You are on page 1of 103

An Anthology of Critical Thomist Jurisprudence, Vol. 2 By Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Introduction This book is an Anthology of previously published Tract Books or Essays dealing with Critical Thomist Jurisprudence.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

Description

Page

1

A Second Refutation of Ockham’s Razor

4

2

Bergson, Duration, and Metaphysics

6

3

Biblical Miracles and Quantum Physics

10

4

Canon Law and Equity

15

5

Christianity, the Bible, and Karma

18

6

Critical Thomism and Gadamer’s Hermeneutics

21

7 Critical Thomism and Economics

24

8 Critical

Thomism and Liberation

27

9 Critical Thomism, Creative Form, and Jesus Christ

30

10 Ethics, Natural Law, and Responsibility

32

11 Hegelian Phil., Dialectic and LL-T Law

35

12 Jungian Psychology, the Bible, and Spirituality

37

13 Law and Liberation Theology

40

14 Law and Love

47

15 Law, Science, Statistical Probability, and Standard Deviation

49

16 Metaphysics and Quantum Physics

54

17 Natural Law, Divine Law, and Equity

56

18 Parenting Children for Social Justice and Equality

61

19 Philosophy of Law, Evidence, and A Fallacious Argument

64

20 Reincarnation: A Critical Look

68

21 Separation of Church and State

73

22 Statutory Construction and the United States Constitution

76

23 The Bible and Natural Law

78

24 The Bible and Social Justice

82

25 The Bible, Jesus, and Social Justice

84

26 The Bible, Equity, and Law:

Unclean Hands and Good Faith

90

27 The Bible, Evolution, and Multidimensional Reality

93

28 Zen Realism and Critical Thomism

98

29 Zen Satori and Critical Thomist Insight

101

THE END

103

Chapter 1 A Second Refutation of Ockham’s Razor By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Previously, I argued that Ockham’s Razor is invalid because in order

for a concept to be valid, it must at least allow for its’ own existence. Ockham’s Razor does not allow for its’ own existence because it excludes

itself as an unnecessary metaphysical assumption.

explore an alternate refutation of Ockham’s Razor. In essence, Ockham’s Razor provides that a simple explanation of some phenomenon is to be preferred over a more complex explanation. So, for example, if it is possible to argue for or prove or even theorize the origin of the Universe in purely physicalist terms, excluding any discussion of God or metaphysics, then, such a “simple” physicalist explanation is to be preferred. I would like to propose an alternative approach, however. Let us call

this Fejfar’s Rubberband.

explanation is to be preferred over a simple one.

In this Tract Book, I

Fejfar’s Rubberband argues that a more complex

The argument is that

intellectual people generally prefer more complex explanations of phenomenon over those which or simple at best, simpliste, at worst. Fejfar’s Rubberband would prefer an explanation of the origin of the Universe which involves God, or metaphysics, over a simple physicalist explanation. Now, let us assume the role of a judge who must determine which approach is more valid, Ockham’s Razor or Fejfar’s Rubberband. Looking at the arguments from a more critical point of view, it is clear that there is no The

rational basis for preferring Ockham’s Razor to Fejfar’s Rubberband. choice of selecting a more simple explanation over a more complex

explanation is purely subjective.

favors Ockham’s Razor over Fejfar’s Rubberband. Ockham’s Razor is revealed not as critical science, but as a subjectivist, purely arbitrary, irrational, assumption.

There is no value neutral argument which

Chapter 2 Bergson, Duration, and Metaphysics By Anthony J. Fejfar

© Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In his philosophical work,

“Introduction to Metaphysics,” Instead of

Henri

“Duration.”

Bergson showcases the metaphysical concept of

discussing the metaphysical concepts of being, or substance, or logos,

Bergson explicates the idea of Duration.

easy to say precisely.

One wonders whether duration is found precisely in space-time, or beyond it

in some sense.

What is Duration?

Well, it is not

Duration represents an enduring moment in time.

Metaphysics are typically thought to function beyond space-time, but

perhaps they can manifest in the duration of space-time.

concepts or quiddities such as being, form, logos, and substance are thought

to operate independently of the knower outside of time.

places duration within time, although it must be stated that duration does not

Bergson, however,

Metaphysical

represent ordinary time.

Perhaps we can better understand duration by considering some Those on “indian

examples. For many Native Americans, time flows.

time” have a very difficult time showing up on time for appointments.

Native American says that he will be at a certain place at a certain time, this

is traditionally seen as an approximation.

that he will be there first thing in the morning, he might show up at ten

o’clock, rather than eight o’clock.

am I saying that all Native Americans who have been acculturated into “western” linear time necessarily function this way. But, some Native Americans do experience time this way. Perhaps, then, Indian time is an example of duration where space-time is curved or bends to manifest in an alinear way. In addition to Indian time, there is also “farm time.”

phenomenology class to critically reflect on the experience of time that I had

growing up.

summer vacations, growing up, time flowed differently.

Farm time” was very different that the “school time” that I was accustomed

to during the school year.

If you are on the type

experience “vacation time” as qualitatively different.

If a

If a Native American tells you

I am not saying this as a criticism.

Nor

While it took a

On my Grandpa’s farm in South Dakota, where I spent This “Bohemian

Similarly, for some people, it is possible that they

of vacation where you do not have to keep a schedule, vacation time is qualitatively different different than “work time.” My point for the foregoing discussion of time is that it does lend

support for Bergson’s concept of Duration.

sort of time than we are normally accustomed to.

“bends” a bit to manifest duration.

Perhaps Duration is a different

Perhaps space-time

The notion that space-time can bend is consistent with Quantum

Physics.

possible that time might bend or endure as a “moment” of duration, where

the change in time is qualitative. This is because with Quantum Non- locality, the shortest distance between two points is not necessarily a linear straight line. Now, a point that can be made is that perhaps meditation can change enough of one’s subatomic structure in a person’s brain that time

will be experienced differently.

people say that time “slows down” in an emergency situation.

some athletes say that time can slow down so that it is easier to play a sport

effectively.

slow down in a way that makes it easier for the ball to be hit.

Because of Quantum Non-locality at a subatomic level, it is

Perhaps this accounts for the fact that some

Moreover,

At some “moment points”

a baseball, or a tennis ball can

The point I wish to make is that if one can experience “moment points” of duration as part of a person’s ordinary life, then it makes it easier to imagine that some scientists, philosophers, or theologians, can intuit being, substance, or logos, or other metaphysical quiddities which manifest outside of

form or quantum cause, then, manifest in the duration of curved space-time, within space-time, while the others do not.

space-time.

Such metaphysical quiddities such as quantum

Bibliography

Henri Bergson,

Introduction to Metaphysics

Edmund Husserl,

Phenomenology

Chapter 3 Biblical Miracles and Quantum Physics By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

When I was a freshman in college at Rockhurst College (now Rockhurst University) I had a course called “Christ in the Scriptures.” It

was a good class.

who drove this cute little sports car, who sat right behind me.

anywhere with the cute little blond, who by the way was Protestant, but I did

get somewhere with the class.

“redaction criticism” of the Bible. That is, interpretation of the Bible

through the use of “demythologizing” hermeneutics.

we basically taught, at least to some extent, that although Faith may make us

believe in the Miracles of the Bible, when we are “scientific” scripture scholars, we will not believe in miracles. The toughest thing for me was the discussion of the gospel of Luke. Father Dehne told us about the “infancy narrative” which was found only in

There was this cute little blond from the Kansas side,

I didn’t get

Father Carl Dehne, S.J., taught us about

In other words, were

Luke.

and Matthew also refers to the three wise men or magi.

of Mark, nor John, refer to the birth of Jesus.

Well, the implication of the whole thing, whether explicit or not, was that there was really no virgin birth, nor flight to Egypt, etc., etc., etc. In other

word no Christmas.

Matthew refers briefly to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, of Judea,

Neither the gospels

Now, why do I point this out?

So, I went home to Lincoln, Nebraska for “Christmas” break, in a little

bit of a quandry.

really take place, or was it all hyperbole?

Jesus an illegitimate child?

Midnight Mass, and I was almost convinced that the miracles were

true,

into the Christmas lights on the Christmas tree, and the homemade cretch scene, with Jesus in the manger with the three wise men, and Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, and the sheep, and meditated. Then somehow I knew that it

was ture, intuitively. I had not lost my Faith with the Jesuits, but had strengthened it, somehow. I knew the miracles were true, I knew Christmas was real. Now, many years later, as an adult in my forties, I am revisiting the

someway. Then, I sat up late, like I usually did, and stared

Was Christmas really real? Did the miracles in the Bible

Was there a virgin birth or was

Well, I went to Christmas Mass, probably

somehow,

issue. Was there a virgin birth of Jesus? Did Moses really part the Red Sea

to allow the Hebrews to escape from the Egyptians? survive in the lion’s den?

Jesus really raise Lazarus from the dead? Did Jesus really rise from the dead after his crucifixtion? Well, Faith told me yes, and even more, Intuition told

me yes, but what about modern science? What does science have to say? Well, modern science, in my view, using Quantum Physics, definitely

supports the idea of miracles happening.

Quantum Physics, miracles happen “scientifically.”

that at a subatomic level all of material reality is supported not by atoms, but by subatomic particles, one of which is the quanta. The quanta particle is a chameleon.

Meaning changes the valence and function of a quanta particle. Mind over matter is literally true. The double slit experiment of Quantum Physics shows a dispersion pattern that is impossible given ordinary newtownian physics assumptions. Moreover, Bell’s Theorem proves non-local communication at a distance

between atoms, thus making the idea of “psychic channeling” scientifically

possible.

subatomic particles can change valence or function, then it is possible that

Did Daniel really

Did Jesus really heal blind and lame people? Did

In the world of science, using

Quantum Physics says

Additionally, if non-local communication is possible, and if

meaning, or prayer, can change subatomic particles non-locally at a distance. And, if meaning or prayer can change subatomic particles non-locally at a distance, then it is certainly possible that atoms and molecules, and even cells, which are ultimately composes of subatomic particles, could also change. A virgin birth is thus scientifically possible, as well as moving large

amounts of water, and healing the blind and the lame.

confirmed by the fact that modern scientific prayer studies show that prayer provides a statistically significant difference in the healing of heart attack

patients.

compose, can change matter physically.

reality is not atomic separateness, but instead the Quantum Field, masking itself as various subatomic particles. Thus, miracles are not only scientifically possible, but probable. only are the modern “scientific” miracles of the microwave oven, the television, the computer, the gameboy, the playstation, the dvd player made possible with Quantum Physics, so too are the “scientific” miracles of the virgin birth of Jesus, Jesus healing the blind and the lame, the parting of the Red Sea, and Daniel and the lion’s den.

