Toward a Critical Thomist Jurisprudence By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J.
Introduction This book contains a collection of Tract Book Essays, some of which have already been published individually.
Table of Contents 1. A Better Interpretation of Law 2. A Quantum Physics Experiment 3. A Third Refutation of Ockham’s Razor 4. Authority and Authoritarianism 5. Being and Nothingness Revisited 6. Catholic Health Insurance 7. Constitutional Estoppel 8. Critical Thomism and Kindergarten 9. Developing Levels of Consciousness 10. Evolution and Critical Thomism Revisited
11. Higher Wisdom and Conventional Wisdom 12. Hobbes, Locke, Natural Law and Natural Rights 13. Imagination and Psychiatry 14. Intuition, Zen, Science, and Non-locality 15. Level 6 Consciousness 16. Levels of Love Consciousness 17. Maritain and Natural Law 18. Meaningful Happiness 19. Moderate Relativism 20. Moderate Truth 21. My Spiritual Journey 22. Process Philosophy and the Immutable Platonic Forms 23. Prosecutorial Discretion and the Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases 24. Reincarnation Revisited 25. Relative Evil 26. Rights are Beautiful 27. Schizophrenia and Physics 28. Socrates and Conventional Consciousness 29. Teaching Constitutional Democracy in Gradeschool 30. The Allegory of the Wheat Field
31. The Soul Mind 32. The Cosmic Christ and Cosmic Consciousness 33. The Implied Warranty of Habitability Revisited 34. The Nature of Law 35. The Quantum Jesus 36. The Range of Legal Arguments 37. The Ethical Matrix Revisited 38. Jesuit Spirituality: To be a Contemplative in Action 39. Wisdom 40. Wisdom Revisited
A Better Interpretation of Law By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Some people are legal literalists, they argue that there is one and only one interpretation of law that is valid. I argue that legal literalism is wrong, that reality, including law, is characterized by moderate relativism, so that there will always be alternative or competing legal interpretations of a given law. Some people are legal postmodernists, and extreme relativists. They argue that there are many different and competing interpretations of law and that there is no way to privilege one interpretation as being better than another. I argue that postmodern extreme relativism is wrong. I argue that cognitive transcendence still exists which transcends mere language and linguistic analysis, and also transcends extreme relativism. I argue, like Bernard Lonergan, that authentic subjectivity is possible which is a type of objectivity. Authentic subjectivity involves the
transcendental use of cognitive capabilities or faculties. Consider the following chart: Level 6. 5. 4. Description Intuition Creativity Being Function Intuiting reality Finding the 3rd Creative Way Formal Analytic Logical Operations Self Actualization 3. 2. Reflective Judgment Understanding Adaptive Conventional Wisdom compare and contrast and categorize ideas 1. Experience Sense experience, Basic Emotions
I argue that levels six through one sublate and integrate each other. Ken Wilber makes a similar argument in his work. So, once one has developed level 6 intuition, that intuition is sublated and used at all of the other levels. Any higher function can be downloaded to a lower level. Additionally, every lower level is also uploaded and integrated with every higher level. My experience, at level 6, however, will be different and more refined that my experience at level 1 without any downloading. So, if I have developed all the levels, including level 6, I would argue that my
level 6 “experience” will be phenomenological in character and will involve higher emotions such as empathy. Let us take the following example. We are trying to determine the better interpretation of the law of contracts to see if equity will intervene and find an unfair contract to be unconscionable and unenforceable where an elderly lady bought a window air conditioner which did not fit her apartment window. Let us start with level 1 experience. At this level I want to know all of the relevant facts of the situation. I want to know all about the apartment, the air conditioner, the age, sophistication, and financial means of the elderly lady. Finally, in at least a rudimentary way, I want to know the law. I want to know basic contract law and equity law relating to unconscionable or unfair contracts. At level 2, I begin to categorize ideas. I place facts in the legal categories and I compare and contrast different cases dealing with the law and facts that are relevant to the problem at hand. At level 3, I begin to judge and reflect on the situation in order to come to a provisional judgment as to what the law is or should be in this situation. At level 4, I then test the law that I have come up with, using
various hypotheticals in order to ensure that the law holds up to hypothetical testing. . I also test the logical consistency of the law. At level 5, I use my creativity to test the proposed law with further hypotheticals. To the extent that I cannot find a good solution to the problem legally, I may have to use creativity to find a 3rd way to solve the problem. Finally, at level 6, I use my intuition to test for the overall intuitive feel of the solution. The law needs to feel intuitively right. I argue that dealing with law at level 1-6 will help me to find a better interpretation of law. Each level has it’s own specialization and it’s own type of transcendence. Because I can transcend congntively, because I can even transcend linguistics, I can use authentic subjectivity to find a better answer. A relatively transcendent answer, objectively and authentically subjectively.
Chapter 2 A Quantum Physics Experiment By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
In Quantum Physics the Double Slit Experiment is constructed and operated in such a way that it proves that there is a diffusion pattern of light which is produced non-locally-at-a-distance which defies normal Newtonian scienftific expectations. Previously, I have argued that the only real
subatomic particle is the quantum particle, and that the quantum particle can change valence and form depending upon the meaning injected into the experiment. In other words, meaning affects reality. I argue that it is possible that quantum particles can be “trained” by meaning in such a way as to produce statistically significant results. In other words, I argue that the form or valence of a quantum particle can change depending upon the meaning found in the experimental situation. In order to prove this scientifically I argue that a revised double slit experiment can be conducted which will prove my hypothesis. I simply assert that if the slit used in the double slit experiment is gradually narrowed, that there
will still be an unexpected result of light diffusion on the screen found past the double slit board. I argue that if quantum particles are trained appropriately that the double slit themselves could be gradually closed and that there would still be a light diffusion pattern found on the screen nonlocally-at-a-distance. My argument is that if such a result is not found at first, it is simply because the quantum particles have not been properly trained by meaning. I invite those who have access to the double slit experiment equipment to try my experiment. The experimenter should use active visualization and computer modeling to show the expected non-local result in advance. Finally, I would ask the experimenter to test the display board showing the light diffusion pattern in order to see if atomic or molecular change has taken place, not just subatomic change.
