Law, Psychiatry, Postmodernism, and Critical Thomism By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J.


Introduction This Book is a collection of Essays or Tract Books dealing with Law, Psychiatry, Postmodernism, and Critical Thomism.


Table of Contents Chapter 1. 2. 3. 4. Aquinas, Lonergan, and the Fourfold Path Aristotle, Evolution, and Rupert Sheldrake’s Morphogenetic Fields Being Classical Liberalism


5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Deconstructing Deconstruction: Deconstructing Derrida Deconstructing Psychiatry Deconstructing the White Male Experience, Knowledge, and Wisdom in Aristotle’s Metaphysics Faculty Psychiatry Freewill and Determinism Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Karma and the Dao Intellect and Analytic Understanding Intuition, Reason, and Derrida’s Postmodernism Law Levels and Jesus Christ Music, Intuition, and Psychiatry Objectivity Phenomenology and Psychiatry Psychiatry, Due Process, The First Amendment, and Section 1983 in Tort

19. 20.

Body, Mind, Spirit, Mysticism and Psychology Reason, Derrida, and Postmodern Deconstruction Social Responsibility of Business, Business Ethics, and The Ethical Matrix


22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

Telepathy and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution The Illiteration Doctrine and Classical Philosophy The Politics and Magic of the Number Zero Transpersonal Psychiatry Emergent Probability The Bible, Magic, and The Law Self-Defense and Non-Violence Reciprocity Revisited Levels of Consciousness Authority and Obedience Eminent Domain, Natural Law, Psychiatry, and the Constitution God, Mysticism, Psychiatry and the First Amendment Modified Socratic Method and Law Teaching Intuition Christianity, Karma, and Christ


Chapter 1

Aquinas, Lonergan, and the Fourfold Path By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In Bernard Lonergan’s work there is the Four Fold Path of Experience, Understanding, Reflection/Judgment, and Love. In Aristotle there is the Three Fold Path of Experience, Knowledge, and Wisdom. I would ague that there is a similar path found in the work of Thomas Aquinas, as quoted by Theologian, Matthew Fox: Now, order is related to reason in a four fold way. There is one order that reason does not establish, but only beholds, such is the order of things in nature. There is a second order that reason establishes in its own act of consideration, for example, when it arranges its concepts among themselves, and meaning of the concepts. There is a third order that reason establishes in the operations of the will. There is a fourth order of reason in planning establishes in the external things that it causes, such as a chest and a house. (Fox, Matthew, Sheer Joy 6 (1992) (illiterations omitted).


Now, it is apparent that Aquinas parallels Lonergan and Aristotle in discussing a three fold or four fold path. Aquinas, like Evelyn Underhill, uses Will as the cognative operation associated with level three, rather than Wisdom. Wisdom parallels the idea of Intellect in my work, and that of Reflection and Judgment in the work of Bernard Lonergan. Wisdom is level three for Aristotle. Obviously, level two is similar with the Conceptual level in Aquinas, Understanding in Lonergan, and Knowledge in Aristotle. Similarly, the operation of Beholding is analogous to the level of Experience in Lonergan and Aristotle. Like Ken Wilber, I would argue that there is a perennial philosophy of sorts. Also, this perennial philosophy parallels the levels stated here. This of course also parallels the idea of modern science which starts with level one data of experience of experiment, level two, idea or theory generation and classification, and level three, confirmation or refutation of the theory as valid or invalid. Finally, I would argue that level four is a Love-Being level which can move a person either to further abstraction or to action.


Bibliography Aquinas, Thomas Aristotle, Fox, Matthew Lonergan, Bernard Lonergan, Bernard Ethics Metaphysics Sheer Joy Cognitional Structure in Collection Insight


Chapter 2

Aristotle, Evolution, and Rupert Sheldrake’s Morphogenetic Fields By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar In his scientific work, Rupert Sheldrake discusses a concept which scientists call “morphogenetic fields.” Morphogenetic Fields are “invisible fields of influence” which help to structure biological growth. A morphogenetic field can also be called a “morphogenetic form.” A morphogenetic form seems to be very similar to the Aristotelian material forms and substantial forms which I have previously discussed in my work. Sheldrake has two explanations for morphogenetic forms, the first involving Plato. Arguably, the morphogenetic forms are the Immutable Platonic forms found in the “mathematical world of perfection” also known as the World of the Forms. These forms exist outside. of time. I would argue, however, that these forms can be “added to, but not subtracted from, rearranged but not changed.” In this sense the forms can be added to outside of time.


The idea that the forms could be added to is consistent with Sheldrake’s other hypothesis involving formative causation. Under the formative causation theory, nature itself can produce forms utilizing evolutionary creativity. I would argue that both theories operate simultaneously, and that both are true. I would argue that a more ethereal subststantial form developes from the original “material form” or morphogenetic form in some instances. At the same time, many substantial forms manifest as material forms or morphogenetic forms. Thus evolution involves a top down-bottom up dialectic of the forms. Lastly, I would argue that the Immutable Platonic Forms and the Aristotelian Forms are not the same. The Immutable Platonic Forms exist in the World of Perfection, the World of the Forms, outside of time. I would argue that the Aristotelian forms exist inside of time and inhere in reality here and now.

Bibliography Fejfar, Anthony Jurisprudence for a New Age Sheldrake, Rupert, The Greening of the Rebirth of Nature Science and God


Chapter 3

Being By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar What is Being? Jesuit Philosopher, Bernard Lonergan defined

Being, as an “unrestricted act of understanding.” When we wish to understand, more than anything else, we intend Being. Is Being, then, simply an idea or concept? I would answer no. Being is a metaphysical quiddity. A quiddity is an “operative” concept which has existence independent of a mundane knower. Being also seems to have a spiritual quality. It seems to have Energy. A Mystic can feel Being. Being, in some, sense, also involves Love. Being is a positive concept. Is Being God? Some would say so. However, if the God of Being Exists, that God is not human. That God is much more objective. Others would say that Being is not God, but rather Godhead. Being represents the internal relationship or relationships of God.


Being, along with Substance, is a concept which is associated with the Real. Being, then, is an ultimate reality principle. Some might object that Being is an “infantile projection.” If Being is a projection it is not infantile, it is adolescent. Adolescents intend ideas or ideals, not parental figures. The argument that Being really Exists, is that phenomenologically we have and can reflect and see that many of us have a drive to understand (Lonergan). If we have a drive to understand, the argument, inductively, is that there must be an end to that drive. That End is Being, or an unrestricted pure act of understanding.

Bibliography Lonergan, Bernard Insight.


Chapter 4

Classical Liberalism By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I would like to argue that Classical Liberalism exists and that it is grounded in Classical Metaphysics. Left Liberalism, on the other hand is grounded in relativist theory. Classical Liberalism argues that for every Individual Right there exists a Substantial Form, and an Immutable Platonic Form. The two types of Form are close to being the same, but are not exactly the same. The Immutable Platonic Forms exist outside of time, while the Substantial Forms exist in reality within time. Thus Classical Liberalism argues that there will always be two sides to every legal argument, potentially. Because there are potentially two sides to every argument, it makes sense that we have an adversarial system of justice. It also makes sense that we have electoral democracy. It is just and right to use either the Immutable Platonic Forms or the Sustantial Forms. Thus, Classical


Liberalism argues for an epistemology of moderate relativism. Moderate relativism argues that while reality is too some degree relative, there are also some aspects of reality which are not relative, but are absolutes. I would argue that in a linear universe, for example, two plus two will always equal four. I would also argue that logical reasoning involves an absolute. Given linearity A is not B and B is not A. If a defendant is found to be at the grocery store at 2:00 p.m., he cannot at the same time be at the bank. Logic operates independently of any knower and is ultimately grounded in Metaphysics. Classical Liberalism also argues for First Amendment Freedoms: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Association, and finally, Freedom of Religion. Most importantly, Classical Liberalism argues for Freedom of Thought. I should be able to be Free to think any ideas that I want to without interference from the State or any other institution.