Quantum particles, called quanta, and the Quantum Field that they

The foregoing is

Underlying material physical

Not

Bibliography Larry Dossey, M.D., Recovering the Soul Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality

Chapter 4 Canon Law and Equity By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Ordinarily, Roman Catholics are bound by the Code of Canon Law.

However, there is at least one exception to this.

following Divine Law and Natural Law, has a provision which parallels

Aristotle’s treatment of Equity.

Doctrine of Epikeia, and in the second instance by Equity itself. The Doctrine of Epikeia provides:

Epikeia is an interpretation exempting one from the law contrary to the clear words of the law and in accordance with the mind of the legislator. Epikeia is used where: “(a) the strict interpretation of the law would work a great hardship, and (b) in view of the usual interpretation it may be prudently conjectured that, in this particular case, the legislator would not

This is done in the first instance by the

The Code of Canon Law,

wish the law to be strictly applied. Let us take, then, this example. Suppose that a person was stranded on a

desert island with some food and drink, including a box of soda crackers and

a bottle of grape juice.

of grape juice for the eucharist, and while Canon Law ordinarily requires

that Mass be said by an ordained priest. In these exceptional circumstances the lay person would be permitted to say Mass, as a priest, with the materials available. The lay person would be entitled under Natural Law, Divine Law, and Canon Law, to make an exception to the ordinary Canon Law rule so that the lay person would not be denied the sacrament of the Mass and eucharist. A second use of Equity is that Canon Law is to be applied equitably:

“Canonical equity may be defined as a certain human moderation with which canon law is to be tempered, so that the text may be prudently, even

benignly applied to concrete cases.”

means that every Canon Law rule can be equitably interpreted so as to

promote Divine Law and Natural Law in the interests of justice.

priest could interpret canon law in a particular situation to allow, the one hour fast before mass rule, to be relaxed for a person who has just gotten of

While Canon Law would ordinarily prohibit the use

This equitable interpretation of law

Thus, a

the night shift and needs to eat a snack before Mass.

Bibliography Bouscaren and Ellis, Canon Law

Chapter 5 Christianity, The Bible and Karma

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar Christianity is often thought not to have anything to do with the eastern

concept of Karma.

beings, is bound by the law of cause and effect.

say, “for every action there is an equal a opposite reaction.”

similar idea.

has an effect, sometimes immediate, sometimes delayed. Christianity, it is argued that Christ transcends Karma. explores these issues.

The idea of Karma is that everything, including human

In the west, we sometimes Karma is a

The general idea is that every action that a person undertakes

Additionally, in

This Chapter

In the Bible, there is a quotation which says, “As you sow, so you shall

What this means is that the actions you perform reflect back upon

reap.”

you. So, if you treat others unjustly, you will be treated unjustly.

harm others, you will be harmed. you love others, you will be loved.

Sometimes the effect is immediate, sometimes it is delayed.

If you

If you help others, you will be helped. If you hate others, you will be hated.

If

The Bible also says, “Judge not, lest you shall be judged.”

What this

means is that as you judge, so you shall be judged. others is the standard that will be applied to you. is a serious sin.

be judged by those same standards.

The standard you set for This is why hypocrisy

If you set artificially high standards for others, so you will

This is another application of Karma.

It is the position of Christianity that Grace from Christ transcends

Karma.

Karma. But, even so, there is still a price.

help others.

you.” Additionally, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,

all your soul, and all your strength, and your neighbor as yourself.” When a person finds love in Christ hae 1 receives the Grace in Christ to love and help others. One’s Karma becomes Karma in Christ where one

pledges to live a simple life in the service of others, letting one’s Holy Spirit

Self flow through.

whether as a nurse, a doctor, a lawyer, a priest, a nun, a minister, a social worker, a teacher, even a business person who follows social responsibility of business when producing a profit. The person, in Christ is happy to have the Karma of Christ, especially, since Christ was penured, or crucified, once

Thus, prayer and Divine Intervention by Christ can cancel out Jesus demands that we love and

As Jesus says in the Bible, “Love one another as I have loved

The person is happy to live a life helping others,

1 “Hae,” is the neuter pronoun that I have developed. “Hae” is used here rather

than “he” or “she.”

and for all for our sins or Karma.

to help others. The concepts of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory, thus make sense.

person lives a life of hate, then Karma will place that person in Hell, either

now, or later.

and hate, then Karma will place that person in Purgatory, either now, or later. If a person lives a life of love and helping others, then Karma will place that person in Heaven, either now, or later.

We are not required to be crucified, only

If a

If a person lives a life of mediocrity, a combination of love

Bibliography The Sermon on the Mount

Matthew Fox,

Chapter 6 Critical Thomism and Gadamer’s Hermeneutics By Anthony J. Fejfar

© Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In Hans Georg Gadamer’s book,

“Truth and Method,” Gadamer Hermeneutics is that

discusses at length the problem of hermeneutics.

discipline concerned with meaning.

can have meaning outside a hermeneutic context.

Gadamer points out that no language

Meaning, then, in some

sense preceeds reason. forest and the tree.

world of meaningless sense impressions.

through which we not only interpret reality, but in some sense construct reality.

Meaning is the “light” which enables us to see the Without meaning we would simply have a jumbled up

Meaning provides the context

Because meaning in some sense preceeds reality, we have the

problem of the hermeneutic circle.

that we know must in some sense be meant, and since meaning is seen as essentially subjective, we know what we mean and we mean what we know.

Since meaning preceeds knowing, all

This is the hermeneutic circle. I would argue, however, that conceptual meaning involves, in the

strict sense only the level of understanding.

Critical Thomism takes the position that knowledge comes from a three part

cognitive operation involving sense experience, meaningful understanding,

and reflective intuitive judgment.

meaningful understanding by performing a different cognitive function. While understood meaning is rational and analytic in its’ pure form, reflection and judgment are alinear, arational intuitive cognitive functions.

Thus the intuitive function of reflection and judgment transforms the

hermeneutic circle into a “hermeneutic spiral.”

vantage point can be found using judgment and reflection which leads one

Because of the intuitive function

out of the “illogical” hermeneutic circle.

of judgment and reflection, that which is know is that what is judged and reflected upon, not simply that which is meaningfully understood

analytically.

As I have argued before,

Reflection and judgment sublates

Therefore, a certain

Finally,

Gadamer also points out that there are certain

“forestructures of knowing” which enable better understanding. Additionally, Gadamer also discusses what he describes as “enabling

prejudices” or an “enabling horizon.”This is Gadamer’s attempt to avoid the hermeneutic circle.

judgment and reflection, as mentally operative can be understood as a “forestructure of knowing” in terms of operative cognitive psychology. Additionally, if one interprets Gadamer as suggesting that “forestructures of knowing” are purely conceptual in nature, then as a Critical Thomist I suggest that something like the Immutable Platonic Forms act as objective “forestructures of knowing” independent of any knower, thus again limiting the application of the hermeneutic circle.

I would argue that the cognitive function of

Bibliography T. Bastick, Intuition Hans Georg Gadamer,

Truth and Method

Bernard Lonergan,

Bernard Lonergan, Insight Bernard Lonergan, Method in Theology

Cognitional Structure, in Collection.

Chapter 7 Critical Thomism and Economics By Anthony J. Fejfar

© Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Critical Philosopher,

Bernard Lonergan wrote an extensive I had an

Following

unpublished manuscript dealing with economic theory. opportunity to read that manuscript quite some time ago.

Lonergan’s work, I would like to start the discussion of Critical Thomism and Economics with the following equation:

S x

= D x BP x E x BCM x V

SC x SP x

SPR x E x SCM x V

= EQ Put in longer form the equation reads: Supply x Supply Cost x Supply Price x Supply Profit x Supply Cost of Money x Externalities x Value = Demand x Buyer Price x Buyer Cost of Money x Externalities x Value = Equalibrium. Supply means the amount of the commodity available for sale.

Supply Cost means the cost of the good to be sold incurred by the seller. Sale Price means the Price demanded by the seller. Supply Profit means the amount of money realized over costs as profit for the seller. Supply cost of money means the cost and availability of money to the seller. Externalities means indirect costs such as a the costs of transportation of the commodities. Value means the value that is placed upon the sale of the commodities, as value.

Demand means the amount of the commodity wanted by the buyer for

purchase.

of Money means the cost and availability of money to the Buyer. Externalities again means indirect costs such as the cost of transportation of the commodities. Finally, Value means the value that is placed upon the sale of the commodities, as value. Let us imagine a hypothetical sale between a lawn mower wholesaler and a hardware store that can sell lawnmowers. Let us imagine

that the Seller starts out with ten lawmowers potentially for sale at a price of

$100 per mower.

Let us also assume that the Supply Profit desired is 10%.

mower. Supply Cost of Money is 5%.

Buy Price means the Price demanded by the buyer. Buyer Cost

Let us suppose that the supply cost per mower is $70 per The

There are no externatilities.

Finally, the

Seller places a high Value on the supply and use of lawnmowers.

this situation it is quite possible that a deal will be made at the equalibrium

price of $100 per mower. It must be pointed out, however, that if any of the significant variables

is changed then the equalibrium price will change.

Buyer, or society in general place a relatively low Value on the supply and use of lawnmowers, this might result in a discounted sale equalibrium of

$90.

Given

If for example, the

The point I wish to make is that Value comes into play in every Economics, then,

economic situation and must be taken into account.

involves Value and values.

Chapter 8 Critical Thomism and Liberation By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Classical Philosophy in general, and Thomism, in particular, is This is because

typically thought to be conservative, even reactionary.

Classical Philosophy is thought to privelege a world view where society is static, and those in control, or in power, because of the static nature of reality, stay in control, or in power, presumably to the detriment of everyone else.