Chapter 3 A Third Refutation of Ockham’s Razor By Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Ockham’s Razor, which many find to the cornerstone of their philosophy of science, provides that the most simple solution to a problem, which makes the least amount of assumptions, is preferable to a solution which makes more assumptions or which is more complex. I argue that Ockham’s Razor is itself an assumption, not a proof, and therefore that Ockham’s Razor excludes itself in every application. So for example let us consider the problem 2+2=? To one using Ockham’s Razor the problem explicitly begins as follows:
1. I assume the existence and functioning of Ockham’s Razor. 2. Because of Ockham’s Razor I am precluded from making any extra assumptions not needed to solve the problem. 3. I solve the problem as 2=2=4. Please note that the foregoing takes one assumption and three steps to solve.
If we simply ignore Ockham’s Razor in the first place then the problem can be solved in one step: 1. 2+2=4
Now, let us take a more complex problem, the Origin of the Universe. Let us once again start with the starting assumption of Ockham’s Razor and move to solve the problem.
1. I assume the existence and functioning of Ockham’s Razor. 2. Because of Ockham’s Razor I am precluded from making any extra assumptions not needed to solve the problem. 3. The Big Bang created the Universe. Please note that the foregoing makes one assumption and takes three steps to solve. However, the problem could be solved in two steps: 1. The First Cause Causes the Big Bang. 2. The Big Band Causes the Universe. By excluding the assumption of Ockham’s Razor a more complete, persuasive argument is made, with fewer steps and fewer assumptions.
Chapter 4 Authority and Authoritarianism By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Some people think authority is good, some people think that authority is bad or evil. I argue that good authority is Good, and evil authority is Evil. The trick is trying to figure what distinguishes a good authority from an evil authority. I have some guidelines. First, evil authority is always based upon something. Evil authority, or authoritarianism seems to be based simply upon itself, that is, authority based upon authority. I argue that evil authority is based upon the authority having his or her authority based in some vice or deficient aspect of character or consciousness. For example, I argue that authority which is just based upon power is evil and authoritarian. If all an authority can do is to assert some competence as an authority based upon power, then this simply is authority based upon a vice. As was taught to me in my junior high public school education, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. While power is often attributed to God as an attribute, one
notices that God also is described as having divine knowledge or Reason, Love, Creativity, and other attributes. If God were simply a God of power, God would not be God, God would be Satan. Good authority on the other hand is Good. It intends Good, it intends Being. Good authority intends an “unrestricted act of understanding.” Good authority intends Love. Good authority intends relative truth. Good authority is based upon competence. To be an authority I must be good at something which is a good, or a virtue, not evil or a vice. The only exception to this is Wisdom. A Wise authority knows how to use evil to combat evil and knows how to use evil to achieve good. The paradox is that Wisdom intends the Good, while it uses evil. The Wise authority is good, although he must be sure that he intends the Good, as an end, otherwise Wisdom can degrade into evil.
Being and Nothingness Revisited By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar Jean Paul Sartre published a book, quite some time ago entitled, “Being and Nothingness.” I would like to explore the same concepts here, but in a different way. Bernard Lonergan defines Being as an “Unrestricted Act of Understanding.” Put in Platonic terms, Being is Form of Form. Ken Wilber argues, essentially that Being is the “Thatness,” or “Suchness” which is the basis for reality. Being is the Godhead. Wilber goes on to argue that Being is nothing. I think that this point is a bit misleading. Being is not nothing in the sense of non-existence, instead being is “no-thing.” Being is characterized by “no-thingness.” Being, while the source of the real, and of reality itself, is not a thing. Things only exist within the context a space-time causality. Being is beyond space-time causality. As an Unrestricted Act of Understanding, Being is the Unmoved Mover that Holds all of reality in existence.
Chapter 6 Catholic Health Insurance By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Insurance is all about pooling and allocating risk. Today, in America all sorts of people, including many men and women working full time jobs, do not have health insurance. It is terrible to think that what little savings you have could be eaten up in a health event, or, that one might go without medical treatment and have to endure the pain and suffering resulting from that situation. I would like to argue that Catholic Social Justice requires that the Catholic Church be involved in the provision of affordable, quality, health insurance. The best way this could be accomplished would be if each individual Catholic Diocese contracted with a private insurance company such as Blue Cross, to have the Diocese as a whole including all employees, priests, nuns, and willing laity, participate in a Diocesan wide health insurance Group Plan. The Group would be wide enough and large enough that a lower insurance rate could be obtained. Additionally, since it is a
Catholic Group Plan, coverage for abortion, for example, could be excluded. For upper middle class, affluent, and rich Catholics, the whole premium would be borne by the member. A sliding scale based on income could then be used to allocate a fair premium to everyone else, including the working poor, and the poor. A monthly collection in each parish could be taken up to help the Diocese pay the costs of the sliding fee scale plan. Lest you think that I am being overly sectarian here, I would also argue that this model could be used for other Christian churches, synagogues, etc.
Constitutional Estoppel By Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Previously, I have argued that the doctrine of Constitutional Estoppel be used to limit the ability of those opposed to the United States Constitution from asserting Constitutional rights in Equity. I would like to make clear when Constitutional Estoppel cannot be applied. Constitutional Estoppel is an equitable doctrine, and therefore must be interpreted in light of Equity. Equity favors those in need, particularly, Equity favors minors and incompetents. Thus, Constitutional Estoppel can never be applied against a minor or an incompetent. Recall, that Constitutional Estoppel applies to prevent one who denies the existence or application of Constitutional rights in a certain setting, from himself or herself asserting those same rights in the same or a similar setting. In the criminal law area, for example, if I deny that the Constitution requires a search warrant based upon probable cause, as a
general matter, then I can be Constitutionally Estopped in Equity from asserting on my own behalf the Constitutional requirement of a search warrant based upon probable cause. The person must be questioned, under oath at each stage of the proceeding, if he or she changes her mind and recognizes the existence of Constitutional rights in the same type of setting generally, then he or she is entitled to the protection of those same Constitutional rights. I argue that Constitutional Estoppel should not be applied to anyone under the age of 21. I also argue that Constitutional Estoppel should not be applied to a person who has not graduated from Highschool or completed his or her G.E.D. Obviously, the mentally retarded or the mentally ill cannot
be subjected to Constitutional Estoppel. Finally, I argue that Equity can and should intervene to protect even those who are barred at law by Constitutional Estoppel. I argue that everyone, as a matter of Equity, is entitled to legal rights, including Constitutional rights, in Equity. In such a case, all rights, including Constitutional rights must be interpreted in light of Equity. The person gaining Equitable rights, such as Constitutional rights, both benefits and is bound by Equity.