Chapter 5

Deconstructing Deconstruction: Deconstructing Derrida By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I have heard that Derrida has deconstructed Derrida, but I haven’t found the book, so I thought I would give it a try. Derrida believes in deconstruction. His followers have tried to deconstruct “law” for example, arguing that it is simply “white male, misogynist, racist, and homophobic crap.” I would like to argue that Derrida’s deconstruction itself is “white male, misogynist, racist, and homophobic.” Derrida is a white male who consistently takes a fascist pig analytic approach to reality which rejects body, spirit, relationality, freedom, autonomy, and other wonderful values. Who could possibly be bigoted enough to think that reality is simply a matter of analytic ideas. This is totally opposed to the ancient, medieval. indigenous world views. Derrida’s deconstruction is also racist and misogynist. In Derrida’s


postmodern deconstructionist view Intuition and Compassion don’t really exist. Finally, Derrida’s work is anti-gay. Gay men are supposed to be artistic, intellectual, cultural, and relational- all positive attributes. But Derrida’s deconstruction would tell us that there is no art, there is no intellect, only crap. Perhaps Gay men aren’t even homosexual. Perhaps these are different categories. Finally, it should be pointed out that some might disagree with my interpretations of “white male, misogynist, racist and homophobic.” Perhaps one should deconstruct the categories of “white male” “misogynist” “racist” and “homophobic.” Perhaps these categories too, are culturally relative crap, or perhaps even non-existant. Deconstruction is only negative, and by it’s very terms cannot support any positive statements.


Chapter 6

Deconstructing Psychiatry By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Many law professors have tried to decontruct “Law,” as an institution and a profession, but I thought it would be more interesting to deconstruct psychiatry as an institution and a profession. After all, fair is fair. Psychiatry is an interesting profession because of two concurrent trends. First, many people now treat psychiatry as essentially replacing religion and the priesthood. If you have a personal problem, no longer do you go to see your parish priest or minister, instead you go to your psychiatrist, particularly if you are a devout atheist. This makes psychiatry a very important, powerful institution. Additionally, psychiatrists have the power to use the coercive power of the state to involuntarily commit persons to a psychiatric ward for a long period of time. The psychiatrist often functions as judge, jury, and prosecutor.


Now, let us start with an interesting psychiatric symptom, the delusion. It is commonly thought that delusional people are dangerous, so it is possible that if one was diagnosed as having a significant delusion, and therefore schizophrenic, then one might end up on a psychiatric ward for a long time. So, let us continue by defining, for the sake of argument, reincarnation, as a philosophical, spiritual, and religious, belief which is controversial. In the West, the Council of Nicea, acting without the Pope, found reincarnation to be a heretical belief. In the East, a belief in reincarnation is commonplace among those of the Hindu faith. Edgar Cayce, as a Protestant seer in the early 1930’s spoke and wrote extensively about reincarnation. His books are widely available. Additionally, psychologist Michael Newton, in California, has written extensively about reincarnation, based upon information gathered from his patients when they were in hypnotic trance states. Finally, it would seem that from an objective point of view,

there is nothing more irrational about a belief in reincarnation than there is in a belief in life after death in Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory. Let us hypothetically imagine that I am 22 years old, male, and Catholic. I have read Edgar Cayce and Michael Newton, and I have told my parents and relatives that I believe in reincarnation. My psychiatrist knows


that I am Catholic and that reincarnation is a heretical belief for Catholics based upon Nicea. In part because I am Catholic, my psychiatrist diagnoses me as delusional for believing in reincarnation, and and thus that I am schizophrenic, and involuntarily commits me to in patient psychiatric care on a psychiatric ward. Once I am on the ward and figure out that I have been “run in” for a religious belief, I protest to the psychiatric judge that I have freedom of religion. The judge sees that I am Catholic and keeps me on the ward. Sally, the patient, next to me is Hindu. She was also “run in” by a psychiatrist for believing in reincarnation. Sally is allowed to go home by the psychiatric judge because a belief in reincarnation is not heretical for Hindus. After a month on the ward, I convert to Protestantism, say I am

not bound by the Council Nicea, and am allowed to go home. What is true of reincarnation is also true of hearing Angels speak, seeing religious visions of Angels or Demons, talking to my Guardian Angel. As long as these beliefs are considered religiously normative by the psychiatrist or judge then I get to come home. Otherwise I stay on the ward as a political prisoner for my religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs. Deconstructing psychiatry, shows, then, that psychiatry is the Inquisition in this country. Psychiatry is not science. Psychiatry even


seems to reject the science of Quantum Physics and its implications. There are no objective standards for psychiatry, only religious and political standards, and, the imposition of these standards upon a person violates the First Amendment rights of free speech, freedom of association, freedom to think ideas, and freedom of religion. Psychiatry must be reformed.


Chapter 7

Deconstructing the White Male By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In the postmodern world, white men are supposedly evil. After feminism has done away with the Biblical account of Eve’s temptation and Fall in the Garden of Eden, dualistic thinking required a new evil, the White Male. Somehow there is a grand white male conspiracy designed to oppress women and minorities. I would argue that the idea of the evil White Male is a false myth. Using postmodern deconstruction, I would argue that the White Male does not really even exist. First of all let’s start with skin color. Many ethnic groups with dark complexions are classified as white. There are Greeks, Italians, Sicilians, even Bavarian Germans who have darker complexions than many “black” people. These ethnic groups don’t really even look “white” like some Irish, English, or German’s or Scandanavians. My point is that from a point of view of “color” I am not sure that the “white” race even exists.


Next, let us deconstruct the issue of male versus female. Now, if all that is really important is what sexual equipment you happen to have, I suppose that men have some equipment, as a general rule that women do not, and vice versa. But, what may be even more important is psychology or spirituality. Here the issue is much different. Developmental psychologists have found that there are two different types of people who engage in moral reasoning, relational feeling types, and analytic autonomy types. Two thirds of women are relational feeling, while, one third of women are analytic autonomy types. Three quarters of men are analytic autonomy types while one quarter of men are relational feeling types. As far as I know these categories have nothing to do with sexual preference, by the way, that is, whether certain persons are gay or lesbian. My point is this, where moral reasoning comes into play, relational feeling white males are in the minority of twenty five percent of white men overall. Arguably, relational feeling white males are the most disadvantaged minority group in this country. As far as I know there is no correlation between skin color of a male and his type of moral reasoning. The next thing to be noted in deconstructing the white male, is religion. It can be persuasively argued that the religion of a male has much


more to do with his values and politics than does his skin color. When I get to know someone, I almost always find that person’s religious outlook to be more important to me in figuring out where that person is “coming from” than skin color. Whether someone is a practicing Jew, Moslem, Catholic, Christian Protestant, usually tells me more about the persons than that person’s skin color. Finally, annual income tells me a lot about a person. Poor people tend to have more simple lifestyles, often not even owning a car. Rich people tend to do the same things as other rich people, and congregate at the same places. Middle class people tend to do the same things to, e.g., to be baseball or football fans. So, in conclusion, I believe that the myth of the “white male” has been overstated. It may mean something in the abstract to be a white male, but I am not sure what. White males can, and are, discriminated against in employment just as much as are other minorities.


Chapter 8

Experience, Knowledge, and Wisdom in Aristotle’s Metaphysics By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In The Metaphysics, Aristotle discusses three different levels of knowledge. The first level is the level of experience. On the level of

experience the knower obtains immediate sense knowledge but little else. There is sense awareness at this level but not much more. This parallels Bernard Lonergan’s notion that the first level of the cognitional structure is experience of sense data alone. The second level for Aristotle is the level of knowledge. On the level of knowledge one can describe one’s sense experience using language. So, on level one I can “see” a tree visually, but on level two I can tell a friend, “I see a tree,” using communicative language and knowledge. The amount of theoretical knowledge for a level two thinker, however, is usually fairly rudimentary. While I may be able to categorize different types of


trees at level two, deeper questions and answers about trees is usually not present. Level two thinking in the epistemology of Bernard Lonergan is called the level of “understanding.” It is on level two, according to

Lonergan that we ask the rudimentary questions of Who? What? How? Level three thinking for Aristotle is the level of Wisdom. Level three thinking is intellectual-intuitive-artistic. Level three thinkers ask deeper more reflective questions. Why? is a level three question. Why questions involve ends and causes. Why does the tree exist? Perhaps the tree existed in potency or in the imagination and someone then created it, whether Nature, or God, or a super-human being. Level three thinking also involves purpose. Level three thinkers ask what the purpose of a law is, while level two thinkers typically only categorize law, and level one thinkers, typically only unreflectively apply law. A level three thinker knows that the only way to validly interpret a law is to know it’s underlying purpose. In Bernard Lonergan’s epistemology this third level of knowledge is call the level of judgment and reflection. Whether it is law or other areas of human activity, if one wishes to hire a rote simpleton who can barely apply law, hire a level one thinker. If one wishes to hire a journeyman thinker who can do some reflection and categorization, hire a level two thinker. I one wishes to hire a Master


thinker, who reflectively understanding law and it’s application, then hire a level three thinker.