The idea expressed above, that Classical philosophy is conservative or even reactionary, in a negative way, is, however, false. First of all, classical philosophy is based upon the idea that reality is structured by material forms,

substantial forms, or even immutable platonic forms.

foregoing is true, it can certainly be argued that concepts such as freedom, liberty, liberation, autonomy, self-determination, individual rights, etc., are

However, even if the

respectively, themeselves, material forms, substantial forms, or even

immutable platonic forms.

substantial forms, or even immutable platonic forms, are really “quantum forms” which exist and operate in the “Quantum Field,” and thus, can be “Added to but not subtracted from, rearranged but not changed.” Now, it can be argued that the forms are infinite in number, and that the God who is Incomprehensible to us, in all His Perfection, in His Mind, has every possible immutable platonic form, ex nihilio, from the beginning, outside of space-time. Thus, whenever a new concept, or relationship, or

idea, or even movement comes into our society, it is argued that such new concepts, relationships, or even movements, have always-already existed outside of space-time in the Mind of God, or the World of the Forms. Platonism, then results in a sort of conservatism, but it is one which is, or at least can be, totally “progressive.” Alternatively, perhaps as to some forms, say material forms, such forms are really “Quantum Forms” which can be “added to but not In such a case it is obvious

subtracted from, rearranged but not changed.” that there is room for new forms, new concepts, new relationships, new movements.

Moreover, it can be argued that material forms,

Critical Thomism, suggests, however, that Liberation in

society will never happen unless Liberation of the individual mind also takes place.

Chapter 9 Critical Thomism, Creative Form, and Jesus Christ

By Anthony J. Fejfar

© Copyright 2006

by Anthony J. Fejfar

Critical Thomism is based, in part, upon a metaphysic of

Form is a metaphysical quiddity which forms the basis for the Immutable

Platonic Forms.

is structured by the Forms.

important than the “ordinary” forms, and that is Creative Form or Logos. While the Immutable Platonic Forms are that, that is, precisely

immutable, a sort of “change” is possible.

responsible for making “changes” in the “World of the Forms.”

said of the Forms that they can be “added to but not subtracted from,

rearranged but not changed.”

is responsible for adding to but not subtracting from the Forms, rearranging

them but not changing them.

“change” in the context of stability. Creative Form can also be translated as the Creative Word, or

Form.

It is argued that all of reality, especially, linguistic reality

There is one Form, however, that is more

Logos or Creative Form is It has been

It is precisely Logos, or Creative Form that

This provides a certain amount of

creative

Word, as Logos.

Christ, who is the Word, or Logos, referred to as God, in the prologue to

the Gospel of John, is also the Creative Form or Creative Word, or Logos, who gives us the Forms found in the World of the Forms in the first place. It is God, in Jesus Christ who is responsible for “adding to but not subtracting from the Forms, rearranging but not changing them.” very powerful position to be held by Jesus Christ, and shows us that our

Who is both creative and structuring at

God is one who is Creative Form, the same time.

Thus, a secondary argument can be made that Jesus

This is

Chapter 10 Ethics, Natural Law, and Responsibility By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

There are different approaches to Ethics. Philosopher Richard Neibuhr suggests that we start with the concept of responsibility.

Responsibility is a conservative ethic.

formulation: “responsible for self, responsible for other,” is best.

way the balance is found for concern for the other, as well as for the self. The “Responsible Self,” is the Jungian Self of the Holy Spirit. It is the

Holy Spirit within our hearts and minds that helps us to be responsible. To You have a

start, one must begin first with the Self that is you.

responsibility to be Ethical and responsible. As an adult this does not just

mean financially responsible, it also means ethically responsible. Being ethically responsible, both to Self and to Other, in my view, means starting with the Natural Law Ethical principles of: “Reciprocity,

Utility, Proportionality, and Equity.

Put best, I suggest that the

In this

Reciprocity means treating another

you would wish to be treated in similar circumstances.

this in grade school from our Mother.

his sister Sally, said to Billy, “Now, Billy, how would you like it if your sister Sally hit you. You know you wouldn’t like that, so, you shouldn’t do it to her.” Utility, means maximization of value. Here one asks whether or not a

particular actions fits within some scale of values.

Billy hitting Sally?

Nothing of value is really gained, rather only the negativity of pain and

suffering is produced. Proportionality, means a perfect reflective ratio is present. For example, damages in money should be owed in perfect proportion to the

amount of physical damage incurred.

Billy owes a certain amount in damages, or in the alternative, in proportional punishment, for hitting Sally.

Many of us learned

Mom, who, after seeing Billy hit

Is there really value in

Answer, no. Nothing positive is accomplished.

Thus, ethically, with Proportionality,

Finally, Equity, makes an equitable exception from a general rule based

upon need.

not be required to pay damages or to be severely punished because he has the special need of being a child and thus is not considered fully responsible

In the case of Billy, and Sally, it can be argued that Billy should

for his actions. It is my position, that using the foregoing Natural Law Ethical principles promotes responsibility to Self and Other.

Bibliography Anthony Fejfar, Jurisprudence for a New Age

Richard Neibuhr,

The Responsible Self

Chapter 11 Hegelian Philosophy, Dialectic, and Landlord Tenant Law By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006, by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Philosopher Hegel is most widely known for his philosophical theory of “Dialectic.” Dialectic takes place where two seeming opposites are reconciled through the use of a third approach. Thus, Hegelian Dialectic can be summarized as having three movements: 1. Thesis;

Anti-thesis; and 3. Synthesis. Such a dialectical approach is similar to the approach found in the scholastic philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas: 1.

Argument;

Dialectic, then, has a noble history, and can be found in a number of modern contexts, including, Law. Generally, in Law, an adversarial approach is used as follows:

2.

2. Counter-argument; and 3. Conclusion.

1. Plaintiff’s Argument

2. Defendant’s Counter-argument

3. Judgment of the Court or Conclusion

Let us consider the following example.

Imagine that in an rental

apartment there is a dripping faucet in the kitchen.

the Landlord, and asks that the faucet be fixed.

Tenant then has a plumber come in and has the faucet fixed at a cost of

$100.

rent that is owed, paying only a rent of $100 for that month.

argues that the reduced rent is appropriate because the Tenant has a right to

“repair and deduct” (See, Pugh v. Holmes, Pennsylvania Supreme Court) because the Landlord is not complying with the Implied Warranty of

Habitability which requires that the Landlord provide leased premises which

are safe, sanitary, and habitable.

Tenant then deducts the $100 cost of repair from the $200 per month

The Tenant complains to The Landlord refuses.

The Tenant

Landlord argues that a leaking faucet does

not constitute leased premises which are unsafe, unsanitary, or non- habitable.

The foregoing, then, in Dialectic is presented as follows:

1. Argument/Thesis:

2. Counter-argument/Anti-thesis:

Leaking Faucet is habitability violation

Leaking Faucet is not a habitability violation

3. Judgment of the Court

Damages to Tenant

Chapter 12

Jungian Psychology, The Bible, and Spirituality By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Spirituality is difficult to define.

Spirituality deals with matters of

the Spirit.

feeling in one’s mind or heart.

others are not? It really is a matter of accepting the Spirit at some point in

your heart.

You must make a conscious decision to accept the Spirit.

Matus, describes such a move as “an opening.”

your heart and mind, the spirit start to work with you.

important that Jesus said that only unforgivable sin in the sin against the Spirit, that is, rejection of the Spirit. Once a person has integrated the Spirit, then one begins to

If we could describe the Spiritual feeling, is a “streaming”

How is it that some people are spiritual and

If you accept the Spirit in your heart, then you feel spiritual. Don Juan de

Once there is an opening in

The Spirit is so

develop what Depth Psychologist, Carl Jung, describes as the Self.

is the Spirit in you, and is contrasted with the persona or the ego, which is a

Saint Paul, in his

letter to the Ephesians, explicitly prays for his readers that they may “be

strengthened with power through [Christ’s] Spirit in the inner self

Ephesians, Chapter 3, verse 16, New American Bible.

And,

somehow the Spirit in me is more me than the superficial me which is my

ego identity.

false representation of the the Self.

develop the Self and to replace the ego. Should one do away with the ego?

should not only do away with the ego, but also the Self.

The self should never be rejected, and, the ego should be transformed into a transcedental ego, that is an ego which is geared toward transcendence, not

inane ego projects.

toward overcoming obstacles. It is oriented towards accomplishing goals by

overcoming obstacles.

it is oriented toward the transcendental precepts: be attentive, be intelligent,

more superficial way of being which lacks spiritual depth.

The Self

Thus, the real me,

the true self, the inner self, that is really me, is in fact the Spirit in me.

The Self flows, the Self is, while the ego is merely a puffed up

The task of Spirituality, then, is to

Some Buddists would say we

This is wrong.

The ego which transcends survives.

It is oriented

The transcendental ego is spiritual.

If nothing else

be reasonable, be responsible, be loving. (See, generally, Bernard Lonergan, Method in Theology).

Chapter 13

Law and Liberation Theology By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Liberation Theology is best summed up by the idea that Jesus leads The Human Jesus

us by coming down off the Cross in a Liberating Action.

refuses to die on the Cross, but instead comes down from the Cross to lead us in Liberation and Social Justice.

liberation theologians are Gustavo Gutierrez and Juan Segundo, perhaps the

most influential Liberation Theologian is Pedro Arrupe, who led the Jesuit Order in the General Congregations affirming the “Preferential Option for the Poor.”

It is within the foregoing tradition, of liberation theology, that I am writing this Chapter.

Although, two of the most influential

Liberation is the key of Liberation Theology. We can see a eight fold movement of Liberation:

1. Individual Cognitive Liberation

What is Liberation?

2. Individual Metaphysical Liberation

3. Individual Ethical Liberation

4. Social Liberation Critique of Unjust Social Structures

5. Liberative Social Political Action

6. Liberative Social Norming

7. Liberative Law

8. Liberative Law Enforcement

Individual Cognitive Liberation involves the “self appropriation”

of one’s mind in a quadrilectical movement of

experience, understanding,

judgment-reflection, and love.

understanding, judgment-reflection, and love.