Critical Thomism and Kindergarten By Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Some might think that philosophy is a subject that should only be taught in college or graduate school. I argue that Critical Thomism can be effectively taught beginning in Kindergarten. I argue that Critical Thomism taught in Kindergarten teaches critical thinking skills at an early age. The first thing that should be taught in Kindergarten is the concept of the number zero. Children should be taught the basic difference between “something” on the one hand, and “nothing” on the other hand. Once a child begins to understand the number zero, then the related concepts of space and freedom begin to make sense. The second thing that should be taught in Kindergarten is the Critical Thomist Cognitional Structure of : experience, understanding, judgment and reflection. This is based upon the work of Jesuit Philosopher, Bernard Lonergan. This teaching should be done experientially. Starting
with experience, each child should be taught to feel a piece of fruit, or a rock, or a piece of tree bark, then look at the piece of fruit or the rock, or the tree bark. In fun, then each child should try to taste the fruit or the rock, or the tree bark. The each child should try to smell the piece of fruit, the rock, or the tree bark. This all takes place at the level of sense experience. Once the child has engaged in the experience of a piece of fruit, a rock, a piece of tree bark, or some other experiential material, then it is time to go on to the level of understanding. On the level of understanding, the child should verbally describe the piece of fruit, the rock, the piece of bark. Once the items have been described, then the child should be taught to find similarities and differences in the descriptive categories that have been used. For example, a child might find that both the rock and the tree bark fit into the category of “hard” while the fruit and the tree bark fit into the category of “plant.” This categorizing, comparing and contrasting is characteristic of level 2 understanding. Once understanding has been undertaken, then it is time for judgment and reflection. At this level, the child can judge that the hard object that is not a plant is a rock. At this level, Wisdom can ask many reflective questions such as whether fruit is good to eat, etc. Policy questions which go beyond mere categorization are level 3 Wisdom questions.
Finally, the students can begin each day with a jingle along side the Pledge of Allegiance: I experience, experience, understanding, Judgment and Reflection. I understand, experience, understanding, Judgment and Reflection. I Judge that I know reality through the related operations of experience, understanding, Judgment, and Reflection.
I argue that a child who engages the the exercises above will develop a critical reflective way of being, and will learn the basics of Critical Thomism at an early age.
Developing Levels of Consciousness A Tract Book Essay By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Previously, I have argued that human levels of consciousness exist and operate. I argue that my schema is normative from a metaphysical point of view. However, some might argue that they only experience one level of consciousness, and thus that my approach to consciousness is in error. My response is that it is possible for unilevel thinkers to develop into multilevel thinkers. The easiest way to do this is to use your imagination to help you. Start out by imagining that you simply have one level of consciousness, your conscious mind. Next, imagine that your unconscious mind has an upper unconscious mind. Imagine that there are little bubbles coming out of your head which then connect up to a cloudy sort of mind above you. Once this is done, imagine that you have a lower
subconscious mind. The subconscious mind is where your lower self resides. In the subconscious you are selfish, or at least rationally self interested. Now, go back to your unconscious mind and imagine that the higher you is there. This is the good you, or better you. So, go with this as much as possible. Now you can see that your mind has at least three levels:
Level 3. 2. 1.
Description Unconscious Higher Good/Mind Conscious Neutral Mind Subconscious selfish or rationally self intereted mind
Keep working with this for a week or a month until it becomes a habit. Now the foregoing can be described in this way:
Mode reason judgment reflection intellect
Description Unconscious Higher Mind
conscious mind analytic understanding
body mind basic emotions sensory experience
Once you have integrated this you can then add three more levels in your imagination.
Imagine: Level 6. 5. 4. Mode Intuition Creativity Being-Love Description transpersonal feeling artistic creativity formal operations
Now, with these levels you will need to do a little more work. Imagine that you are at level 4 and work on logic. Imagine that you are at level 5
and draw or paint or write a poem to develop artistic expression. Finally, imagine that you are at level 6 where you “feel” Being, or reality. Try to feel relationships in the data of experience. Try to feel relationships between ideas. Give it a try. Good Luck! By the way, this advice is given as
Spiritual Direction. Take your time. See a Spiritual Director if the process seems to cause your mind to be less functional, rather than more functional.
Evolution and Critical Thomism Revisited By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Charles Darwin has argued that evolution is based upon random mutation and natural selection. I argue that evolution is based upon a three fold metaphysical process involving God. I argue that God the Father is the End or Pull of Evolution, while God the Holy Spirit is the Push of Evolution from the bottom up, and that God the Son is the mediating principle of Evolution. Metaphysically, Being, is the End of Evolution at the top, involving the Immutable Platonic Forms, while Substance is the Push of Evolution in terms of creative advance. Finally, Substantial Form or Creative Form is the mediating principle of Evolution. At this intermediary level substantial forms affect material form and material causes which are contingent. It is at this level as well, that accidental forms and
accidental causes take place as random mutations. Thus, evolution involves planning, creative impetus, and chance.
God the Father
Immutable Platonic Forms
God the Son
Substantial Form and forms
Accidental Form Accidental Cause God the Holy Spirit Substance Creative Impetus in Substance
Higher Wisdom and Conventional Wisdom By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
I have argued previously that stages or level of human consciousness exist. I argue that there are two different levels of Wisdom that operate. Let us consider the following chart:
Description sense experience body mind basic emotions
analytic understanding analytic mind-soul
conventional wisdom intellect Spirit will conventional intuition
formal operations abstract planning, mathematics, logic
artistic creativity meaning hermeneutics
big picture intuition universalism transpersonal insight and knowing
Love of higher values Love of Mind Love of Spirituality Compassion Love of Earth and/or Humanity
Higher Reason Curvelinear Reason Understands Fractals and Probability
9. 10. 11.