Aristotle, The Metaphysics Lonergan, Bernard, Cogntional Structure in Second Collection Lonergan, Bernard, Insight


Chapter 9

Faculty Psychiatry By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Many think that Freud was the founder of psychiatry, but I don’t think so. I think that Aristotle was the first psychiatrist, that is, a faculty psychiatrist. Aristotle spoke of the levels of body-emotions, soul-mind, and Spirit-intellect. Thomas Aquinas was also a faculty psychiatrist. Aquinas spoke of the imagination, the intellect and other cognative faculties which compose the human mind. It is sad to note that some devoutly atheistic materialist psychiatrists are so ignorant that they think that you can have a hallucination in your imagination. For them, hallucination is found everywhere. In the old days of psychiatry it was generally understood that a hallucination could only take place “outside the body.” In other words you had to see or hear something outside the body as if you were using your ordinary sense of hearing or sight.


Many psychiatrists today take the absurd position that you can have an internal hallucination. If something takes place in the mind, and you know it is in the mind, how can can this be a sensory hallucination? It obviously isn’t. It may be something, but it sure isn’t a hallucination. Because atheistic materialist psychiatry denies the existence of the soul and the Spirit, the intellect and the imagination, many persons are misdiagnosed as hallucinating and as having schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.


Chapter 10

Freewill and Determinism By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Determinism is the idea that everything is predetermined or preordained to be a set, certain way. The idea is that we are but actors on a

stage, as Shakespeare would have it, playing our parts out in a deterministic way. Two theories of morality flow from determinism, the first is non-liability and the second is strict liability. Where determinism is present, the idea is that we have no moral responsibility whatsoever for our actions. Deterministic forces of science, or reality, force us to play the roles that we do, without exception, so that it is argued that we, the programmed, are not responsible, and should not be punished in prison or otherwise, if we do something “wrong.” The second theory of morality involving determinism, is, that if one is predetermined or predestined to be evil or a wrongdoer, then too, one is required to submit to the punishment of the damned. Reality, science, or


perhaps God, might be the deterministic programmer, but such “higher” forces are not to be blamed, instead the programmed person who is determined must pay the price of wrongdoing. I would argue that determinism is a false philosophical position, I have four arguments against determinism, 1). freewill based on creativity, 2). effective freedom, 3). statistical indeterminancy, and 4). Quantum Indeterminancy. The moral theory underlying the idea of freewill, is that if freewill exists, that is, if we have genuine choices which we make which are undetermined or at least underdetermined, then we can be held responsible for those choices, morally and legally. As a result, most crimes require that scienter, or specific intent to commit the crime must be present, among other elements of the crime, in order for guilt to be found. As stated above, it is argued that if outside forces have provided the intent for the crime, then, the individual actor who was “determined” or “predetermined” to commit the crime, cannot be held responsible or guilty. Freewill exists, more than anything else, because creativity exists. Creativity exists ex nihilo in the mind of the person. Because of creativity I can imagine and then implements different courses of action. I have creativity in my mind whether I grow up impoverished in a slum or in a


middle class or wealthy household. It may be more difficult for me to make a good choice given the readily apparent options, but it is not impossible. This brings us to the topic of effective freedom. Jesuit philosopher Bernard Lonergan argues that effective freedom exists for human persons. While we do not experience, and perhaps do not have, absolute freedom to do anything we want to, we do have some freedom. For example, let us consider economic determinism. Let us say

that I have ten dollars in my wallet, and I live in a urban suburb with a main street with several restaurants. For six dollars I can have eggs and sausage at Joe’s diner, and for seven dollars I can have an omelet at the Rusty Tack. Additionally, at the local grocery store I could buy a box of pop tarts for three dollars. Now, while it is certainly true that I do not have 50 dollars to spend on breakfast at the Ritz Carlton, downtown, I do have several choices. Because I have several choices, I have effective freedom. Because I cannot choose the Ritz Carlton, I to not have absolute freedom. Effective freedom also supports the idea of statistical indeterminacy. If the very nature of reality itself is probabilistic, then it can be argued that there can never be one single determined choice for me. I may be determined probabilistically, but not absolutely. Once again, creativity comes into play. Either because of creativity, as such, or pure statistical


randomness, it is possible that what appeared to be foreordained for me, is not. Statistical deviations from a hypothesized norm are possible. Finally, Quantum Indeterminacy exists. As Heisenberg points out, the observer of a Quantum event, affects that event to some degree, merely by his or her observation. Thus, the meaning framework that I bring to any situation, arguably will allow me to change that situation, at least at a subatomic, quantum, level. Thus, Quantum Indeterminacy precludes the idea that determinacy exists.


Heisenberg, Werner, Lonergan, Bernard,

Physics and Philosophy Insight


Chapter 11

Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Karma and the Dao By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar Some people think that because they believe in Karma, they can dispense with the ideas of Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory. In fact, the opposite is true. As Jesus says, “As you sew, so you shall reap.” Additionally, the Dao is a principle or quiddity which provides that if one pursues one extreme, then sooner or later the opposite extreme will manifest. Now, those of us who have led exemplary lives, often have the opinion that they will be going to Heaven. While this may be true for a time, in my judgment it is not true forever. If I am especially good, sooner or later I will called upon to confront evil, either within myself, or outside myself. If I am especially evil, sooner or later I will be confronted with the good, either within myself or outside myself. Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory are natural states of being, as well as actually existing places or planes. In Heaven, one imagines that in a context


of mutual love, all act to help one another, and to worship God. But the drag of the Dao and Karma is still there. If I am in Heaven, can I really be happy if there are those who are suffering on Earth? If I am a genuinely

loving person, perhaps I should help the suffering or those in need outside of Heaven. Then, there is Purgatory. In Purgatory we are expected to live Spiritual existences and atone for our Sins or Bad Karma. We either stay in a state of grace in Purgatory or can be called, in time, to Heaven. Purgatory is not supposed to be a place of suffering, rather, it is supposed to be like a long Spiritual Retreat. For those who enjoy a spiritual sojourn in Purgatory, the stay is rather pleasant. For those who hate spirituality and retreats, I suppose that Purgatory is close to being in Hell. Finally, there is Hell. Hell is a place and state of being where God is largely absent. In Hell, instrumental rationality reigns, and love is difficult, even romantic love. The Base Emotions reign. Hate, jealousy, envy, greed, avarice, lust, ambition, and arrogance are the chief vices. Lust, for example, is sexuality without love. In Hell, then, a hierarchy forms which is a dictatorship of sorts, and the strongest demon or Satan rules. In Hell, everyone is expected to be at their worst. Surprisingly, some awfully nice people end up in Hell, although you wouldn’t expect this. These


people are heretics or false teachers or false prophets. Misguided, but benevolent heretics are often released from Hell because they just don’t fit in very well. As I have argued before, everyone in Hell, upon a appropriate prayer, can request an Angelic Lawyer and ask for a due process hearing as to why that person is in Hell, and for a release from Hell. The difficulty of course is the prayer. I would argue that God the Father and Jesus the Son of God, are largely absent from Hell, although the Holy Spirit, especially as Spirit, is not. Since some grace is possible in Hell, it is possible for a person in Hell to pray for help. This is why the only really unforgivable sin is the sin against the Holy Spirit. If one rejects the Holy Spirit then there is no way that God can intervene on your behalf in Hell. The wise person prays, and even says an oath, stating that it is impossible for that person to commit the sin against the Holy Spirit. Hell is a mutual punishment society. All of those in Hell torture each other whenever possible. How do Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory, then, involve Karma. Well, as a result of the Dao one must face good and evil both and come to an appropriate solution to the problem. Some try relativism, but extreme relativism is an unsatisfying solution. It is not pleasant to be persecuted for a belief in extreme relativism. As Karma has it, for every cause there is an


effect. If one believes in reincarnation and actually reincarnates then it is quite possible that one’s Karma in life will be a life of Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory, on Earth. Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory, then, become “states of being” on Earth. A person in Hell, on Earth, for example might be forced to take a life with Leprosy. Remember, however, that some good, mature, souls take on learning lives with extreme handicaps in order to better themselves. A good mature soul, might in fact take on a life with manic depression or schizophrenia, for example. One cannot assume, therefore, that a given person with schizophrenia is either a “good” or “bad” person. Ironically, it may be true that the spiritually mature person chooses a spiritually pleasant existence in Purgatory, rather than risking self righteousness in Heaven and ultimately Hell.

