" them in some area of life.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

When people insult or ridicule something or someone I am identified with, I feel personally insulted and I become angry.
- - E. g. When my country is put down, I become defensive.

Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

The roles I play give me a sense of identity. What I do is who I am. If I could not do, I would not know who I am.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

When someone criticizes the way I do something, I feel personally put down. I have a hard time separating what I do from my identity .
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

It seems that all my thoughts, feelings, memories, and desires are related to my self-image--to changing it, or maintaining it.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

If I could better control the people and external circumstances in my life, I would be happier.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

I tend to view close friends and family members as "mine." I tend to treat them that way, too.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

I tend to view God as judgmental. I believe I have to do the right things--usually religious kinds of behaviors--to win God's approval. I seldom feel that I am in harmony with God.

Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

It is hard for me to see how God is involved in the everyday affairs of my life. Generally, it seems that God has nothing to do with me and my life. God has better things to do.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

In my prayer, I spend more time asking God to do what I want, than praying for the grace to do what God wants.
Not true at all neutral/don’t know Very True
1 2 3 4 5

I like your questionnaire, Shasha .

But, if you look at it with your therapist's eyes, you'll surely see how this fits into some mild narcissist personality disorder or narcissist defenses in neurotic personality.

It's hard to separate psychological from spiritual here... I'm thinking that a good sign of false self would be also: "I see happiness as fulfillment of my needs and desires" or "In my opinion a good sign of spiritual growth is whether I feel good about myself" - or something like that.

I agree, however, that all your questions refer to false self symptoms also in a spiritual sense.
Because usually some kind of personality problems are mixed with spiritual problems, it's hard to tell the difference. Now I have an idea that maybe only when you achieve psychological health and self-fulfillment, you can more clearly see your false self operating in a spiritual way. If you feel bad about yourself, it can give you motivation to change the situation. But when you feel good about yourself, spending your life fulfilling your need without reference to values or good/truth, that's a real problem, very subtle, and such that no therapy can even touch, but only grace and faith can address. Don't you think?

Mt,

Yes, yes, and yes to all the above comments. Good thinking!

I really like your two additional questions, but I'd clarify perhaps as follows:

"I see happiness as fulfillment of *my* needs and desires without much regard for what God's plan is in my life." Although, from a social desirability pov, that might be too 'in your face'...

In general, for assessing spiritual FS, I'd want to see more questions that directly ask about God in one's life.

Mt. and Shasha, the way I understand/teach about false self is that, spiritually, it is essentially a commitment to self-sufficiency by "having, getting, and doing," i.e., by self-effort. It's premised on a deep-down conviction that, in and of myself (at the level of being), I am fundamentally unloveable and unacceptable -- this conviction deriving from how we are treated by parents, siblings, etc. I understand all this as consequences of Original Sin, which would be a way of placing it in a theological context.

Obviously, there are psychological consequences and symptoms associated with false self, none the least of which is a commitment to perpetuating a particular persona or mask to try to influence others' behavior and regard toward us. So it is, in a sense, fundamentally narcissistic, as Mt. noted, though not necessarily to the extreme of a narcissistic personality disorder. The inventory Shasha published above is one I developed years ago and was an attempt to include both psychological and spiritual symptoms. Maybe it could use a little revising here and there, but it has served well to help people who don't have much of a sense of sin in their lives to get in touch with attitudes and behaviors that keep them distant from God.

I am copying and printing the list! Thanks for having posted it here, Shasha.

Kristi

Kristi, it's a lot more accessible at the link below:
- http://shalomplace.com/res/flslf.html

See also http://shalomplace.com/res/index2.html for related material.

Now I understand better the purpose and I think the inventory mirrors both psychological and spiritual problems. But I'd add, just like Shasha, more questions about relationship to God, if the inventory were for the people already following a spiritual path. But it's quite different for people at the beginning of the purifying way - the awareness of sin is paramount.

But, Shasha, what about non-theistic spiritualities? "God's plan" isn't understandable for Buddhists, Taoists, and at least some Hindus. That's a real problem - such an inventory should be different for people of theistic (theotic) and non-theistic orientation.
Intuitively I'd rather use "love for neighbors" as a marker of true spirituality than acceptance of some sort of "will of the universe", NewAgey kind of thing. After all, in mahayana Buddhism the goal is to become a servant of all beings, I don't know how we could phrase it in Taoism or Hinduism, but that's not our concern here, since we're a Christian community . Perhaps, also, "universal Law" or something like that could be referred to, in order to avoid self-centered spirituality and provide some "objective" dimension. It's hardly notice in contemporary spirituality, where "my spiritual experience" is THE marker for true, good and happy.

Thank you, Phil. I am going to print the material for reflection - away from the computer. These will be very helpful for me.

Kristi

That's great, Kristi. It's also in that little Handbook for Spiritual Directees that I put together last fall.

- - -

Mt. and Shasha, check out points 1 and 20-22, which pertain to our relationship with God. As Mt. noted, those would apply more to someone with theistic faith while the rest would be relevant to non-theists. For example, the Buddhist concept of self-seeking desire resonates strongly with a number of points on this checklist; what they're working with, too, is overcoming the consequences of false self conditioning, and their approach to doing so (non-attachment, awareness, moderation) can be quite helpful to Christians. But even Buddhism is more of a philosophical psychology rather than an empirical science such as we have in the West, and I think they could greatly benefit from this psychological understanding of the false self and how it influences desire.

Kristi,

If you want the formatted questionnaire version, with the 1-5 rating scale, I can send it your way.

Mt,

Yes, there's at least a few different ways to assess the FS. We can make up a version for more mature Christians if you like, specifically addressing certain markers of growth based on the teachings of the contemplatives. I know Pop-pop and many others have some insights into this too.

Developing such a questionnaire could be fruitful for Christians. In Dubay's "Fire Within," he shares that we should be bolder and more direct in assessing WHERE a Christian is on their journey to greater union with God, rather than shy away from such inquiry out of being polite or something like that.

quote:

That's great, Kristi. It's also in that little Handbook for Spiritual Directees that I put together last fall.

Yes, I see that now Phil. And I admit that while I did read over them, I did not take the time to seriously consider them - write out how I experience these in my every day life. A few of the other resources from the link are also contained in the handbook, too.

Shasha, yes, I'd like for you to send it.

Kristi

That's a good set of questions.

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
Whoops, the scale didn't retain the formatting when I copied it

I found a site that will allow you to build an online version, add up the points for you, and provide feedback that depends on the total score:

http://www.quizmoz.com/Create-Personality-test.asp