Abba Love Being Higher Wisdom
Mom and Dad Love Unrestricted Act of Understanding Transformative Wisdom
I would like to argue, then, that Level 3 wisdom while a good thing, is not Level 11 wisdom. Level 3 wisdom is geared toward accepting society and conventional rules as they are, and then adapting to the situation. This is consistent with Piaget and Kohlberg’s idea of Level 3 conventional consciousness. Level 11 wisdom, on the other hand is transformative. Level 11 wisdom integrates all of the higher levels of consciousness such as Intuition and Higher Love, to argue for a more utopian society based upon higher values.
Hobbes, Locke, Natural Law and Natural Rights By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
What are rights? That is what are legal rights? Some people wonder. The best definition is that for every right there is a corresponding duty of someone else to refrain from certain conduct or to engage in certain conduct. Where do rights come from? Are they just thin imaginary wisps which fleetingly come and go? Or, are rights more substantial? John Locke argued that all of us have Natural Rights which we are entitled to in a State of Nature which proceeds society. Thus, from a Lockean point of view it perfectly possible to argue that you are being treated unjustly as a matter of Natural Law, even though corrupt human law will not say so. With Locke, I can argue that even the United States Supreme Court has made a mistake in interpreting the Constitution.
I argue that behind Locke is something like my theory that Natural Rights all subsist as Aristotelian Substantial Forms or Immutable Platonic Forms. Thus, Natural Rights are imprinted into the very nature of reality itself. Because Natural Rights subsist in reality, Locke could argue that they existed in a State of Nature prior to society. In contrast to Locke, Thomas Hobbes argued that in a State of Nature life is a dog eat dog, world of cutthroat survival of the fittest. Hobbes argued that all right are simply social constructions which the people or the sovereign find convenient to use. Hobbes, in this sense was a positivist. Rights are merely arbitrary social conventions, and are paper thin. I argue that even if the world of the Forms did not exist, that the Quantum Field does exist, and that the Quantum Field is affected by meaning. Thus, rights could become imbedded in the Quantum Field, and in this sense, operate to function like the Aristotelian Substantial Forms, and like the Immutable Platonic Forms. However, I need not go that far. It is apparent to me that Aristotelian Substantial Forms and Immutable Platonic Forms do exist. We experience language as substantial and objective when needed. Language is not just paper thin. Language is rich with meaning. Language has depth. Literature and poetry move are hearts, as do Constitutions.
Imagination and Psychiatry By Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
I have a very good imagination. In my mind’s eye I can imagine an internal motion picture of myself catching a trout in a stream. I can imagine the numbers 2+2=4 in my imagination. I can imagine a song played by a band in my imagination. When I read a novel, I can imagine the scene described in the novel as if was really happening. Finally, I can imagine a conversation taking place in my imagination between two persons, seemingly acting independently of each other. I point all of this out to you because I have heard that there are some persons, most notably psychiatrists, who do not believe that the imagination exists. Because they do not believe in the imagination, it is impossible for these psychiatrists to see that a normal, mentally healthy individual can “hear a voice” in his or her imagination, just as one can hear a conversation in the imagination. It is wrong for a psychiatrist to diagnose
psychosis where the mental activity taking place, takes place in the internal imagination of the mind. I think the problem is that some psychiatrists do not have an imagination themselves. Perhaps the imagination is a gift which only creative artists have, so that the mundane psychiatrist is excluded. Unfortunately, the mundane psychiatrist, instead of noticing his or her deficiency, prefers instead to find that the normal person with an artistic imagination is abnormal. This must stop. This is malpractice.
Intuition, Zen, Science, and Non-locality By Anthony J. Fejfar J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
In Zen it is argued that the world of normal, ordinary, perception, is illusory. The “material world” is not really real. Instead, another world, a parallel world is real. How is this so? I have argued previously that Zen Realism provides an explanation for the real in a way which is satisfying. In Zen, when considering a rock, for example, it is argued that my sense impression experience of the rock is illusory. Then, at the level of understanding, I deconstruct rock, and find it to be a culturally contingent illusion. This is Derrida’s contribution. In other words, at level two, at the level of understanding, there is no rock. Finally, at level three through the use of Intuition, I find the rock to be real once again, at a deeper level. This type of Intuition is what Bergson describes as “Intellectual Sympathy.” Now, how is it that I can intuitively judge or reflect the rock to be real at level three in a way which transcends
both levels one and two? I argue that level three intuition is a function of Quantum non-locality. I argue that when Zen says that you must “become the rock” to know the rock, that this is precisely and literally what happens. Through non-local intellectual sympathy my mind links with the rock and does something like a “mind meld” as done by Mr. Spock in Star Trek. My mind can literally intuitively feel the Quantum Field of the rock, and the rock itself. This is perfectly scientific since Quantum Physics proves that it is possible to have non-local communication at a distance between subatomic particles which are literally miles away. I argue that at least this aspect of Intuition is a Quantum Function and thus scientific.
Level 6 Consciousness By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Previously, analogous to Ken Wilber’s work, I have argued that the human mind unfolds in levels of consciousness. The following chart illustrates the levels that I am describing:
Level 1. experience
Description body-mind body senses basic emotions
2. understanding 3. judgment/ reflection 4. Being-Love 5. Creativity 6. Intuition
analytic intelligence intuitive judgment/ reflection formal operations hermeneutics/meaning
soul-analytic mind conventional wisdom intellect abstract planning/logic artistic creativity
felt higher consciousness subtle transpersonal mind
The level which is find the most interesting is level 6 Intuition. Once again, Intuition is a higher form of arational knowledge which complements ordinary analytic or rational understanding. Once Intuition is developed at level 6, it is then “downloaded” and integrated into the lower levels of consciousness. Thus, the level 6 Intuitive Mystic also has level 1 intuitive experience, level 2 intuitive understanding, and level 3 intuitive judgment and reflection. When one intuits reality one feels reality in the very depths of one’s soul and mind. When one intuits Being, one feels Being in the very depths of one’s soul and mind. Intuition is a Spiritual Gift. Intuition is what gives knowledge to seers and prophets. Intuition is what gives philosophers and theologians knowledge of God. Intuition gives immediate knowledge of spiritual things and of the universe.