Bibliography Newton, Michael Journey of Souls


Chapter 12

Intellect and Analytic Understanding By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar It is possible to confused Intellect with Analytic Understanding, but the two faculties are not the same. Analytic Understanding is a level two function which operates purely in the abstract. If I add two plus two and get four for an answer, in the abstract, this does nothing to me in terms of my external relations to the world. The number four, in the abstract, does not move me to do anything. As long as four stays in the abstract part of my mind nothing happens. The number four in the intellect, however, is different. The intellect is the integration of intuition with abstract analytic understanding, and is a level three function. The intellect can and does move the will to act, while abstract analytic understanding does not. It I intuit the number four, I want to do something with it. At the very least I want to judge that the number four is real.


To be an intellectual, then, is to be an intuitive thinker. Mere, dry analytic abstraction is not enough. In some ways, even, such analytic understanding is anti-intellectual. Intellection involves what Bergson describes as “intellectual sympathy.” It is much more than mere analytic rationality. As Evelyn Underhill might put it, intellection involves conation while abstract analytic understanding involves mere cognition. While analytic understanding, at its best, breaks down, and then categorizes ideas, intellectual understaning, on the other hand creatively, and holistically, synthesizes ideas. And, as intuitve judgment, can even take analytic understanding, transcend it, and intuitively judge the real.

Bibliography Bergson, Henri, Lonergan, Bernard, Underhill, Evelyn Introduction to Metaphysics Insight Mysticism


Chapter 13

Intuition, Reason, and Derrida’s Postmodernism By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar Derrida’s postmodernism involves linguistic deconstruction. The underlying premise of this postmodernism is that reality is based upon ideas. This type of idealism seems to suggest that all knowledge is conditioned upon an act of interpretation of the knower. For the postmodern, then, reality does not exist independently of the knower. Critical Realism, or Critical Thomism, on the other hand argues that reality, at least in part, exists independent of any knower. The idea is that

Substantial Form, structures all Reality, and provides a basis for knowing, outside the mind of the interpreter. Aristotelians believe in Substantial

Form, and substantial forms, metaphysically, while, Platonist believe in the World of the Immutable Platonic Forms, sometimes known as the World of the Forms. Because an immutable platonic form exists for an actually existing tree, and because a substantial form exists for an actual existing


tree, the actual existing tree, as well as the idea of, “tree,” to some degree exists independently of any knower. I would argue that the forms, whether substantial, or platonic, oscillate or vibrate. They are like columns of light-sound-feeling, which manifest probabilistically. Thus, the forms must be intuited. Intuition is a very important cognitive faculty. Intuition operates non-locally to provide a connection of what Bergson describes as “intellectual sympathy” between the object of knowing, and the knowing itself. Real knowing involves an Intuition both of the forms, as well as an Intuition of the particular object itself. I know the tree in my backyard to be a tree, precisely because, as Zen would tell us, I have an immediate intuition of the tree, and going beyond Zen, the form itself. Remember, because the forms can be “added to, but not subtracted from, rearranged, but not changed,” the world of the forms is only moderately conservative, and in some sense could be considered, progressive. Reason, then, is objective, or authentically subjective, in part because we intuit both the forms and the object itself, immediately.


Bibliography Aristotle, The Metaphysics Bergson, Henri, Introduction to Metaphysics Plato, The Republic


Chapter 14

Law Levels and Jesus Christ By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Aristotle and Plato argue that reality consists primarily of three levels, Body, Mind, and Spirit. Thomas Aquinas argued that there are three type of Law, Human Law, Natural Law, and Divine Law. I argue that both are correct with some modification. I argue that the first level of Law, the the Law of the Jungle. This is law based upon power, and the base emotions, and simple reasoning. I would also argue, that Plato and Aristotle can be supplemented so that a fourth level is possible, which is a Love level. Thus, my interpretation of Law Levels and Reality is as follows:


4. The Law of Love or Divine Law 3. Natural Law 2. Human Law 1. Jungle Law

Love Spirit-Intellect Soul-Understanding Body Base Emotions

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for following merely Human, level two law, rather than Divine Law at Level Four. In Mark, Chapter 7, some of the Pharisees were complaining to Jesus that some of the disciples of Jesus were eating food without first washing their hands. Quoting the Prophet Isaiah, Jesus said: This people honors me with their lips but their hearts are far from Me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines, human precepts. When referring to mere “human precepts” Jesus is referring to law based on surivival and community instinct as later rationalized. The law was based upon level one Law of the Jungle, as rationalized by level two thinking. Level Three intellect And Level Four Love are left out of the picture. Is it truly the Worthwhile to have a law which punishes people for not washing their hands? I really can’t grab an apple off a tree and eat it

without violating the law. Natural Law tempers Human Law with intellect


and Divine Law tempers Human Law with Love and rejects such a rigid rule.


Chapter 15

Music, Intuition, and Psychiatry

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Psychiatry purport to tell us that which is psychotic or unreal. Philosophy does the same thing. Philosophy, particularly, metaphysics, has traditionally been the academic discipline assigned the job of dealing with “the real.” Let us take as a starting point in our discussion the idea of persons who are tone deaf, on the one hand, or who have an ear for music, on the other. Let us imagine our typical psychiatrist who happens to be tone deaf. This psychiatrist will undoubtedly conclude that tonal harmonics are an example of psychosis. The idea that different musical tones can form a harmony will be seen as a schizophrenic delusion. Philosophy, on the other hand would probably start with phenomenology. Phenomenology starts with lived experience. After


talking to a couple of musicians who have an ear for music, a phenomenologist would conclude that music and tonal harmonics exist. If a phenomenologist would then come across a person who cannot hear tonal harmonics, the phenomenologist would in all likelihood conclude that that person is tone deaf, not normative. In addition to music, there is intuition. Intuition is a cognative faculty which feels relationships in reality. Let us assume that our psychiatrist does not have intuition. Like the tone deaf musician, the psychiatrist is intuition deaf. Intuition is what distinguishes mere analysis from real intellect. Unfortunately the psychiatrist who is intuition deaf, will consider this state of affairs normative, and thus conclude that intuition is delusional or a hallucination. No, matter that Tony Bastick, in his book, “Intuition,” has reported numerous scientific studies confirming the existence and operation of intuition. I also argue that intuition is the basis for insight. Insight is a cognative faculty or operation which produces ideas from out of nowhere. As Archimedes said, “Eureka,” I have found the answer. Insight is commonplace among scientists, philosophers, and others, and is typically how new ideas come into being. As stated previously, insight flows naturally from intutition.


I would argue that like an ear for music, intuition and insight are normative and at the very least should not be considered delusional, a hallucination, or psychotic by psychiatrists. Just because a psychiatrist does not have a cognative faculty, does not mean that it does not exist.


Chapter 16


By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Objectivity. It used to be a compliment to say that a person was objective. But now, with postmodernism it isn’t. Postmodernist tend to think that objectivity does not exist. That objectivity is a made up idea that white males came up with to oppress others. I would like to argue that

there are two basic types of objectivity, one which is based upon hate is alienating, and one which is based upon Love, is empowering and authentic. The kind of objectivity that I have, and argue in favor of, is based upon Love. It is a sort of Mystical Objectivity that is very practical and works. The first step in objectivity is Love. You must try to Love everything unconditionally. Not a grasping Love, but a tender, touching Love. This includes Loving yourself.


The one real obstacle to objectivity is what Bernard Lonergan describes as “individual bias.” Individual bias is a selfish point of view where I egoistically privilege my own biased point of view. Love destroys individual bias. Love opens the mind and heart to a new kind of openness of the Spirit. When One is unconditionally in Love with The All, then One can appreciate All that Is. So, if I want to be objective, I must in a sense become Love. If I love trees, and flowers, and buildings, and cars, then I am free to understand them objectively at their best. By objective, I mean an intellectual attitude of “looking” at an object of Love, at a distance. Unfortunately, many scientists start with hate. Hate feeds individual bias and brings about false objectivity. Scientists who hate are easily persuaded to try inhumanely and unjustly experiment on other human beings. Hate brings about a desire for control, rather than “letting be” (Matthew Fox). Hate brings about a desire to control and smother others. Because hate does not just stop with the other, hate also encompasses the self, the ego. Because the hate filled scientist hates himself, he then unreflectively projects his hatred out on others, often his experimental subjects. So, the only real choice, the only rational choice, is to choose loving objectivity. As Jesus said, You shall love the Lord Your God with all your


Heart, all your Soul, and all your strength, and your neighbor as yourself. It is only such Mystical Love that brings about true objectivity.