Each of us must experience: experience, Each of us must understand:

Each of us must

experience, understanding, judgment-reflection, and love.

judge and reflect that we know reality through experience, understanding,

Finally,

understanding, judgment-reflection, and love. In order to Liberate, we must first experience what is going on.

judment-reflection, and love.

each of us must love, experience,

In

order to Liberate, we must each then understand what is going on.

to Liberate, we must then each know what is going on, through judgment

and reflection. Finally, to really act to Liberate we must love.

analysis love Liberates.

moves the will to Act when we are afraid to act. The Second Movement of Liberation is Metaphysical Liberation.

Metaphysical Liberation involves structuring one’s consciousness with

Being, Logos, and Substance.

Act of Understanding. Being is the basis for the Incomprehensible God the

Father.

Logos is

In order

In the final

Love is Liberation, more than anything else. Love

Being is Form of Form, an Unrestricted Pure

Being is the basis for much of our Intuition of Reality.

Creative Form, Creative Word, or Creative Reason, or Reason itself.

Logos

is the basis for The Word which is the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Finally,

Substance is Formless Form, which paradoxically is a combination of Truth, It is the appropriation of Being,

with a small amount of Form and love.

Logos, and Substance, that causes Liberation to Flourish.

Logos Liberates!

Substance Liberates!

Being Liberates!

Individual Ethical Liberation is the Third Movement of Liberation. Ethics teaches us what is right or wrong, better or worse, to do, both

individually, and socially. Principles:

There are four basic Natural Law Ethical

1. Reciprocity

2. Utility

3. Proportionality

4. Equity

Reciprocity requires that the individual treat another as that person Utility means Value implies individual values, and a scale of

Proportionality is seen best in a one to one ratio.

Damages paid

Proportionality means

Finally, Equity means that Equity makes an

would like to be treated in similar circumstances.

Maximization of Value.

values.

should be proportional to damages sustained.

equality before the law.

equitable exception from a general rule based upon need. Need is based

upon love.

Reciprocity Liberates!

Utility Liberates!

Proportionality

Liberates!

Equity Liberates!

The Fourth Movement of Liberation is the Social Liberation Critique of Unjust Social Structures. Here, experience, understanding, judgment-reflection, love, Metaphysical Intuition, and Ethics, combine to

critique unjust social structures.

Rules which are wrong in the face of

experience, are impractical and unjust.

violate substantive due process, and are unjust.

their rejection of good judgment or reflection, are unreasonable and unjust. Rules which lack love as their basis, and rather are based upon hate, are

unjust.

are unjust.

not involve reciprocity, utility, proportionality, and equity, are unjust. The Fifth Movement of Liberation is liberative Social Political Action.

laws to be enacted in the first place, social and political action is required. In order for unjust laws to be repealed, social and political action is required. In order for just laws to be enforced, social and political action is required. Just because a just law is on the books, does not necessarily mean that it will be enforced. Liberative Social Norming is the Sixth Movement of Liberation. Saint Thomas Aquinas said, Law is to support the common good. Liberative

Liberative Social and Political Action Liberates!

Rules which are obtuse or irrational Rule which are unwise in

Rules which reject a transcendent Metaphysical basis for Reality

Rules which are Unethical are unjust.

So, too, rules which do

Liberation requires social and political action.

In order for just

As

Similarly, Liberation must support active Social Norming.

social rules must be taught in school and at home.

those who engage in Liberatory consciousness and action, and society must

Society must reward

sanction those who oppose Liberatory consciousness and action. the natural societal function.

Thus children are taught not to steal as a moral rule long before they are taught this as a legal rule. Liberative Law is the Seventh Movment of Liberation.

Just as the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution fought a Revolutionary War of Liberation against King George, so to those who are oppressed in

undemocratic, unjust regimes, must also fight.

just, or near just society, such as we have in the United States, only democratic, non-violent means of social, political, and legal change, is required. Liberative Law Enforcement is the Eight Movement of Liberation. Those responsible for the administration of justice, especially, lawyers, legislators, police officers, and judges, are required to Liberate and to be Liberated. Even lay persons are required to stay informed and involved in law enforcement. All eight movements of Liberation are required for a just society to exist. Both individual as well as societal liberation is required.

This is

In the case of a democratic,

Law Liberates!

Law Enforcement must Liberate!

Bibliography

Fejfar,

Lonergan,

Jurisprudence for a New Age Insight Method in Theology

Lonergan,

Lonergan,

Rawls,

Cognitional Structure, A Theory of Justice

in Collection

Chapter 14

Law and Love By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar Most people think that law doesn’t have much to do with love, and I

have to admit that in teaching law for over ten years, I don’t recall ever

saying in class that law has anything to do with love. think that law does have something to do with love.

Law is supposed to have something to do with Justice. Justice?

options.

neutrality.

But, upon reflection, I

But, what is

How is law to be applied?

Law can be applied using love, or hate, or some sort of antiseptic

Let’s start with hate. It law is based upon hate then all law is The worse

In the end there are, I suppose, three

interpreted in such a way as to support harm and destruction.

criminal sentences are handed out, and, there is no guarantee at all that a civil litigant will have hae 2 day in court.

breaks up things and rends them asunder.

polity together, and hatred simply is incapable of doing this.

Hatred is irrational.

Hatred

Justice is supposed to bind the

2 “Hae” is the neuter pronoun, used here rather than “his” or “her.”

The second option is love.

While this may seem unlikely as a basis

for applying law, I think that it works. Love heals, love brings people

together, love is the basis for compassion.

punishment, or award damages?

love is intelligent. Love may seem to be irrational, but it is not. Love is the

nature of reality. Love is totally consistent with the doctrine of Karma, or cause and effect, which says as a matter of Natural Law, we are responsible for our actions.

While love forgives, loves still asks, even demands that we serve others. Love sees public service as the “punishment” for a crime, not

jail time or worse. The last option is some sort of antiseptic neutrality. I argue that neutrality in law is really not possible. Either, ultimately, one loves or one

hates, even if this disposition is unconscious or subconscious.

How then, can love dole out

Love is capable of these things because

In the end,

it is my view that those who espouse some sort of antiseptic neutrality are

really espousing hatred.

cruelty, although it may not appear to be so.

It may be masked, but neutrality is still a sort of

Chapter 15

Law, Science, Statistical Probability, and Standard Deviation By Anthony J. Fejfar

© Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Law, in the person of the Legislature, uses statistical studies all the time in determining whether or not to enact particular legislation.

a hypothesis or theory, or a position, is generated, then statistical probability

can be used to prove its’ validity.

as a “standard deviation” in order to rule certain data as valid or significant,

while other data is excluded as insignificant.

range of the standard deviation used, then that data is considered significant or valid.

A statistical analysis uses what is known

Once

If the data falls within the

Let us use a simple mathematical equation as an example of a

“scientific theory.”

Let us assume the equation

A + B=10, as our starting

point.

Then, let us assume a standard deviation of 2, plus or minus 10, as

valid.

What this means is that any actual, factual answer which falls within

the range of 10 (plus or minus 2) that is, between the range of 8 to 12, is considered statistically significant or valid. The range of 8 to 12 is

determined by taking 10+2 to 10-2, or 8 to 12. So, the following “factual” equations produce statistically significant results from our starting theory of A + B=10, with a standard deviation of 2:

Study A

1. A=6, B=5,

6+5=11

(11 falls within the range of 8-12)

2. A=7, B=4,

7+4=11

(11falls within the range of 8-12)

3. A=5, B=4,

5+4=9

(9 falls within the range of 8-12)

4. A=3, B=6,

3+6=9

(9 falls within the range of 8-12)

Thus, all four equations produce statistically significant or “valid” responses, given the original equation and a standard deviation of 2.

What if, however, we use a different standard deviation, such as 4,

while staying with the same original starting equation of A+B=10?

the statistically significant range has broadened to 6 to 14 (10-4 to 10+4).

Now, the following “factual” equations produced statistically significant results from our starting theory of A+B=10, with a standard deviation of 4:

Now,

Study B

1. 3+4=7 (7 falls within the range of 6-14)

2. 5+2=7 (7falls within the range of 6-14)

A=3, B=4,

A=5, B=2,

A=6, B=7,

3. 6+7=13

(13 falls within the range of 6-14)

4. 5+8=13 (13 falls withing the range of 6-14)

Thus, all four equations produce statistically significant or “valid” responses, given the original equation and a standard deviation of 4. Now, if a Bill were introduced in Congress which found a “social

problem” that needed correcting given the equation or theory, A+B=10, then both study A and Study B, above would support the enactment of the legislation. However, what if Study C, below were performed, instead?

Let us assume the equation

assume a standard deviation of 2, plus or minus 10, as valid.

means is that any actual, factual answer which falls within the range of 10 (plus or minus 2) that between the range of 8 to 12, is considered statistically significant or valid. The range of 8 to 12 is determined by taking 10+2 to 10-2, or 8 to 12. So, the following “factual” equations produce statistically

A=5, B=8,

A + B=10, as our starting point.

Then, let us What this

significant results from our starting theory of A + B=10, with a standard deviation of 2:

Study C

1. 3+4=7 (7 falls outside the range of 6-12)

2. 5+2=7 (7falls outside the range of 6-12)

A=3, B=4,

A=5, B=2,

A=6, B=7,

3. 6+7=13

(13 falls outside the range of 6-12)

4. 5+8=13 (13 falls outside the range of 6-12)

Thus, while Study B with a standard deviation of 4, supports the theory A+B=10, and the accompanying legislation, Study C with the same “data” and a standard deviation of 2, does not support the theory A+B and the accompanying legislation. Merely, by changing the standard deviation One standard deviation

from 4 to 2, the exact opposite result is produced.

supports the legislation, and another standard deviation opposes the legislation. Now, the critical point, here, is that there is no scientifically, “objective” way of favoring a standard deviation of 4 over a standard deviation of 2, and, what is more, this is true with respect to any standard deviation, contained in any study. At present, only social convention determines what standard deviation is considered valid in a particular type of study.