Levels of Love Consciousness By Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
I have argued previously that there are different types of love. I have argued that Higher Love is different than base love. Here, I am using a phenomenological analysis of love and arguing that there are different levels of love corresponding to the different levels of consciousness discussed by Piaget, Kohlberg, Fowler, Chopra, Wilber, and myself. I argue that love at the base is based primarily upon selfishness and not upon giving, while Higher Love is based primarily upon giving, with little selfishness. My Chart illustrating the levels of love consciousness is as follows:
Level 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Type of love Higher Universal Creative Objective Conventional/Male Motherly Child
selfishness % 1% 5% 10% 20% 49% 40% 60%
giving % 99% 95% 90% 80% 51% 60% 40%
This phenomenological analysis is based upon a Wisdom paradigm. I argue that all love contains some selfishness, however, small a percentage. I also argue that small children have giving as a fairly large percentage of their consciousness.
Maritain and Natural Law By Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Previously, I have argued for the idea that Natural Law exists and is normative for human beings. In his book, “Man and the State,” philosopher Jaques Maritain makes a similar argument. Maritain argues that Natural Law operates on at least five levels: 1. Ontological 2. Ideal 3. Material 4. Practical Reason 5. Human/Natural Rights On the ontological level Natural Law means in the first instance that we intend Being as a unrestricted Act of Understanding. As a matter of Natural Law not only do we intend Being, but we are to Intuit Being. When one Intuits Being, one begins to order one’s life in accordance with Natural
Law. It must be stressed, then, that Natural Law, for the most part, and for the most significant part, is Higher Natural Law, not the instinctual law of the jungle. On the ideal level, we intend the Immutable Platonic Forms, or the substantial forms, which vibrate probabilistically. When I think about a chair, I not only have the sense impressions of the chair, not only do I have a mundane idea of the chair, but I also intuit “chair” in the World of the Forms. The World of the Forms guides our understanding. On the material level, we intend the material form of the chair. This is Natural Law in the mundane sense. Material Form manifests as the physical, material chair itself, but also as my mundane idea of the chair found in material intellectual sources. For example, the first chair that some might see or experience is a picture of a chair, rather that sitting in a chair. Natural Law also manifests as practical reason. In Lonerganian terms, practical reason means that I know the real through interrelated acts of experience, understanding, judgment and reflection. Practical reason rules supreme in every universe except that of perfect linear perfection found in the Mind of God. Since practically every universe is probabilistic practical reason reigns supreme.
Human Rights/Natural Rights are also grounded in Natural Law. These rights exist as Immutable Platonic Forms and substantial forms. Natural Law is applicable to everyone, everyplace, and everytime, because Nature, by way of Intuition, give us Natural access to the Natural Human Rights found in the World of the Forms.
Meaningful Happiness By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar Aristotle argues that the end of a human being is happiness, and that ultimate happiness is found in contemplation of The Good, or Being, or as some might say, God. While this sounds pretty good to me, something bothers me about the whole thing. You see, I’ve been in circumstances when I am happy, sort of, but yet something still isn’t right. Maybe it’s that part of me is happy and part of me isn’t. Now, here’s the problem. We now live in a post Orwellian 1984 environment. Remember in the book 1984, everybody was given a happiness drug. I think it was called soma. So, everybody laid around in their chairs, on soma, happy. The problem with this is that this seems wrong to me. I think somehow that soma happiness shouldn’t count. Something more is needed. I argue that the real end of a human being is meaningful happiness. You shouldn’t have to qualify happiness, of course, but then there is the
soma problem. So, I think that you do have to qualify happiness, and that happiness, to be true happiness, must be meaningful happiness. What I am doing when I say that happiness must have meaning? Somehow I know. What is meaning? Meaning is that which is found meaningful. Meaning involves the attainment of an end in a way which satisfies the person’s desire for meaning. Meaning is perhaps an accomplishment. It is the idea of getting something done which is worthwhile. Perhaps, meaning means obtaining the worthwhile, and perhaps, meaningful happiness is found in the truly worthwhile. If so, Bernard Lonergan was right in saying that the goal of the ethical person is the truly worthwhile.
Moderate Relativism By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
I argue that not only are ethics and politics and law characterized by Moderate Relativism, but that the entire nature of reality is characterized by Moderate Relativism. The double slit experiment of Quantum Physics clearly shows that reality is characterized by Moderate Relativism. The display pattern which results from the double slit experiment has some relation to the original light pattern, but the pattern is not the one that is linearly expected. For ethics, politics, and law, Moderate Relativism means that there will always be two arguments that can be presented when a reasonable disagreement is presented. Even when there appears to be only a favorable argument, this is because the contravailing position has no statistically significant differences between that argument, and the one presented.
Moderate Relativism is not Extreme Relativism. I argue that Natural Law and metaphysics provide a static and immutable framework for Moderate Relativism. In this sense, not everything is relative. There are some metaphysical absolutes. Some aspects of reality don’t change. For example, in a perfectly linear world, 2+2 will always equal 4. This is an absolute. There are correlative principles to Moderate Relativism, and those are, Moderate Idealism and Moderate Realism. Idealism argues that the
ultimate nature of reality it the Ideal. It is further argued that if one changes ideas or meaning in a significant way, then the result is that reality will change. For the idealist, ideas change reality. Moderate Idealism argues that ideas change reality to a degree, or to some extent, but not completely. Natural law, metaphysical quiddities, and even habits in nature such as Rupert Sheldrake’s fields structure reality to some degree, idependent of the knower, and, independent of any ideas that the knower may have or be using. Realism argues that the real shapes ideas, and that all ideas are subordinated to the real. It is the tree, “in itself” which later is named a “tree” for us. Realists argue that ideas don’t really change reality, instead reality changes ideas. Moderate Realism argues that reality subsists
independent of ideas to some degree, so that ideas, when they appear, often sort of “bounce off” reality, leaving reality unaffected. On the other hand, it is certainly true that some ideas do come first and shape reality. Obviously, some one came up with the idea of the first airplane design, before the reality of the airplane came into existence. So, Moderate Realism argues that there is a dialectical relationship between the real and the ideal, and that neither pole can be absolutely priveleged. This position is also true of Moderate Relativism.