Chapter 17

Phenomenology and Psychiatry

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Psychiatry is concerned with what is real, and what is unreal, the latter being that which is psychotic. Philosophy also purports to be concerned with that which is real and unreal. Typically I employ philosophical metaphysics in discussing psychiatry, but in this Chapter I am going to use phenomenology. Phenomenology is a philosophical discipline first employed by philosopher Edmund Husserl. Following in the wake of Immanuel Kant’s idealism, Husserl argued that one could never really find the real, and of course the unreal either, but instead one should go to philosophical experience itself to describe what is going on. Husserl suggested that one should envoke the philosophical device of the “epoche” in order to bracket preconceptions and see the “thing in itself.”


Psychiatry would do well to learn from phenomenology. Quantum Science tells us there are two major aspects of reality which affect knowing, and of course psychiatry. First of all, Quantum Science proves non-local communication at a distance. In other words, Quantum Science suggests the possibility of telepathy and channeling from mind to mind. Additionally, Quantum Science proves that the nature of reality is probabilistic. A corollary of this is parallel universe theory. Quantum Science suggests the possibility that a person might be able to perceive that which is going on in a parallel universe. Why is Quantum Science important to psychiatry? Well, in the first instance I would suggest that based on Quantum Science, the nature of reality is probabilistic, and, that accordingly it is impossible to hear or see a hallucination. A hallucination is that which purports to be unreal, seemingly sensed as real. If all experience is probabilistic then there is no “real world” against which to measure that which is unreal or psychotic. Additionally, if parallel universe theory is true, as Quantum Science postulates, then perhaps what people perceive when they seem to be “hallucinating” is phenomenon from another world, that is a Quantum Experience of a parallel frame or universe which not all people can see.


Now, maybe it makes sense from a conventional point of view to say that something which appears as sensorily real outside my body is a hallucination if others cannot see it as well, but, as I have argued before, this does not make sense relative to interior mental experience. Many people have the ability to see things in “their mind’s eye” internally in their respective minds. Just as common, many people have the ability to hear things in “their mind’s ear” internally in their respective minds. Following phenomenology, I would call such internal experience neither real nor unreal, but rather phenomenon. If a person sees a vision in that person’s “mind’s eye,” then that person has perceive a “vision phenomenon” not a hallucination. It is absurd to say that one can hallucinate in the mind itself, when the mind itself does not purport to be sensory experience in the first place. So, I suggest that Psychiatry training should include a course in phenomenology and that the diagnostic criterion for mental “phenomenon” be explored.


Chapter 18

Psychiatry, Due Process, The First Amendment, and Section 1983 in Tort

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Psychiatry is a very politically powerful institution, although it may not seem that way. A psychiatrist has the power to involuntarily commit a

client to an inpatient psychiatric facility for a long period of time. Most people find it unattractive to be confined, whether in prison, or on a psychiatric ward. I have three arguments to make in this Chapter: first, that an involuntary commitment must meet the standards of substantive and procedural Due Process under the Constitution, and, second, that the First Amendment applies to protect the Free Speech of psychiatric clients, and, third, that the practice of Psychiatry is “state action” for purposes of Tort liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.


I argue that an involuntary commitment to a inpatient psychiatric ward has an analogous effect as that of confining the person to prison, in either case the person’s liberty is curtailed. Just as a person cannot be placed in prison without the protections of substantive and procedural Due Process under the Constitution, so too, a person should not be placed in a psychiatric ward through the use of an involuntary commitment without the protections of substantive and procedural Due Process. I argue that justice and the Constitution requires that a Judge issue a “confinement warrant” prior to any involuntary commitment of a person on a psychiatric ward. I also argue that there must be a review of the original warrant within 48 hours of the person’s confinement on a psychiatric ward. Additionally, I argue that an involuntary commitment cannot be made on the basis of curtailing Free Speech in violation of the First Amendment. A person should be involuntarily committed only if that person is clearly an immediate physical danger to that person or another. You cannot involuntarily commit a person for exercising political speech or religious speech, or philosophical speech, written or oral. This violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. The notion that a person has “dangerous ideas” for “society” must be given strict scruitiny. Political heroes, saints, political dissidents, freedom fighters, were all at one time thought to have


“dangerous ideas.”

For the good of society, the ideas of such people must

be given protection, and the person should not be subject to persecution, psychiatric, or otherwise. Finally, since a psychiatrist must use a state statute to involuntarily commit a person, I argue that an involuntary commitment, whether invalid or valid, constitutes “state action” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. A psychiatrist should have federal tort liability for a wrongful or invalid involuntary commitment. If procedural and substantive Due Process is followed, and the First Amendment respected, there should be no Section 1983 Tort liability for the Psychiatrist.


Chapter 19

Body, Mind, Spirit, Mysticism and Psychology

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In her famous book, “Mysticism,” Evelyn Underhill discusses the three fold cognitional structure of Body, Mind, Spirit, which is found both in Plato and Aristotle, as well as in the Christian Bible. As discussed previously, Body, Mind, Spirit, parallels Experience, Knowledge and Wisdom, in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, as well as Experience, Understanding, and Judgment-Reflection, in Jesuit Philosopher, Bernard Lonergan’s epistemology. Interestingly, Underhill discusses a different parallel than Aristotle or Lonergan with Body, Mind, Spirit. Underhill argues that Love, Analytic Mind, and Will, parallel Body, Mind, and Spirit. I would argue that Underhill has mistranslated the original Aristotle. While mundane love, as a level one emotion could certainly replace sense experience, and


analytic mind certainly parallels the idea of knowledge or understanding at level two, I would argue that will is not the real parallel to level three Wisdom. Instead, Judgment, Reflection, Wisdom, or Intuition should be what is discussed as a cognitive capability or “faculty psychology” attribute at level three. At level three intuition transforms analysis into intellect. Intellect is a higher integration of analysis and intuition. There is no intellect at level two, only level three. Intellect is a type of “spiritual” knowledge. Finally, it should be noted that Body, Mind, Spirit, also has a metaphysically analogous structure which is Substance, Logos, Being. The corresponding Trinitarian analog for God then is, Holy Spirit, Jesus the Son, and God the Father.

3. 2. 1.

Spirit Mind Body

Being Logos Substance

God The Father Jesus the Son of God The Holy Spirit


Bibliography Aristotle, The Metaphysics Fejfar, Anthony Jurisprudence for a New Age Lonergan, Bernard, Cognitional Structure in Collection Underhill, Evelyn, Mysticism


Chapter 20

Reason, Derrida, and Postmodern Deconstruction

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Postmodern thought of philosopher Jacques Derrida is most often related to deconstruction. Linguistic deconstruction is interesting. The idea is that we find some word that some find politically objectionable, and then we engage in a process of linguistic deconstruction which reduces the idea in question to the least common denominator. For example, let us suppose that Derrida wishes to deconstruct the word “reason.” First of all it should be noted that reason is a word that is only used in a particular context. What does it mean? This is unclear. Perhaps reason simply is a word which passes for the subjective preferences of the author or thinker. Perhaps reason is simply a label which is assigned to word to enforce political hegemony over those who are simpliste


enough to grant it some power over them. Perhaps reason is simply white male prejudice. Throughout this whole deconstruction process it is evident that a particular bias or prejudice is present. The particular bias involved is the philosophy of idealism. Idealism suggests that all of reality is based upon words or ideas. Everything, including God, can be reduced to an idea, and then deconstructed. But what if reality is more complex than Idealism suggests. What if critical realism is the appropriate philosophy. Critical realism suggests that reality is more complex than just words. Process also counts. Developmental Psychologist Erik Erikson, suggested in his work, for example, that reason is based upon an integration of love and logic. Is it possible to deconstruct love. I doubt it. Only a rationalist idealist of the worst sort would suggest that love is simply an idea or word. No, love is a feeling tone. Love has depth beyond words. Love is present in the heart even when I am not thinking about the word “love.” Now, it is true that love exists independent of language and linguistic analysis, then perhaps too Being, exists as a metaphysical quiddity independent of language and linguistic analysis. Perhaps Being is an Existant which can

be labeled with a word, but is not reducible to a word. Perhaps language is full of ideas or concepts which represent “quiddities” which are not simply


reducible to a mere word. This is, of course what realism, as a philosophy has always asserted. Reality, or at least a lot of reality exists independent of language. A grown, real, oak tree would still be a solid, grown, real, oak tree, even if someone did not come along and give it the label of being a “tree.” In fact this is precisely what phenomenology asserts. Through the use of the epoche one can “intuitively” know reality in an immediate way while dispensing with language. Do we want to do away with language or meaning? No. But this does not mean that all of reality is reducible to linguistic meaning. Additionally, perhaps it is the case that “Being” is based upon the reality of Being, not simply linguistic cultural convention. Referring once again to reason. If reason is a cognitive capability or a faculty of faculty psychology, then it simply cannot be linguistically deconstructed and reduced to a culturally relativist or arbitrary linguistic category. Logic, at least includes the causal syllogism, “If A, then B, A , therefore, B.” There is no reason to assume that causality is false. If I will

myself to pick up a soft drink, and then drink it, this is an example of rudimentary causality. Quantum Physics still leaves room for free will, and some type of causality. Even the double slit experiment of Quantum Physics still involves directional light of some sort.