A=5, B=8,

Now, I could stop here, but I choose not only to deconstruct, but also to reconstruct.

normative for the use of standard deviations in science and politics:

Using metaphysics, I propose the following chart as

Level 5,

A standard deviation of 5 for Psychology, Psychiatry,

History,

and Quantum Physics

English, Hermeneutics, Philosophy, Theology,

Level 4,

A standard deviation of 4 for Law, Political Science, and

Level 3,

Sociology. A standard deviation of 3 for Newtonian Physics

Level 2,

A standard deviation of 2 for Biology and Medicine

Level 1,

A standard deviation of 1 for Chemistry

The foregoing is based upon the idea found in Ken Wilber’s work, that there are enfolded levels of metaphysical reality which find empirical support.

Bibliography Capaldi, The Art of Deception Wilber, Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality

Chapter 16

Metaphysics and Quantum Physics By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Quantum Physics is most clearly associated with the philosopher

scientist Heisenberg.

philosopher-scientist Aristotle.

anything in common?

Metaphysics is credited as starting with the

Do Quantum Physics and Metaphysics have

They do. The metaphysical quiddity of Form.

Both Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas spoke of material form.

The

idea was that materiality was “formed” by the metaphysical quiddity of

Material Form in conjunction with Material Cause.

metaphysics to be outdated, but I don’t think so.

arguments used by Aristotle and Aquinas can also be used in Quantum Physics.

Many consider The same type of

The building block of the universe is not the atom, it is the

subatomic quanta particle.

can change valence and function so as to form what appear to be other

The quanta particle is a chameleon.

The quanta

subatomic particles such as the electron, positron, and quark.

level every quanta participates in the “quanta field” or “quantum field”

which is non-spacial.

“mask” as another subatomic particle is the metaphysical quiddity of Form.

Quantum Form is what makes a quanta particle into an electron particle. This approach is consistent with Aristotle, Aquinas, and Heisenberg. Bibliography

At a deeper

What is interesting is that what causes a quanta to

Aquinas,

Summa Theologica

Aristotle,

Metaphysics

Aristotle,

Posterior Analytics

Heinsenberg,

Physics and Philosophy

Herbert,

Quantum Reality

Chapter

17

Natural Law, Divine Law, and Equity By Anthony J. Fejfar

©

Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In

Great Society, and in Utopia, it is promised that everyone

will be taken care of from “cradle to grave.”

poor are no more. places them in the same position, or perhaps better than the lower middle class.

provide food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and even education. Maybe even more. What is the legal basis for the Social Welfare State?

justify it?

position” of ignorance would be risk averse and would rationally choose a

In the Great Society the

The poor are provided a “social welfare net” which

This is the Social Welfare State.

The social programs involved

How do we

John Rawls argues that a rational person in an “original

Rawls also argues that those persons who

cognitively have formal operations as a matter of developmental psychology would choose to help the poor and less fortunate as a matter of essentially aesthetics.

society with a social welfare net.

For Rawls, an intelligent person finds it distasteful to live in a

world where poverty exists. Poverty is distasteful. No one likes walking down a street and seeing homeless people starving. help them, not exterminate them. I would argue, also, that based on the Natural Law Principle of Reciprocity, I, as a person maximizing value as a Utilitarian, would choose, reciprocally, to have the protection of the social welfare net. Physical or

The rational choice is to

mental illness, and even financial misfortune, can strike anyone at one time or another, and the rational person using the Ethical Matrix, chooses the

“insurance policy” of the social welfare net. premiums through taxes and charitable giving.

We pay our insurance

Now, a different result is reached if we start at Law, using the

Natural Law Principle of Proportionality.

compensated at Law for what one produces.

Under Proportionality, one is Just as damages are

proportional to the amount damaged, so too, compensation is to be

proportional to the amount earned or produced.

justly, $100 per hour as a lawyer, I deserve to be paid $100 per hour as a

lawyer.

then under Proportinality at Law I am not entitled to compensation. However, under another approach to Proportionality it can be argued that the poor and disadvantaged must be taken care of in a positive way.

If I work a job which pays,

Natural Law requires this.

Now, if I am unable to work at all,

If

the underlying secondary principle used, accompanying Proportionality is need, then it is apparent that needs met should be proportional to needs sustained.

that need be proportionately satisfied. To the extent that a poor or mentally

disabled person has a need, then Proportionality requires that such a need be

proportionally satisfied using a one to one ratio of perfect proportionality.

To the extent that I have a need, Proportionality requires that

In Equity, however, one can also argue for compensation.

Equity

requires that each be compensated according to need.

being need food, clothing, shelter, education, etc., they are entitled to it in

Equity based upon need.

a world with limited resources are all “needs” to be treated equally? Under Divine Law, as found in the Bible, in the Book of Isaiah, it is clear that taking care of the poor and the ill is the highest priority. This would But what

also be true using need based Proportionality under Natural Law. about Natural Law in another context?

Since all human

Can equitable need be prioritized, however?

In

It is argued that reality is structured by the threefold levels of

Body, Mind, and Spirit-Intellect.

Spirit-Intellect is to be given the highest priority, then the Mental, and last

of all the Body or the physical.

Natural Law, we must prioritize differently.

Under Natural Law in this reality,

In Equity, then, as a matter of “faith” in

For example, my need for a

happy, fufulling job serving others, intellectually and spiritually, has a higher priority than my neighbor who has the level one need for a speed

boat to water skiing.

the spiritual-intellectual person, the mental mind person, and the sensate

body person,

mind person second, and the sensate body person last.

would argue that even a mentally ill or a mentally retarded person could be very spiritual and thus be entitled to priority. The tough case is the one where resources must be allocated as

between a spiritual person, so that such a person could live an intellectual, spiritual, or scholarly life on the one hand, and feeding unspiritual,

uneducated, ignorant, starving people on the other hand.

people can be spiritual, and many are.

considering.

ignorant and unspiritual.

Body-Mind-Spirit/Intellect in the first instance, we must prioritize and pay

for spiritual and intellectual pursuits, before we feed the ignorant, unspiritual

poor.

the spiritual-intellectual person should be fed first, the mental

Additionally, as between three starving persons,

Interestingly, I

Obviously, poor

But that is not the case I am

I am considering the poor person who is purposefully

I would argue that under the Natural Law of

As a matter of Natural Law we only feed the ignorant, unspiritual

poor for level three intellectual and spiritual reasons, or level two mental

political reasons.

Just as Rawls says that people in formal operations

detest poverty for aesthetic reasons, I would argue that level three people detest poverty for spiritual reasons, and level two people detest poverty for

political reasons.

who believe in the great society, and level three spiritual people will order

their lives to both feed and educate the poor.

our earlier analysis finding that Natural Proportionality based upon need requires that the poor, the mentally and physically ill, and the disadvantaged be helped.

So, in the end, I suppose that level two political people

This is of course bolstered by

Anthony J. Fejfar,

Bibliography

Jurisprudence for a New Age

John Rawls,

A Theory of Justice

Chapter 18

Parenting Children for Social Justice and Equality By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

There are different ways of raising children.

One way of raising a

child is for authority and hierarchy.

social justice and equality.

Another way of raising a child is for

Raising a child for social justice and equality

takes more work, but it is worth it. The first thing that you can do in order to raise a child for social justice and equality is to make sure you have not broken the spirit of the child.

It is important that you only discipline your child in regard to serious infractions of the rules.

You also need to make sure that a child is only disciplined for breaking a rule that the child has been given notice of

previously.

child is only disciplined for breaking a rule that the child has been told about.

You teach a child due process of law by making sure that a

Second, it is important to give your child choices whenever

possible. Once your child is old enough, offer hae 3 a choice for dinner. Offer hae the option of having pudding or pureed fruit for dinner from

Gerber or another company.

responsibility at an early age. Third, it is important that when your child interacts with another

child that you treat each child equally as possible.

“primogeniture” or priority to an older child at the expense of a younger

child, simply because of age.

responsibility to help and protect the younger child, particularly when the

parents are not around. Fourth, it is important when you are disciplining a child that you only spank a child or have the child do “push-ups” when the child refuses to

go to “time-out.”

to corporal punishment such as spanking. Fifth, always explain what are doing to your child.

is told why something is wrong, then the child looks for rationality with Rules

rules. Try never to say no, just because Mom or Dad “says so.” should be based upon reason, not arbitrary authority. Additionally, when a child hits another child you need to teach the

Giving your child a choice teaches

Don’t give

In fact, teach the older child that it is hae

Putting a child in hae room for time-out is to be preferred

When a child

3 “Hae” is the neuter personal pronoun.

child not to hit based upon the Natural Law Principle of Reciprocity.

a child hits another, don’t just say that it is wrong.

why it is that hae hit the other. hae was hit by the other child. want to be hit.

you should not hit your sister.” Finally, try to use positive reinforcement whenever possible. When the child

does something wrong, say, “well, that’s not quite it, why don’t you try

When the child does something right, encourage the child.

When

Instead, ask the child

Then, ask the child how hae would like it if Typically, the child will say that hae did not

The parent then says, “Well, if you don’t want to be hit, then

again.”

Chapter 19 Philosophy of Law, Evidence, and A Fallacious Argument By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar That which is irrelevant is It is my argument that the rules of logic preclude certain The evidence which an

fallacious arguments from being used in court.

attorney attempts to introduce using these arguments is fallacious and

One such fallacious argument is the “fallacy of assuming the

consequent.” Let us assume a civil tort case for damages, with a bench trial. Judge Brown must decide whether or not Joe Smith, the defendant,

committed the tort of battery, by throwing a bucket of water on the head of

Bill Jones, causing Bill Jones to have a Wet Head.

parties to the lawsuit that Bill Jones had a Wet Head.

inadmissable.

inadmissable.

Law involves the rules of evidence.

It is undisputed by the In pretrial discovery,

three possible theories have been developed to explain how it is that Bill Wet Head:

Jones got a

Theory One:

Rain causes Bill Jones to have a Wet Heat.

Theory Two:

Joe Smith throws a Bucket of Water and this

Theory Three:

causes Bill Jones to have a Wet Head. Stan Green sprays a hose Nozzle of Water and this caused Bill Jones to have a Wet Head.

It is the law’s assumption that only one of the foregoing theories is true. In the abstract, however, all three are in some sense true

hypothetically.