Moderate Truth By Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Absolute Truth is no longer relevant. Except for some very interesting mathematical equations which are necessarily true, I would argue that absolute truth does not even exist. Instead, Moderate Truth exists. Moderate Truth is based upon statistical probability. It is argued that the most truth we can ever come up with, absent magic or miracles, is a moderate truth with the maximum of 99.9999999999% real probability in the real world. The legal system knows this. This is why the legal system
does not use a standard of absolute truth, only relative or moderate truth. In the law, there are three legal standards for truth: 1. truth beyond a reasonable doubt 2. clear and convincing truth 3. truth by a preponderance
In criminal cases the standard that the prosecution must meet to convict a defendant is truth beyond a reasonable doubt. I argue that this is probabilistic truth requiring a relatively high probability of 95% or greater. In order for something to be true, beyond a reasonable doubt, it must be critically judged as being at least 95% true. I a prosecutor cannot prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant must be found innocent. The intermediary standard for truth is truth by clear and convincing evidence. This standard is often used in settings such as an ethics complaint against an attorney. A finding of a fact by reason of clear and convincing
evidence requires that the fact be found to be true on the basis of 85% real probability in the real world or higher. If a complainant cannot prove his case by 85% real probability or higher, then the defendant must be found innocent. Finally, in ordinary life, the standard for truth is truth by a preponderance of the evidence, or truth by a real probability of at least 55%. This is truth which is more probable than not. A standard for truth which is lower than 55% would be irrational. The lowest level of truth for Moderate Truth is 55%. If a plaintiff cannot prove her case by 55% real probability in the real world or greater, then the defendant is found to be not liable.
Based on the foregoing, I would argue that Papal Infallibility is out of date. Given that the Pope simply does not have access to the Eternal Truths of mathematics which exist outside of space time, I would argue that all Church teachings dealing with Faith and Morals, should simply be found true based upon the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of 95% real probability in the real world. Such Moderate Truth would allow for a high degree of certainty needed for an authoritative moral teaching, but at the same time would be subject to later revision and reinterpretation if necessary. Hans Kung calls this Papal indefectibilility. Papal Infallibility, if it exists, only operates at a level of 95% real probability in the real world, that is, truth beyond a reasonable doubt.
My Spiritual Journey By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
I suppose my Spiritual Journey really began when I was in preschool, but I don’t remember that far back. I remember a little bit about my early gradeschool C.C.D., and of course celebrating Christmas, but little more than that. In 6th grade I received the sacrament of Confirmation, choosing the name Thomas as my patron saint. I had seen the video of the St. Thomas More, story, “A Man for All Seasons,” and this led me to choose the name Thomas. I asked for the name Thomas More, but the Bishop said that he only confirmed a person with the generic name. I didn’t like that at the time, but in hindsight I think that I have benefited from being affiliated with Saint Thomas the Apostle and Saint Thomas Aquinas as well. Ed and Kathy Nemeth were my confirmation sponsors and they gave me the gift of the New American Bible as my confirmation present. I read a
lot as a kid, mostly for fun, and I decided to take on the Bible. So, during my 7th grade year I read the Bible from cover to cover, trying to treat the whole thing as a divinely inspired adventure novel. The Old Testament certainly contained a lot of adventures. By 9th grade I was playing junior high basketball. I also had a problem with a bully from across town with whom I got into several fights with, defending myself. I had to try to figure out how this all squared with my Christianity, so I went on a retreat and prayed. I decided that I would always try to verbally combat a person first, trying to turn the other cheek, but that if that didn’t work I would simply fight to the death to defend myself. Interestingly, I never saw the bully again for the rest of my life. The summer after 9th grade I also went out to Granby, Colorado, in the Rocky Mountains, for Fellowship of Christian Athlete’s summer camp. Although I decided to remain Catholic, I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour as a Born Again, Catholic Christian. I think that this move opened my soul to receiving Gifts of the Spirit. In highschool I studied, started a contemplative prayer practice, played basketball, and was the founding President of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes chapter at my highschool. My favorite prayer, taken from the Old Testament, was transformative:
Your ways O Lord, make known to me Teach me your paths Guide me in your truth and teach me, For you are God my saviour And I wait for you all of the day. At breakfast I prayed: Dear God I give to you today all I think And do and say, Thank you for this day. I also prayed: The Lord my God is Lord of All, Blessed be the Name of the Lord. After highschool I went away to college to get a Jesuit education. I loved my theology and philosophy courses, but especially liked the course in Jesuit Philosophyer Bernard Lonergan’s Critical Realism, taught by Sister Mary Alice Haley. I had previously taken a course in neo-thomism but could not reconcile that with evolution, and so put it on the shelf. My senior year in college, at Creighton University, I had a vocational crisis. I was torn. Part of me wanted to get married and part of me wanted to be a
Jesuit Lawyer. While in spiritual direction I fell head over heels in love with a coed and so decided to put off the vocation decision and instead concentrate on going to law school. I loved law school. I excelled in the law. During my first year I had a legal process course and in the midst of it I came up with the idea that there could be a framework for law using Bernard Lonergan’s Critical Realist philosophy. I made law review and graduated in the top ten percent of my class with Order of the Coif. I wrote my senior seminar paper on Bernard Lonergan’s Critical Realism applied to Jurisprudence. I argued and won three cases before the Nebraska Supreme Court as a senior certified student attorney working for the Lancaster County Attorney’s Office. After graduating I went to work for the law firm that I had worked for during my second summer of law school. I passed the Nebraska Bar Exam and went to work, doing general litigation. After a year or so of dating around and getting nowhere I started to get the feeling that I should try the Jesuit Novitiate and become a Jesuit Lawyer or Law Professor. After just under two years in legal practice with my firm I left for the Jesuit Novitiate in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Novitiate was interesting. We spent our time praying, doing ministry, and studying. I was graced with three mystical experiences while