Chapter 21

Social Responsibility of Business, Business Ethics, and The Ethical Matrix

By Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Social Responsibility of Business says that businesses should be responsible in their decision making, particularly their strategic planning. Business Ethics says that ethical decision making should be used in making ordinary business decisions. It is my argument that both Social Responsibility of Business and Business Ethics can be implemented by the use of the Ethical Matrix as a business decision making tool. Let us assume the following hypothetical: C Corporation has a slow down in machinery sales in D Division of the company. Top management wants something done. Immediately it is apparent that a number of different avenues are open to being used. Marketing and sales could be stepped up in an attempt to increase sales. Workers could be transferred to


another department during the slow down.

Workers could be laid off.

Workers could be fired. Workers in D Division, or all divisions, could take an across the board salary decrease. How would one go about analyzing these options? Using the Ethical Matrix, one starts with the principle of Reciprocity. Treat another as you would wish to be treated in similar circumstances. But how to evaluate this? We must go to the second principle of the Ethical Matrix, Utility. Utility means maximizing Value. What are the values to be considered? Full employment for the company. Production of a profit. The long term health of the Corporation. It is apparent that firing workers might help the profit picture by cutting expenses, but this would have to be done at the expense of full employment and Corporation morale. Additionally, in terms of the long term growth of the company, it would not seem healthy to cut back production in part or completely in a Division without a structural cost. It costs money to shut an assembly line down, and then start it back up again. The third principle under the Ethical Matrix is Proportionality. Under Proportionality one is to try to treat equals equally. Therefore it might be argued that one should not disproportionately place the burden of a slow down on just a few employees. Finally, the fourth principle under the


Ethical Matrix is Equity. Equity favors those in need. Equity also makes an equitable exception from a general rule based upon need. Equity would seem to argue in favor of a solution which recognize the needs of the workers. Thus, a firing or layoff seems wrong. Employing the Ethical

Matrix, the appropriate decision would seem to be to increase marketing and sales activity before firing or laying off employees.

Bibliography Fejfar, Anthony “Corporate Voluntarism, Panacea or Plague, A Question of Horizon,” 17 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 859 (1992) Fejfar, Anthony Jurisprudence for a New Age


Chapter 22

Telepathy and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar Telepathy is defined as “mind to mind” communication. The idea is that one person can speak or communicate internally and another person can hear what has been spoken or communicated internally, and vice versa. Telepathy, if it exists, and I argue that it does, is not a hallucination. It is real mind to mind communication. Quantum Physics can be used to argue that there is a scientific basis for telepathy. In Nick Herbert’s book, “Quantum Reality,” Herbert discusses Bell’s Non-locality theorem. Based upon Bell’s Theorem, it is a

proved scientific fact that a subatomic particle in my brain in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, can alter or move a subatomic particle in the brain of a person in San Francisco, California, non-locally at a distance. I argue that if a subatomic particle in my mind can have an effect on a subatomic particle in


another person’s brain, non-locally, at a distance, then it is possible that that same subatomic particle or particles could have an effect upon both my and another person’s brain, non-locally at a distance, through alteration of atoms, molecules, cells, and neurons, through a subatomic effect. Telepathy is science, not magic, and certainly not magical thinking, or schizophrenia. My next point is this. Telepathic communicated speech is speech and association with another, and both are unequivocally protected as Free Speech and Freedom of Association under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Religious bigots and other fascists should not be allowed to enact laws limiting or prohibiting telepathic speech. Telepathic speech should have the same or greater First Amendment protection than ordinary speech using vocal chords, air, sound, and ears.


Chapter 23

The Illiteration Doctrine and Classical Philosophy

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Classical philosophy has been criticized for postulating a static universe, or even, a static God. The idea of classical philosophy is that there are necessary, static, unchanging causes which structure reality or the universe. The problem is that we often experience our reality as a reality which is in “flow” or “on the move” or “in process.” Additionally, the Christian Bible suggests that God is relational, a God who in some sense is “moved” by our prayers. Finally, statistical probability suggests that only statistical correlations or “patterns” exist, not classical, unchanging laws. How do we reconcile these seemingly inconsistent positions? One way of resolving the foregoing is to suggest that statistical probability involves only the “accidental” aspects of existence. Perhaps our statistical analyses are not sophisticated enough to discover classical,


necessary laws. But then again, perhaps necessary classical laws do exist. Perhaps in a world of perfect linearity, located someplace, 2+2=4 is always classically and necessarily true. On earth, I have argued that “real math” always involves statistical probability. How then do necessary, classical causes interact with us? I would argue that necessary, classical causes, such as The First Cause, or the Unmoved Mover interact with us and everything or everyone else through the Illiteration Doctrine. Illiteration literally means in philosophical terms, a logical accident. It is argued that God who is a classically necessary First Cause communicates with us and even acts in relation to us using Illiteration or Logical Accident. Perhaps, in Christian Doctrine, the Holy Spirit, which is both Immanent and Transcendent, has as one aspect of Hae existence, Illiteration, or Logical Accident. In the more mundane world, perhaps then statistical laws which coalesce into “classical laws” are in fact examples of Illiteration. So, again, perhaps one aspect of God is probabilistic and in some sense “accidental,” while another aspect of God is necessary, static, and unchanging.


Chapter 24

The Politics and Magic of the Number Zero

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

For many of us numbers mean mathematics and science, a very rational endeavor indeed. For some of us, however, mathematics and numbers have a sort of magic quality to them. For example, let us take the number “infinity.” I can imagine infinity, but a lot of people can’t. In their minds they substitute some relatively large finite number for infinity. The idea that a series of numbers or a straight line could continue forever, without end, is beyond them. If you can imagine infinity, it is not that difficult to image that God Exists. For me, Zero is a similar number. Zero is very spiritual and very political. Many people start their mathematics and their politics with the number “One.” For these people the ultimate number is 1, and 1 symbolizes unity. I argue that such people cannot really conceptualize


Zero. Zero means “nothing,” if it has a positive meaning at all, perhaps it is a sort of infinity or absolute. Similarly, the Spirit also means “nothingness” or “no-thing.” Freedom, as a concept also involves Zero. Freedom means that you must give me my “space.” Empty space is a type of nothingness or nothing. I would argue that those who cannot tend to conceptualize Zero, tend to be authoritarian fascists, both religiously and politically. It is my understanding that both the Russian Cyrillic alphabet as well a the original Chinese character alphabet cannot accommodate the concepts of Zero. Neither, of course could Roman Numerals, which involved a kind of “stick” counting, accommodate the number Zero. I suggest that those who do not learn the number Zero in pre-school, at a relatively young age, tend toward unitary, One based, authoritarian thinking, while Zero based thinkers tend toward Spirituality and Freedom orientations. I suspect that in Communist Russia and in Communist China, Zero was not taught as a concept until children are out of gradeschool, maybe not even taught about Zero until college or graduate school. For an adult who is a One based thinker who would like to be a Zero based thinker, I suggest the following “magic” trick. Draw a circle at least

one foot in diameter. Place a small pebble in the middle of the circle. Try


to imagine that you are four years old or so, and watching a magic show. Place a handkerchief over the pebble, say Abra ka Dabra, Hocus Pocus, and then lift up the pebble into the handkerchief without revealing its hiding place. While before we had the number One as symbolized by the pebble, now with the aid of “magic” we have the “magic” number Zero, as symbolized by the empty Circle that is left in front of you, or the person you are doing the trick for. This is obviously a good teaching tool to teach the number Zero to small children. It is my hypothesis that the more Zero based thinkers we have, the more we will have a spiritual and Constitutionally Democratic population valuing Freedom.


Chapter 25

Transpersonal Psychiatry

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Ken Wilber is the author who is given the credit for developing the discipline of “Transpersonal Psychology.” I would like to go one step further and argue for the establishment of Transpersonal Psychiatry. Psychiatry today is based largely upon premises involving atheistic materialism. Psychiatry sees the mind as simply being an epiphenomenon of brain biology or neurology. Medication which affects the neurons in the brain is seen as the epitome of psychiatric practice. I would argue, on the other hand, that psychiatry should be based upon Aristotle’s model of Body-brain mind, Soul analytic mind, and Spirit intellect. I would argue that for many people, their though processes take place on the levels of the Soul or Spirit, not on the brain biological level. The brain, then, operates more as an interface between body and soul.