Thus, put symbolically, we have the following:

Rain then Wet Head

1. If Rain, therefore, Wet Head

2. Water (thrown), then Wet Head Bucket of Water (thrown), therfore, Wet Head

3. If Nozzle of Water (sprayed), then

Wet Head

If Bucket of

Nozzle of Water (sprayed), therefore, Wet Head In a more abstract form, the foregoing is symbolized using symbolic

logic, as follows:

1. If R, then WH R, therefore, WH

BW then WH

2. If BW, therefore WH

3. If NW, then WH NW, therefore WH

Now, all of the foregoing is true, in the abstract, and perhaps one is true in the concrete.

Since the cause of action is alleged against Joe Smith by Bill Jones, let us focus of the following:

If

BW then, WH

BW, therefore, WH While the foregoing is true, the following statement, which commits the fallacy of “affirming the consequent,” is fallacious, false, and wrong:

If

BW then, WH

WH, therefore, BW Put informally, the foregoing is as follows:

If

Wet Head, therefore, Bucket of Water thrown

Bucket of Water (thrown), then Wet Head

Now, the reason the foregoing is false, is this:

it is possible that the Wet

Head was caused by another cause from another causal “syllogism.”

Wet Head of Bill Jones could have been caused by Rain or Water Nozzle. An inductive argument involving affirming the consequent is only valid then Wet Head.

that the presence of the Wet Head, in the abstract, was caused either by Rain

and only if Water Bucket (thrown),

The

“If

It is quite possible

or the Water Nozzle.

necessarily that Joe Smith caused the Wet Head with the Bucket of Water. It is apparent, then, that an argument which affirms the consequent, that is moves logically backwards, as a matter of logical proof is fallacious

and inadmissable in evidence.

prove that the only possible way that the Wet Head could have happened was with the Water Bucket of Joe Smith.

Just because there is a Wet Head, it does not mean

To use such an argument the plaintiff must

Capaldi,

Bibliography The Art of Deception

Chapter 20

Reincarnation: A Critical Look By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I reincarnation a valid doctrine?

Apparently, an early church council,

The Council of Nicea, held around the year 400 A.D., did not think so.

Although the Pope from Rome did not attend the council, and apparently only five bishops participated, a three to two vote defeated the idea of reincarnation in the Christian Church, at least for a time. (Most protestants do not consider themselves bound by Nicea, but rather focus on the Bible.) From a scientific point of view, Psychiatrist Brian Weiss, M.D., has written a book confirming the idea of reincarnation from a scientific point of

view. (See, Brian Weiss, Many Lives, Many Masters).

Psychologist, Michael Newton, in his book, Journey of Souls, extensively discusses the reincarnation lives of his clients which were discussed while

the clients were placed in hypnotic trance states.

such as Michael Roads, Edgar Cayce, and Janes Roberts have used

Additionally,

Other “new age” authors

information gathered in trance states to confirm the concept of reincarnation as valid. Although Edgar Cayce asserted that the Bible contains numerous references to reincarnation, I choose to focus only on one passage. In the Book of Job, Job’s ten children are all killed when the house that they were

having a party in collapsed.

been found righteous by God, Job’s ten children are restored to him. This either means that Job had ten new children who reincarnated, or I think that

alternatively, all ten were resurrected by God from the dead.

reincarnation is the less intrusive, more likely explanation. Assuming for the sake of argument that the concept of reincarnation is One interesting question is the underlying purpose of reincarnation. There are several options:

valid.

At the end of the Book of Job, after Job has

1. random

2. Karma

3. Learning

4. Grace

5. experience

While I will discuss all fiver options, I find the “Learning” option and the “Grace” option to be the most sensible and plausible.

The “random” interpretation of reincarnation simply states that each There does not seem

person “bounces” from life to life, without meaning.

to be much that is very attractive about this interpretation. Many might prefer to simply die and go out of existence rather than randomly reincarnate. The second interpretation is the “Karma” interpretation. The Karma

interpretation states that the lives which a person takes is based upon past Karma. For every cause there is an effect. As a person does, so it will be

done unto that person.

rather represent “states of being” which play out in reincarnational lives which may be a life of Heaven on Earth, or, Hell on Earth, or something in between.

or baseline interpretation of reincarnation. Next is the “learning” interpretation of reincarnation. Once a person has reached a certain level of maturity after reincarnating, the person takes

While “bad” Karma could certainly result in a person

on “learning lives.”

taking on mental or physical handicaps in a particular life, it is quite possible that a person could be using “good” educational Karma to take on learning

experiences which develop the soul or spirit of the person.

look down on people with mental or physical handicaps. Often such a

Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory are not “places” but

This Karma interpretation is in my view, valid, and is the ground

We should not

person could be an “advanced” or “wise” soul who is trying to develop attributes or experiences which can only be developed through taking on a handicap. Learning is a very sensible and plausible explanation for reincarntion. Grace is also a very sensible and plausible explanation for

reincarnation. It may be that a “mature” or “advanced” or “wise” soul will take on a life or lives of service to others, as a priest, a nun, a minister, a teacher, a doctor, a lawyer, an author, a professor, a nurse, etc., etc. Although these lives may be lives of personal hardship and even sacrifice, they are undertaken either voluntarily or involuntarily as a matter of Grace, in the service of God and humanity. Because Grace in Christ transcends all Karma, it may be many lives of personal service and hardship will be

required to bring a person’s “bad” Karma, back into balance.

some saints, with remarkably “good” Karma, take on lives of Grace, out of love, simply because they are saints. In my judgment, there are many

reincarnational “saints,” on earth.

Additionally,

The last, and perhaps most dysfunctional interpretation of

reincarnation is the “experience” interpretation.

reincarnational lives are simply taken for the sake of experience, without

meaning or value, or even education.

On this view, all

This is the voyeur view of

reincarnation, and I find it selfish, egotistical, and non-sustainable.

Bibliography Journey of Souls Journey into Oneness

Michael Newton,

Michael Roads,

Journey into Nature Seth Speaks The Seth Material Many Lives, Many Masters

Jane Roberts,

Brian Weiss,

Chapter 21

Separation of Church and State By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

There are three policy reasons which can be cited for the idea of

the separation of Church and State.

manipulative and irrational and should be excluded from public debate and

public policy.

too much power in the government if Church and State are combined. Church-State Super State would be oppressive of individual freedom. Finally, a third argument is that although religion is a good thing, the problem is that reasonable people can differ as to Church doctrine and religious authority, and therefore it is not appropriate to privelege one person’s Church doctrine and religious authority over another’s. It is argued I

that such favoritism leads to the persecution of religious minority groups. would like to argue that the wall between Church and State should be relaxed but not eliminated.

First, it is argued that religion is

Second, it is argued that religion is powerful, and, it places A

In so arguing, I will address the three policy

arguments favoring separation of Church and State. The first argument to be addressed is that involving the separation of This

Church and State based upon the idea that religion is irrational.

argument is ultimately based upon the application of Ockham’s Razor to

public policy.

metaphysics must be excluded from pubic debate because they are excluded

by Ockham’s Razor.

solution to any problem is to be preferred over a complex solution.

God and metaphysics involve complex solutions to problems, they cannot

be discussed.

There is no rational reason to privelege a simple solution over a more

complex one.

Because Ockham’s Razor excludes itself as a metaphysical assumption, it cannot be taken seriously. Because Ockham’s Razor has been refuted, it is argued that religion or metaphysics cannot be excluded from the public square on the basis that they are irrational. Instead, it is argued that they can be included, at least in some form. The second argument favoring the separation of Church and State argues that too much power would be placed in the hands of government, to

valid it must allow for its’ own existence.

Those favoring Ockham’s Razor argue that theology and

Recall that Ockham’s Razor argues that a simple Since

However, it has been argued that Ockham’s Razor is bereft.

Moreover, it has been argued that in order for a concept to be

the detriment of individual liberty.

it is possible to include religious or metaphysical concepts in public debate,

or, have them taught in public schools, I would argue against an established Church which has a doctrinal authority which is enforced through the use of

government.

The last argument in favor of the separation of Church and State

argues against favoring one religion over another. something like the “Perennial Philosophy” exists.

common religious doctrines can be taught and utilized such as love of others,

and service to others.

philosophy and not theology and thus can be used like science.

Theological Ethics and Theological Spirituality could be utilized. So, in conclusion, I would argue that metaphysics and theological ethics can be taught in the public schools, and used in arguments in the public square. On the other hand, for pragmatic reasons, I still do not favor

any merger of Church and State.

This argument I agree with.

Although

We do not need a governmental

inquisition.

Here I would argue that I would argue that certain

Additionally, I would argue that metaphysics is

Also,

Chapter 22

Statutory Construction and the United States Constitution By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar It is a well known rule of statutory construction that statutes in What this means

derogation of the common law must be strictly construed.

is that when interpreting a statute, you must do so in a way which has the

least effect upon the common law.

developed to ensure that the common law would be given priority. I would like to argue for a similar rule in the case of Constitutional

Law. I would argue that statutes in derogation of the Constitution be

narrowly construed.

Constitutional rights are not infringed upon.

that a governmental statute relating to sales tax must be strictly construed to

avoid a problem with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, one could narrowly construe the taxing statute so that newspapers

This rule of narrow construction

Thus, a statute must be read in such a way that

For example, one could argue

cannot be taxed with sales tax.

prevent the Constitution from being infringed upon.

Such a narrow reading of the statute would

Chapter 23

The Bible and Natural Law By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Some think that the Bible has nothing to do with Natural Law. In fact the idea of Natural Law is that knowledge is available to the human mind through the use of natural reason, rather than Divine Revelation. Nevertheless, perhaps there is some nuggets to be mined from scripture

which support Natural Law.

Both Plato and Aristotle were ancient Greek philosophers, writing in Greece many years before the Christian New Testament texts were written. Plato and Aristotle both argued that the human being is essentially

constituted by three levels of manifestation,

mind; spirit-intellect.

psychology’s idea of stages, as well as Ken Wilber’s idea of transpersonal

stages of consciousness. St. Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians seems to

Such is the focus of this Chapter.

essentially

body-senses; soul-

This is consistent with both developmental

Interestingly,

have utilized a similar idea:

May the God of peace himself make you perfectly holy, and may you entirely, spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians Ch. 5 v. 23, New American Bible (emphasis added).