in the Novitiate. I left the Novitiate after one semester. The Novice Master decided that the experience was to stressful for me and thus would not work out. I moved home and decided to to some sort of church related legal work as a volunteer. I ended up in Austin, Texas, where both my sisters were living at the time. I lived in the parish rectory of St. Julia’s parish on the Hispanic East side of Austin. I began dating Judi Stluka, the director of religious education at St. Austin’s parish, who helped to set up my volunteer project. Judi and I became engaged on St. Valentine’s day, and we were married in July. In the meantime, I accepted a job offer as a visiting assistant professor of law at Marquette University. I taught property and legal writing, using Lonergan’s Critical Realism in my legal writing course as a basis for legal process. While at Marquette I interviewed with Widener University for a tenure track position. I was to teach property law and legal ethics, while my scholarship was to focus on Catholic Jurisprudence and Law and Theology. We adopted two children, Josh and Crista during my early years at Widener. During my second year at Widener I started doing Zen Meditation. I then read the shamanistic books of Don Juan, by Carlos Casteneda, which threw me for a loop. I really went out there with my mind—without drugs. It took me 10 years of therapy, inner work, and study
to come back from the Don Juan world using Classical Greek Philosophy. I then started work on the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. Along the way I studied all sorts of spirituality, including the transpersonal psychology and perennial philosophy of Ken Wilber. Metaphysics is an important part of my spirituality. I am now out of the University. I live by myself in an one bedroom apartment, practice law part time and write. In my spiritual life I am working on my Intuition. So that’s about it for now. I am still on my Spiritual Journey and never intend to quit.
Process Philosophy and the Immutable Platonic Forms
By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Process Theology, and the Process Philosophy upon which it is based, is often thought to be totally inconsistent with classical philosophy. While this may be true to some degree, there still remains some commonality. For example, the Father of Process Philosophy is Alfred North Whitehead. In his book, “Process and Reality,” Whitehead discusses the notion of the Immutable Platonic Forms. Whitehead refers to the Platonic forms as “eternal objects.” This is important. Whitehead stands at the forefront of
philosophy of science and still asserts the existence of the Immutable Platonic Forms. Thus, there is no inconsistency in arguing for process philosophy on the one hand and an epistemology involving the World of the Forms, on the other.
Prosecutorial Discretion and the Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
In criminal cases the burden of proof is on the state to prove the defendant guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Additionally, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, under Rule 3.8, specifically states that a prosecutor cannot bring a criminal charge unless the charge is supported by probable cause. Ethics expert Monroe Freedman has argued that a higher standard is de facto required before a prosecutor can bring a charge. Freedman argues that the prejudice and humiliation which a innocent criminal defendant must endure requires a higher standard than probable cause for bringing a criminal charge in the first place. Freedman argues that the standard for bringing a charge in the first place would be higher, except that the rule was enacted so a to protect
prosecutors from claims of incompetence or misconduct, should a case be lost at trial. For example, let us assume that the charging standard was “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” which some have argued for. The result, in such a case, according to Freedman, would be that if a criminal defendant were acquitted and found innocent at trial, then the prosecutor could be charged with misconduct for bringing a case not supported by the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. I argue that a different approach should be taken to the problem. Given Freedman’s argument that the conviction standard and the charging standard cannot be the same, I argue that a different burden of proof should be used at each stage of the criminal proceeding. I argue that for a prosecutor to bring a charge in the first place, and for the case to survive the initial bail hearing, the prosecutor must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence, that is by a probability of no less than 55%, based on the law and the facts. At the arraignment, the standard is raised to proof by clear and convincing evidence, that is proof by a probability of no less than 85%, based on the law and the facts. Finally, at trial the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, which I argue is proof by 95% probability, of both the law and the facts.
The foregoing standard protects innocent criminal defendants from being harassed by a prosecutor but at the same time protects the prosecutor from charges of misconduct when there is an acquittal.
By Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
It has been argued that reincarnation takes place in either a linear fashion, or in some sense, every life is taken simultaneously. I argue that for some persons, anyway, reincarnation is based upon the person having a primary or root life upon which every other life is built. Thus, a person’s primary life might be that of Joe Smith, for example, born in 1960 and dying in 2030. Joe Smith is really Joe Smith. As Joe Smith, Joe may take his own life over again, reincarnationally, multidimensionally, thousands of times. This is his root life. His character is formed primarily here. On illiteration, however, Joe Smith might take hundreds or thousands of others lives backwards and forwards in history in order to
accomplish certain tasks, or to have certain learning experiences. In each of these lives, however, it is to be stressed that what is going on is that Joe Smith of 1960 is taking on such a life, not the person, as such, in that life. In this sense every life that Joe Smith has is taken simultaneously, multidimensionally, relative to his primary life as Joe Smith.
Relative Evil By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Many relativists deny that good and evil exist, because everything is relative. As a moderate relativist, I argue that relative good exits as well as relative evil. I argue that there is only one place that Perfect Good exists, and that is in the Mind of God. Being, as The Good, then, is found in the Mind of God in the World of the Immutable Platonic Forms. Some might ask then, does absolute evil exist? While it may seem this way to us from time to time, I take the Greek position that evil is simply a deficiency in the Good. While absolute Good exists as the Perfect Good, absolute evil does not exist, only relative evil. Absolute Evil is illusory and does not really exist. In this sense, then, reality is stacked in favor of the Good. Reality is good and not evil. While the evil we endure may be horrible from time to time, nevertheless it is relative evil. Admittedly, evil which manifests at 99.9999999% real probability in the real world is
remarkably evil, still it is not perfectly evil. Perfect or absolute evil is impossible since evil is a deficiency in the Good.