Ken Wilber argues in his work that the mind becomes “transpersonal” at what developmental psychologists would call level 6 of consciousness. Wilber argues that people on level 6 have psychic abilities such as channeling and telephathy. Additionally, Out of Body Experiences, and Astral Projection, as described by Robert Bruce, would also seem to be level 6 phenomenon. Psychiatry must recognize that it is normal and natural for those people who have reached level 6, or it’s equivalent, to have such abilities as channeling or telepathy. Treatment of such persons psychiatrically must involve helping the person to manage or control his or her psychic abilities, not suppress or destroy them as supposed hallucinations. Finally, psychiatry must avoid the fallacy of reductionism. Ken Wilber points out that positivists, that is, atheistic materialists, take a “flat land” view which reduces everything to the least common denominator. Rather than looking for higher, spiritual meaning, psychiatry now looks for the most mundane, pessimistic, simpliste, explanation. Rather than considering the possibility that an Archangel might be talking to a person in that person’s “mind’s ear,” psychiatry just assumes that a schizophrenic hallucination is taking place. As I have stated before, such an approach is based upon Ockham’s Razor, and, Ockham’ Razor is fallacious, idiocy.


Transpersonal Psychiatry is necessary and it must take into account Metaphysics.

Bibliography Bruce, Robert Wilber, Ken Wilber, Ken Astral Dynamics The Atman Project Up From Eden


Chapter 26 Emergent Probability By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Some would argue that history is determined or predetermined. Following Bernard Lonergan’s work, I would argue that history is based upon emergent probability. Lonergan points out that history does not proceed in a linear fashion. Instead what happens is that there are “interlocking schemes of recurrence” which take place. Let us take a practical example. Let us go back in history and consider World War II. An interesting question was whether World War II was inevitable or could something else have happened? I would argue that freewill is present in the context of effective freedom so that World War II was not causally necessary, as such. I would argue that the cause of World War II, at least in Europe, was the imposition of huge reparation damages by France against Germany at the end of World War I. The German economy never really recovered after World War I, leading to economic and political instability which made


it more probable for a totalitarian party such as the Nazi party to come into power. President Woodrow Wilson left Europe and the post-World War I peace conference table before the issue of reparations had been decided. I Wilson had stayed for the entire conference and had argued against severe reparations against Germany then it is probable that the German economy and political society would have recovered.


Lonergan, Bernard



Chapter 27

The Bible, Magic, and The Law By Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I have argued elsewhere that a number of modern legal precepts have their antecedents found in the Christian Bible. I have also written quite a bit about Quantum Physics. I would argue that for the most part, Quantum Physics has replaced Alchemy and Magic in our World, assuming that Magic or Alchemy ever really existed. Nevertheless, Quantum NonLocality does seem to bear some resemblance to Magic. The idea of telepathy, which is supported by Quantum Non-Locality, used to be associated with Magic, as far as I can tell. Now, the problem I would like to address is the Biblical prohibition against Black Magic. In the Bible in several places it is stated that Wizardry, Witchery, or Necromancery deserves the death penalty. My argument is that this prohibition only extends to Black Magic, or evil magic, not to white or gray magic. Now, I’m not saying Magic exists, but if it


does, only the evil form of Black Magic should be prohibited by Christian authorities, or the civil or criminal law. As tradition would tell us, and of course most of this tradition is found in works of Fantasy fiction dealing with Magic, Black Magic is the only type of Magic that is inherently evil. White Magic and Gray Magic support the Good, and are to be supported. Such fictional characters as Gandalf the Gray Wizard and Merlin the Gray Wizard tell us that Gray Magic is Good. Additionally, I would argue that the parting of the Red Sea by Moses and the precognitive abilities of Prophets and Seers such as Joseph, in the Old Testament, involve Gray Magic or Quantum Physics. Science Fiction tells us that Quantum Physics is Good. White Magic, on the other hand has always been associated with the Good of Sainthood and Miracles. Brown Magic and Green Magic are often associated with healing, and are thought to be neutral as between good and evil. I would like to argue that Metaphysics is not Magic. Although there is the sense in which Metaphysics could be referred to as Rational Gray Magic, I would instead argue that Metaphysics, like Quantum Physics is analogous to Science, and thus cannot be considered Magic. Metaphysics should be considered Philosophy or Theology.


I would also argue that White Magic, Gray Magic, and Quantum Physics and Metaphysics are Good, and are protected by the First Amendment right of Freedom of Religion. Any civil or criminal prohibitions against White or Gray Magic or Quantum Physics or Metaphysics should be found unconstitutional and void under Divine Law, Natural Law, Human Law, and the United States Constitution. Brown and Green Magic can be regulated just like medicine. Once again, all the foregoing assumes for the sake of argument that Magic exists or at least that Magic can be asserted as existing. Last but not least I would argue that if Black Magic is ever given a criminal penalty, that penalty should not be death. Just as we no longer stone adulterous women to death based on the Bible, so too, we should no longer attempt to assert the death penalty in relation to Black Magic. As stated earlier there can be no criminal penalty for White Magic or Gray Magic, and Brown and Green Magic should be subject to regulation just like medicine.


Chapter 28

Self-Defense and Non-Violence By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

There are some people who take vows of Non-Violence. Often the Non-Violence that they believe in is one where the person is not allowed to defend himself or herself from the violent acts of others. Often, Christians who believe in Non-Violence will quote the Bible for Jesus’ injunction that we should try to “turn the other cheek.” The Bible also provides the Proportional Rule, in the Old Testament of an “Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth.” If I am entitled to a proportional response after the fact, then it certainly can be argued that I am entitled to defend myself in the first place from violence. In harmonizing the foregoing principles, I would argue that in the first instance, one should not go out “looking for a fight.” Turning the other Cheek means that I should avoid aggressive violence against others. However, I would also argue, that a Non-Violent person has the right of


Self Defense. In fact, I think that the failure to defend oneself can be seen as a sign of “bad faith.” If a bully is persecuting me, if I don’t defend myself, then that bully will go on and persecute someone else. I have a duty, as a Non-Violent person to stop the bully from being violent to me, and those under my protection.


Chapter 29

Reciprocity Revisited

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I have previously defined “reciprocity” for purposes of the Ethical Matrix, as “Treat another as you would wish to be treated in similar circumstances.” I would like to offer a correlative reciprocity principle which is Kantian in tone, which is, “Treat yourself as you would wish all others in similar circumstances to be treated.” Let us say, for example, that Joe was arrested by police officer without a warrant and without probable cause. Let us say that Joe then argued verbally with the police officer, demanding a warrant, and was then charged with resisting arrest. Joe should be acquitted and found innocent of the criminal charges. As a matter of utility, Joe chooses as his highest value, rational self interest. Joe wishes that all persons have the right not to be falsely arrested without a warrant, and Joe wishes all persons to have the


right to argue with the police officer. Therefore, based on reciprocity, Joe must be found innocent since the rule he has chosen for himself and all others is the rule which says that one has the right not \to be arrested without a warrant, and one has the right to verbally argue with the police officer. As far as the first prong of the Ethical Matrix is concerned relative to reciprocity, Joe is obligated to treat the police officer as Joe would wish to be treated. Joe treats the police officer as if he were a non-corrupt, law abiding officer. The police officer is treated reciprocally if he is deemed to want a just, legal outcome for Joe. A just legal outcome for Joe means that the police officer must have a warrant. One must hypothesize that the police officer himself, pursuing rational self interest, would not want to be arrested without a warrant himself Thus, reciprocally the officer \should not argue that he can lawfully arrest Joe without a warrant.

Bibliography Fejfar, Anthony Jurisprudence for a New Age


Chapter 30

Levels of Consciousness

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In his work on transpersonal psychology, Ken Wilber has discussed at length the idea that human consciousness involves stages or levels. I would argue the same, however, with a significant caveat. It is my argument that once a higher stage has been integrated, it is possible to “download” the characteristics of consciousness from a higher level to a lower level. It is my argument that the idea of Body, Mind, Spirit-Intellect, parallels Bernard Lonergan’s notion of Experience, Understanding, JudgmentReflection, and that higher levels of consciousness are integrated and “compacted” into the three lower levels as delineated by Plato and Aristotle. My expanded stage description parallels Ken Wilber’s work to some degree, and is as follows:


11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2.