It is thus appparent, that St. Paul was exposed to Greek

philosophical Natural Law thinking, as well as approving of the same.

it is Biblical and Christian to understand that there are in fact three (or more)

levels of consciousness for a human being:

noted above, Plato and Aristoltle both wrote about the three levels of spirit,

soul, and body.

There is a Natural Law Ethic which accompanies the foregoing

formulation. All other things being equal,

values are to be preferred over values of soul-mind-moral-political,

values of the soul-mind are in turn to be valued over values of the body-

senses, such as fancy food or clothes, or sexual excess.

Thus

spirit

soul

body.

As

spiritual-intellectual-wisdom

and

Additionally,

I have argued that Critical Thomist Natural Law

Ethical principles, such as reciprocity, utility, proportionality, and equity,

also exist and operate.

support in the Bible?

Do these Natural Law Ethical principles also find

I think so.

Reciprocity is the principle that one should treat another as one This Natural Law

would wish to be treated in similar circumstances.

principle finds support in the teaching of Jesus Christ that one should treat This is the Golden Rule.

others as one would like to be treated.

Additionally,

Utility is also a Natural Law Ethical principle.

Utility is defined in a broad sense as the “maximization of Value.”

example, all other things being equal, pleasure is to be preferred over pain,

satisfaction over disappointment.

of Songs, the Psalms, and Proverbs, where love, compassion, and even

pleasure is to be preferred over hate, spite, and vindictiveness. Another

Proportionality is first found as a Ethical Principle in Aristotle, although Aristotle rejected perfect proportionality which is the basis for equality. Proportionality is found in the Biblical Old Testament injunction that justice requires that damage should be compensated proportionately as “an eye for

and eye, and a tooth for a tooth

For

In the Bible this is confirmed in the Song

Natural Law Ethical Principle is Proportionality.

Finally, a Natural Law Ethical principle is Equity.

Equity, first

found in Aristotle, requires that Equity make an equitable exception from a

general rule based upon need.

of the Wedding Feast at Cana of Galilee in the Christian Gospel.

In the Bible, Equity is supported by the story In the

story Mary, Mother of Jesus, equitably intervenes to have Jesus make an exception from the proportional rule of “no miracles at this time,” so that there would be wine for the wedding celebration.

In conclusion, upon Divine Revelation,

Ethical principles, and Natural Law metaphysical “levels of consciousness.”

although Natural Law is not strictly speaking based

the Bible clearly supports some Natural Law

Chapter 24 The Bible and Social Justice

By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar Social Justice is not communism, neither is it unregulated

capitalism.

help the “little guy,” the poor, the homeless, the oppressed, the sick, the

mentally ill, even the working poor. others.

those in need and that God valued this more than religious rituals, often

empty religious rituals.

of Isaiah. In Isaiah, Chapter 58 God makes it clear that we are to help others, especially those in need, and we are to avoid empty religious rituals. God,

in the person of

States of America for having an empty prayer life and not helping others. God refuses to help those who fast and afflict themselves in religious self

sacrifice, when those very same persons are selfish, vindictive employers. God says that He does not want penance, He does not want the Instead God

kind of humility where a “man bows his head like a reed.”

Isaiah, criticizes Israel, in the modern context the United

Social Justice is the point of view that we have an obligation to

Social Justice believes in helping

Social Justice is a religious attitude that God demands that we help

This is the message of the Bible found in the book

wants the following:

“releasing those bound unjustly” “untying the thongs of the yoke [of the employee]” “setting free the oppressed” “breaking the yoke [of injustice]” “Sharing your bread with the hungry” “sheltering the oppressed and the homeless” “Clothing the naked” “not turning your back on your own [friends and family]” New American Bible.

Isaiah Ch. 58, verses 6 and 7,

Those who promote and follow Social Justice are rewarded by God. If you follow and promote Social Justice:

Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your wound shall be quickly healed; Your vindication shall go before you, and the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard. Isaiah Ch. 58, verse 8, New American Bible.

Chapter

25

The Bible, Jesus, and Social Justice By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus starts his public ministry by appearing in the synagogue in Nazareth, opening the scroll from the prophet Isaiah.

Obviously the scroll from Isaiah contained sayings from the biblical book of Isaiah, which is concerned primarily with social justice, and, prophecies

relative to the messiah, namely, Jesus himself.

Jesus starts his public ministry with Isaiah, for both of the foregoing reasons. First, to affirm his, that is Jesus’ identity as the messiah, and second, to affirm that the fight for social justice is the most important part of Jesus’

It is also interesting to note that Jesus was a lay reader, apparently

ministry.

an important office in the Jewish religion. Luke begins his account of Jesus’ public ministry by having Jesus

read the following from Isaiah:

It is important to note that

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

because he has annointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,

and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord. Then, after finishing the foregoing reading, Jesus said, “Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.” Luke Ch. 4, v. 20, New American Bible. Now, the passages from Luke which we have just discussed, only make sense in the context of the readings from the book of Isaiah. As stated previously, there are two major themes in Isaiah, first the messianic

prophecy, and second, God’s support for social justice.

Isaiah, Chapter 8,

foretells Jesus virgin birth in Bethlehem of Judea: “[T]he Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall

name him Immanuel.” Isaiah Ch. 8, v. 14, New American Bible.

Further, in Isaiah, Chapter 9, the prophet Isaiah describes Jesus, the Son of God the Father,

For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace. Isaiah Ch. 9, v. 5, New American Bible.

What type of messiah is Jesus, our Immanuel? We begin to see this in

Isaiah, Chapter 10.

On the lips of Isaiah, God says:

Woe to those who enact unjust statutes

and who write oppressive decrees, Depriving the needy of judgment and robbing my people’s poor of their rights Isaiah, Ch. 10, vs. 1 and 2,

favor of liberal “rights’ consciousness, and is opposed to corrupt, unjust laws.

New American Bible.

Thus, Jesus is fully in

Additionally, we see in Isaiah Chapter 11, that Jesus rules with wisdom and justice:

The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him:

A spirit of wisdom and of understanding,

A spirit of counsel and of strength, A spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord, and his delight shall be fear of the Lord. Not by appearance shall he judge, nor by hearsay shall he decide, But he shall judge the poor with justice, and decide aright for the land’s afflicted

Isaiah Ch. 11, vs. 2-4, New American Bible.

evidence rule against hearsay found in the Federal Rules of Evidence, is

based upon the foregoing passage. As referred to in Luke, in Isaiah, it is said that the messiah, Jesus, will deliver us from harm: “Then will the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf be cleared; Then will the lame leap like a stag, then the tongue of the dumb will sing.” Isaiah Ch. 35 vs. 5 and 6, New American Bible.

Isaiah Ch. 41, v.2, New American Bible.

Jesus is once again referred to as bringing justice to the nations:

Obviously, the rule of

Additionally, Jesus is referred to as the “Champion of Justice.”

Finally, in Isaiah Chapter 42,

Here is my servant [Jesus] whom I uphold,

my chosen one with whom I am pleased, Upon whom I have put my spirit;

he shall bring forth justice to the nations, Isaiah Ch. 42, v. 1, New American Bible. In bringing about social justice, however, Jesus does not cause riots (“not crying out, not shouting, not making his voice heard in the streets” Id. v. 2), and, Jesus will not bring about social justice at the expense of the innocent weak or spiritual (“A

bruised reed he shall not break, and smoldering wick he will not quench Id. v. 3). Jesus wants persons who support social justice as part of their spirituality. He does not like mere appearances of holiness such as fasting:

Would today that you might fast so that your voice would The

be heard on high!

fasting that I wish [is]:

releasing those bound unjustly, untying the thongs of the yoke, Setting free the oppressed, breaking every yoke; Sharing your bread with the hungry, sheltering the oppressed and the homeless; Clothing the naked when you see them, and not turning your back on your own. Isaiah Ch. 58, vs. 6 and 7, New American Bible.

Just as Jesus ultimately brings about social justice in an assertive but Self-defense is

non-violent manner, so too we are supposed to do the same. permitted, but aggressive violence is not.

Chapter 26

The Bible, Equity, and Law:

Unclean Hands and Good Faith By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Equity finds its’ academic origin in the work of Aristotle.

Aristotle says that Equity applies when law fails due to its’ generality. the West, however, Equity developed in the Chancery courts of England,

following Roman Catholic canon law.

origin of the Equitable Doctrines of “Unclean Hands” and Fair Dealing.” In the law of Equity, there is an Equitable Doctrine known as “unclean hands.”

be argued that the litigant cannot bring an action because hae 4 has “unclean

hands.”

In

In this Tract Book, I explore the and

“Good Faith

When a litigant wishes to bring an action in Equity, it can

One has unclean hands when one has acted wrongfully or in bad

4 “Hae” is the neuter pronoun that I have developed. “she” in this context.

“Hae” replaces “he” or

It is similar to the idea in English that a person might have “dirty laundry” that needs airing in the press. Analogous to the idea of “unclean hands,” is its’ opposite, “clean

faith.

hands,” or “good faith.”

contract, there is an accompanying duty of Good Faith which applies to each

of the parties to the contract.

that of an ordinary “arm’s length” relationship as between the contracting parties, where each party is considered to be a competitor with the other, and in some sense, an adversary.

Some courts say that accompanying every

Good Faith implies a standard which is above

Interestingly, it can be argued that the Equitable Doctrines of In the Book

Unclean Hands and Good Faith find their origin in the Bible.

of Genesis, there is a story involving Abraham, Sarah, and King Abimelech

of Gerar. (See, Genesis, Ch 20, New American Bible).

wife Sarah (who was also Abraham’s half sister), came to the land of Gerar. Abraham was apparently afraid that he would be tortured or executed if he

disclosed the fact that he was married to Sarah, so Abraham told King

Abimelech that Sarah was Abraham’s sister, and did not disclose their

marriage.

represenation.

King Abimelech.