Wisdom. Beyond Limit Consciousness. Being. Form of Form An Unrestricted Act of Understanding. Abba Level. Fatherly Love. Logos. Higher Reason. Creative Form. Substantial Form. Higher Love. Intuition. Intuition Logic. Insight. Creativity. Hermeneutics. Dialectical Consciousness. Being-Love. Formal Operations. Spirit-Intellect. Judgment-Reflection (compacted levels 7-11) Mind. Soul. Political Consciousness. Understanding (compacted levels 4-6).


Body. Emotional body mind. Experience. Ground Mysticism. (compacted levels 1-3).

The interesting thing to note is that “flatland” consciousness of level one, which Ken Wilber describes, and which typically manifests as logical positivism, or naïve realism, is only possible because levels 1-3 can be compacted to level 1.


Similarly. Most realists only have their minds structured for three stages, once again indicative of the compacting phenomenon. Finally, I would like to note that the stages of consciousness discussed here parallel the work of Dr. Deepak Choprah, to some degree.

Bibliography Choprah, Deepak, How to Know God Wilber, Ken Wilber, Ken The Atman Project Up From Eden


Chapter 31

Authority and Obedience

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In Catholic religious life, in employment, in the military, and elsewhere, a premium is often placed upon obedience to authority. On the other hand, one often sees bumper stickers which state that one should rebel against authority. I would like to argue that society should follow a middle path regarding authority, which is found in the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility which regulates lawyer conduct.. Before getting to the Model Rules, a little discussion of obedience to authority is in order. I argue that good authority is good and bad authority is bad. Some people take the position that all authority is good, but this is clearly wrong. In the aftermath of World War II we were taught that international human rights law, or natural law, was the basis for the trial and conviction of Nazis for “crimes against humanity.” Some Nazi’s


argued that they killed, raped, and tortured people following the authority of a military or political superior. This “following orders” defense was rejected as invalid by the Court at Neurenberg. This is bed rock law. We are bound by this now as much as they were then. After Neurenberg it is clear that there is such a thing as an illegal order based upon human law or natural law. On the other hand, St. Paul

in his epistle argues that political authorities are instituted by God and are to be followed. Similarly, Catholics in religious life take obedience vows which require them to follow the orders of a religious superior. So, there are some arguments which favor following authority, even bad authority. I would like to argue that society in general should adopt the rule found in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct relating to a subordinate attorney following the directions of a supervising attorney. On this view, a subordinate is required by law to refuse a clearly illegal order, and is required to to follow orders which involve a “gray area” as to legitimacy, and obviously a subordinate is to follow orders which are clearly legal. In my judgment this is the rule that should be used in Catholic religious life, in employment, the military, etc.


Chapter 32

Eminent Domain, Natural Law, Psychiatry, and the Constitution

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

It is interesting to note that the power of Eminent Domain is one which historically has been considered to be “an inherent power of the state” “as a matter of Natural Law.” So, in substance says the leading treatise on the subject, “Nichol’s on Eminent Domain.” Eminent Domain, of course, is the power of the state to take your property away from you. If you look for the express power of Eminent Domain in the United States Constitution, you will not find it. It isn’t there. I suppose one could argue that the Constitution implies a power of Eminent Domain by reason of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution: “Nor shall any property be taken without just compensation.” I suppose this implies the right to take the property in the first place.


I would argue, however, that all the Natural Rights found in the Bill of Rights, and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution are based upon Natural Law, just as the power of Eminent Domain is based upon Natural Law. Grotius even went so far as to say that all of

International Law is based upon Natural Law. Interestingly, a guy I know who is involved in psychiatry once told me that from his point of view, and that of psychiatry, Natural Law is a psychotic delusion. I suppose someone might argue then, that anyone, including Grotius, who believes in Natural Law is schizophrenic. This is a shame of course since without Natural Law there is no basis for Natural Rights such as Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Contract, etc., found in the United States Constitution. Perhaps the psychiatrists have become the next generation judges, lawyers, and law professors, without officially letting us know.


Chapter 33 God, Mysticism, Psychiatry and the First Amendment By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “I have a dream….” I, on the other hand, say “I have a fear….” My fear for America is that very soon an ordinary American will be diagnosed with schizophrenia by an atheistic materialist psychiatrist for saying, “I believe in God.” I hope that the foregoing fear is never realized. I hope that I am overstating my case, but I don’t think so. Currently in psychiatry Mysticism is seen as a form of mental illness, manic depression or possibly schizophrenia. Jesus of Nazareth and most every Saint after Him, had the ability to say, and did say, “I am one with God.” On many psychiatric wards today if a patient were to say, “I am one with God,” that person would be diagnosed as schizophrenic and delusional. This is wrong. Genuine Mysticism exists and most psychiatrists will not diagnose Mysticism as a psychiatric condition, instead it is considered a mental illness.

Now, in my judgment the current state of affairs is terrible. Athiestic materialist psychiatry denies spirituality and mysticism as even being possible. What is equally horrible and wrong is that it is only the conventional political power of the Christian Churches which prevent a psychotic delusion or schizophrenia diagnosis from taking place in relation to a belief in God. Without the threat of political protest if a patient said on a

psychiatric ward, “I believe in God,” that patient could be diagnosed as delusional and schizophrenic by an atheistic materialist psychiatrist. Certainly an expressed opinion that Jesus Christ literally “rose from the dead,” could be diagnosed by a Moslem or atheistic materialist psychiatrist as delusional and schizophrenic. I argue that the practice of Psychiatry in all its manifestations must be considered “State Action” for purposes of the United States Constitution, and liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in Tort. The First Amendment must protect against religious discrimination and religious persecution in the practice of psychiatry.


Chapter 34 Modified Socratic Method and Law Teaching By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I would like to argue that the lecture method of teaching that is used by some law professors is dehumanizing. Paul Freire, the noted educational theorist argues that lecture type teaching is “banking education” which is dehumanizing to students. Interestingly, some people argue that the Socratic Method of law teaching is dehumanizing. In a pure Socratic class the professor never answers a question, never introduces material, never sums up, but only asks questions. I guess I would have to agree that pure Socratic teaching can be dehumanizing to students because it causes a great deal of stress based upon uncertainty. Since the teacher never tells you the correct answer and you have to figure it out for yourself, this can cause a great deal of trauma for most students. I would like to argue in favor of Modified Socratic Method as the ideal teaching methodology for law and other subjects. In Modified

Socratic the professor provides a general introduction to the material, then engages in Socratic dialogue involving the Facts, Issues, and Holding of the case, then if appropriate engages in a policy discussion and/or takes hypothetical examples as problems to be solved, and then, finally, the professor sums up the Holding of the case, that is, what the law is. Modified Socratic can be adapted and used in other subject matter areas such as medicine, philosophy, science—even gradeschool.


Chapter 35 Intuition By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I am an Intuitive person. I love intuition. People often speak of “women’s intuition,” but practical or philosophical intuition also exists. Intuition is what provides the person with Insight. Insight is a cognitive, novel solution to a problem that wasn’t there before. Intuition also guides us toward truth. While intuition may only provide us with a “ball park” idea, the argument is that intuition is never wrong. I would like to argue that intuition functions probabilistically to give me a probable idea of what is going on. Intuition never provides absolute certainty and is not intended to. There is a great deal of scientific evidence which support the idea that intuition actually exists and functions in certain people. For those who do not have intuition, it is recommended that the person meditate as a means of developing intuition.


Chapter 36

Christianity, Karma, and Christ By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

As you may recall, Karma is based on the idea of “cause and effect.” “As you sew, so shall you reap.” “As you do, so it will be done unto you.” “As you judge, so you shall be judged.” Karma also carries

with it the idea that “as it has been done in relation to you, so it will be done again.” Thus, some would argue that Jesus of Nazareth, were he to come to Earth, would have as his Karma the requirement that he be crucified again. Additionally, some might argue that every Christian following in the place of Jesus will him or herself have to submit to crucifixion. I, on the other hand argue that Jesus transcends Karma. I argue that Jesus died once and for so that his followers would not have the Karma of crucifixion. Jesus, as the Logos and as the Christ, transcends all Karma. If we follow Christ we can follow the Karma of Christ which is to live simple lives, serve others in their need, promote justice and social justice, and


finally, to have lives which are spiritual and fulfilling. Thus, a rich Christian is still required to live a simple life and is not to have a life involving the conspicuous consumption of luxury goods. A rich Christian knows that it is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich Christian to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Rich Christians have an obligation to responsibly use their money and wisely use their money. Remember, a Christian who takes ten people and trains them and gives them fulfilling well paying jobs does a better thing than the Christian who simply gives money away as charity to the same ten people who are poor.