Abraham and his

Then, the King married Sarah in reliance on Abraham’s

The marriage upset God, who threatened retribution against

King Abimelech defended his actions before God, saying that he had relied in “Good Faith” upon Abraham’s representation, and that he, the

King, had “Clean Hands” in the matter:

and with clean hands.” Genesis, Ch. 20, v. 5, New American Bible.

passage in Genesis appears to be the origin of the “unclean hands” and

“good faith” Doctrines found in Equity.

to criminal law, the civil law application is apparent.

acted in good faith, and with clean hands, God did not punish the King for

bigamy.

motivation for one’s actions.

opposite, then, means knowing bad intent or motivation.

known about the marriage and acted to marry Sarah anyway, then the King would have been judged as acting from bad faith, coveting his neighbor’s wife, and marrying her for the wrong reasons. In the modern context, then, unclean hands, for purposes of the law of Equity, means that a person in acting with bad or harmful intent in an intentional way is guilty of “unclean hands,” and should be denied an equitable remedy.

“I [married Sarah] in good faith This

Although the context is analogous

Because the King

Good Faith, then, implies the idea of innocence and a good or pure

Bad faith, or unclean hands, the correlative

If the King had

Chapter 27

The Bible, Evolution, and Multidimensional Reality By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The idea of multidimenional reality comes from Quantum Physics.

One interpretation of Quantum Physics involves

Although it has been argued that it is impossible to move between

reality frames at faster than light, superliminal speed, if space bends as Einstein postulates, then perhaps it is posssible for persons to “cross

frames” from one parallel universe to another at subliminal speeds.

involves multidimensional reality. between frames. 5

Perhaps certain events happen in one frame, they are memorialized in writing, and then the written work then “shifts” into a parallel universe where events were different then those memorialized in the original writing. This is where the Bible becomes relevant to the discussion.

“parallel universe” theory.

parallel

This

Perhaps too, events can “bleed”

If one

5 See, Jane Roberts, Seth Speaks.

takes the Biblical miraculous and magical events as literally true, then perhaps it is not that great a leap to postulate that the Bible discusses The focus of

“parallel universe theory” and “Multimdimensional Reality.”

this Chapter is just this issue.

Yes, we can, and to do so we start with

Genesis Interestingly, the Bible contains two stories of Creation in Genesis. The first account seems to support an evolutionary theory, while the second account seems to suggest some sort of artificial intervention in Creation by God in the “Garden of Eden,” perhaps supporting the idea of an “Eden Metaphysical Plane” prior to the “Fall” or insertion of Adam and Eve on Earth.

supports Multidimenional Reality?

Can we do an analysis of scripture which

The first account of Creation in Genesis starts with idea that the This is

Earth was a “formless wasteles” or Void, or perhaps even Chaos.

consistent with Greek philosophy and cosmology which states that reality manifests out of Chaos which preceeds reality . This formless wasteland of Chaos or perhaps “Substance” is also consistent with the idea that the Universe began with the “Big Bang,” which itself was preceeded by the This

“Quantum Field” or other “non-material” subatomic activity. Creation account is also consistent with the idea that God uses

“Metaphysical Quiddities” in

Metaphysical Quiddity was used by God to “Form” the “formless wastland”

to create the “formed” Earth or Universe. Interestingly,

have started by creating a It is not until the

material Universe, as symbolized and actualized by the creation of the Sun and the Moon which are “luminaries” which structure Time, that is, “days and years.”

Metaphysical Plane,

Creation.

Obviously,

“Form” as a

even in this first account

of Creation,

God seems to

namely, the Earth Plane.

“Third Day” of Creation that God creates Time, and the

On the fourth day of Creation, evolution is recognized.

The first life

to appear on the Earth is amphibian water life and birds, which is not

inconsistent with evolutionary theory. animals are created or “evolve.”

evolutionary theory, human beings are created or “evolve:

[hu]man in his image, in the divine image he created him; male a female he

created them.”

On the fifth day of

Creation,

wild

Finally, last, and consistent with “God created

Humanity is given dominion or stewardship over the Earth.

On the sixth day of Creation nothing is mentioned, and on the seventh

day, God rested.

Multidimensional Reality and this is why the Bible is silent as to what activity occurred on the sixth day.

It is my interpretation that on the sixth day God created

On the sixth day then, the “Multidimensional Day” the second account of Creation becomes relevant.

was multidimsionally “shifted in” and superimposed upon the first evolutionary creation. In this second Creation, the Eden Plane is created, and is an artificial Creation.

some type of

Eve,

original creation.

orginal Evolutionary Creation upon the

the forbidden fruit of conventional knowledge of good and evil, rather than having true wisdom. The foregoing “Multidimensional” interpretation of the Bible is also

consistent with the Christian Gospels.

one, suggesting

It is my argument that

Jesus Christ manifested multidimensionally and that each Gospel represents

a different multidimensional reality frame.

the Gospel of

In Mark, the Gospel starts with the Baptism of Jesus and his

Galilean ministry.

It is my argument theat the second Creation

Eve is created out of Adams rib, obviously genetic creation, and humanity in the persons of Adam and

artificially precede animal life instead of evolving out of it, as in the

This “Eden Plane” was then shifted into or onto the “Fall” of Adam and Eve who ate

There are four Gospels rather than The four

a Gospels are factually inconsistent with one another.

Multidimensional interpretation of reality.

Let us contrast, for example

Mark with the Gospel of Luke.

It is my argument that this reality frame came first, and

that Jesus simply manifested in adult form,

and then walking out of the desert.

is essentially “adopted.” the “infancy narrative.”

the birth of Jesus. It is in the Gospel account that Christmas story of the

birth of Jesus in Bethlehem of Judea is told, including the account of the

angels and the shepherds.

swaddling clothes. The foregoing is my argument that the Bible is evidence of

Multidimensional Reality.

simply manifesting as an adult,

Any family that Jesus has in this frame

In the Gospel of Luke, on the other hand, we have Luke starts with the birth of John the Baptist and

This is the story of Jesus and the manger in

Chapter 28

Zen Realism and Critical Thomism By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Typically, it is thought that Zen Bhuddism and Thomism have nothing to do with one another.

and Critical Thomism have a great deal in common. Zen Bhuddism, in its pure form argues that the reality that we see is a false one, an illusion. Instead of “seeing” this illusory reality, we are instructed to “see through” the illusion and find the real. Unfortunately, Zen in the West has been interpreted as an Idealist philosophy, rather than, a realist one.

However, a closer look indicates that Zen Realism

On this account, truth is found in the ideal, not the real.

Thomism, on the other hand, argues that reality is structured by

metaphysics.

reality.

Lonergan) which is precisely subject to the critique of Zen. The naively real world of the Thomist is arguably the world of illusion that Zen sets aside.

Material form, and material cause help to structure material

At its’ worst, Thomism is guilty of a “naive realism” (Bernard

A closer look at the two approaches, Zen and Thomism, on the other hand shows that the Zen Realist interpretation of Zen, and the Critical

Thomist interpretation of Thomism, reconciles the two positions. A famous

Zen Koan, provides:

1. First I saw the tree (naively)

2. Then I no longer saw the tree (analytically)

3. Then I saw the tree again (critically)

It is precisely the foregoing threefold approach to reality that Zen Realism, and Critical Thomism, priveleges. Critical Thomism, based on the original work of Jesuit Philosopher,

Bernard Lonergan, starts with three levels of intelligence:

1. naive sense experience

2. ideal analytic understanding

3. intuitive critical judgment and reflection

Returning to the above Zen Koan, I start first with naive sense experience. I look at the tree across the street with my eyes, and based upon this naive

sense experience there is a phenomenal “tree for me” in my range of vision. Second, I engage in “postmodern” analytic understanding and I deconstruct

my naive experience of the tree.

social and psychological “construction” created by my mind. The “tree” is

no longer real, the tree is now seen as an illusion.

The “tree” is now seen as an “arbitrary”

Finally, there is a third

movement where the “tree” is now critically and intuitively “reconstructed”

as a tree again.

This is the “real tree” of “second sight” or “reflection” that

is often referred to.

The real tree is the tree which is intuitvely, critically,

judged to exist, or, the “tree-as-reflected-upon” which really exists. The

type of idealist Zen which simply stops with level two analysis and deconstruction, is rejected.

Chapter 29

Zen Satori and Critical Thomist Insight By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

A key concept in Zen is Satori. Satori means Liberation or Enlightenment. Satori is what happens when you get it, when you figure it out.

Satori is a kind of global or even “mystical” understanding.

Based upon the work of Jesuit Philosopher, Bernard Lonergan, I have

developed a philosophy called “Critical Thomism.”

there are three levels of cognition: 1. Experience, 2. Understanding, and,

3. Judgment and Reflection.

Reflection are intuitive functions.

Satori. Insight can occur both at level two with the function of Understanding, but also at level three with judgment and reflection. Insight is interesting. Insight is a sort of “preconscious” or “hyper-conscious” or even

“unconscious” type of cognition.

In Critical Thomism,

It is my argument that Judgment and Intuition produces Insight. Insight is

Insight on the level of Understanding,

produces understanding. It is Insight which takes disparate experience

and/or ideas and then turns them into a new integrated idea.

which can take the tools, equipment, and know how of a concrete form and

It is Insight which can take the legal

concepts, facts, and ends of the client, given to the lawyer, and turn them

into a solid piece of legal analysis.

knowledge, patient symptoms, and overall circumstances, and turn them into a medical diagnosis. Insight also functions on the level of judgment and reflection. It is

Insight which can take several different theories on the level of Understanding and then intutively choose which theory is more adequate.

is Insight which allows the lawyer to judge whether or not his client is lying

or telling the truth. It is Insight which allows the business person to judge whether or not to start a new manufacturing plant. As stated above, Insight is also Satori. When one has Insight into the nature of reality, this is Satori. Such Insight is not really an idea, it is cognitive, it is consciousness, it is precisely what allows for the more

mundane functions of judgment and reflection.

conceptually described, as such, because Satori is a Spiritual “Experience,” that is, it is a function of consciousness, not an idea in consciousness. There

and turn them into a construction plan.

It is Insight

It is Insight which can take the medical

It

Satori cannot really be

is a Zen Koan that says that Satori is like hearing a person clapping with only one hand. What you hear is Spirit, it is not sound. Satori is mode,

action, process, it is not a fixed idea in the mind.

Realism is perfectly consistent with the Insight of Critical Thomism.

Thus, the Satori of Zen

\

THE END