Rights are Beautiful
By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Schizophrenia and Physics By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Most psychiatrists seem to think that mental illness occurs primarily at the neurological level where biochemistry reigns supreme. I would like to present a different hyphothesis. I would like to argue that at least some mental activity takes place on the subatomic Quantum level of Reality. Both Plato and Aristotle asserted that there is a soul-mind distinct from the body-mind. I argue that the soul-mind is the Quantum mind of the individual person. While the soul-mind can affect the body-mind and the body-mind can affect the soul-mind, the two are not the same. I would like to explore the hypothesis, for example, that one type of schizophrenia which afflicts persons is caused at the Quantum level of
interaction. In order for ordinary logic to function, that is, in order for reason to function, the mind must be able to function causally. The mind, at least symbolically, must be able to order meaningful symbols in such a way as to think causally. For example, there is the syllogism, “If A, then B, A therefore B.” In one’s mind one must be able to order the symbols in such a way that one considers A first, then B, not the other way around. I would like to hypothesize that in some persons, the mind has developed the ability to “think” faster than the speed of light. When this happens, the person ends up considering B first and then A. The person cannot think logically and causally. The person is schizophrenic. The cure for such schizophrenia will be found at the Quantum level of mind. If one can learn to think non-locally at the Quantum level, then one should be able to reappropriate the ability to think logically. In the future, much of psychiatry will involve the use of Quantum therapy to heal mental illness on the soul-mind level first, and then the biological body-mind level next.
Socrates and Conventional Consciousness By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Socrates, perhaps the greatest philosopher who has ever lived, taught critical thinking to the citizens of Athens, where he lived. Socrates taught that the only life worth living was the reflective life. A life of selfunderstanding. I would appear that Socrates also argued, like his student Plato, after him, that there are three levels of human consciousness, bodymind, soul-mind, and Spirit-mind. Socrates argued that the contemplative life or the intellectual life was greater than the bureaucratic political life, or the life of the base emotions or sense experience. Eventually, the citizens of Athens grew tired of Socrates and ordered his execution by poisoning.
Socrates spent his entire life, later the basis for the western mode of thought, arguing for higher consciousness and higher values. The citizens of Athens, on the other hand, were satisfied with Conventional Authority, Conventional Culture, and Conventional Consciousness. Following, Socrates, I would argue that Conventional Consciousness is evil, or at best a very minimal good. Unfortunately, conventional authority tends to promote the least common denominator in society rather than the The Good. Even when the Good is taught, it is done in such a rigid unproductive way that nothing really Good is accomplished. The Good Society is based upon reason, not convention. Convention is the antithesis of The Good. We are to lead reflective lives, not lives devoted to conventional authority. While one may argue that it is possible to have Good convention, I would argue that it is not. Such a society will have mere window dressing for justice and social justice. Such a society will not really promote a life of individual reflection and reason. For Conventional Society, Nazi Germany is as good as Stalinist Russia, which is in turn as good as King George the III, of England at the time of the American Revolution. All bad choices.
A friend of mine once told me that we live in a relativist world and that all we have left is convention for authority. I argue that such a society
is merely fascist regardless of any democratic window dressing. Conventional Authority is evil according to Socrates, and I must agree.
Teaching Constitutional Democracy in Gradeschool By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Lawrence Kohlberg, the noted developmental psychologist, spend a good portion of his career trying to develop Constitutional values and formal operations thinking in gradeschool and secondary school. He failed. Try as he might, Kohlberg could not get students to develop formal operations thinking applied to law. I argue that Kohlberg’s methodology was unsound. Kohlberg tried to teach constitutionalism by developing democratic processes in gradeschools and secondary schools. He tried to develop the democratic classroom.
Kohlberg’s mistake was that he was teaching his students politics, or political science, at best, not law. Legal teaching requires the use of the modified Socratic method where the case method of teaching is utlilized. I have had some initial success with teaching law to gradeschool students. For career day with my daughter, when she was in third grade, I came into her class and did a mock law school class dealing with the law as it relates to lost property. The third grade students caught on to the teaching very well, and did an excellent job. This leads me to develop the hypothesis that law, and constitutionalism can be taught, using the modified Socratic Method of teaching, to gradeschool students. For the future, I suggest that law be taught in third grade to students using modified Socratic method, involving, an introduction, question and answer dialogue, and then summing up by the teacher at the end of the discussion. As the students progress, they can be taught to act as lawyers and judges deciding real cases.
The Allegory of the Wheat Field By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
One day a young brave of the Yanqui Indian tribe was out fishing with his grandfather in a stream in the Niobrara country in northern Nebraska. The young brave’s name was “Shoots Straight,” because he
was a very good shot with a rifle. “Granfather, how is it that reality exists?” asked Shoots Straight. “Well, my son, our tribe has a story that explains that, if you want to listen.” “Alright,” said Shoots Straight, “I’ll listen.” “Well,” said Granfather, “if you look out and see the grass blowing in the wind, you can imagine that on the real earth, something similar is happening. What is really happening is that this whole area of the world is
planted in wheat.” “Wheat?” asked Shoots Straight. “Yes, Shoots Straight, wheat.” Said Grandfather. “For as far as the eye can see, the real nature of reality is a wheat field, without beginning, without end.” “Now, each wheat stalk and head is known as a Quanta, and all of reality is made up of the Quanta Field or Quantum Field, that is, the wheat field. The Quanta Field, or wheat field is nurtured by the Substance of the good black dirt, the earth, out of which the Quanta Field grows, and is grounded. The Sun and the Sky is the Being which also nurtures the Quanta Field, the wheat field. “Which came first?” asked Shoots Straight, “the Sky, or the Earth, or the Wheat Field?” “They all manifest each other simultaneously,” said Grandfather, “without the wheat and earth, then no sky, without the sky and earth, then no wheat, without the wheat and earth, no sky.” “Does this have anything to do with God?” asked Shoots Straight. “Our Father in Heaven, the Sky is Being; Jesus the Son, the Quanta Field, the Christic, is the wheat field and the eucharist of wheat bread; while the black dirt is the Holy Spirit of Substance.” “Thanks, Grandfather,” said Shoots Straight, “you have helped me to understand reality.” “Your welcome.” Said Grandfather.
The Soul Mind
By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Previously, I have argued that the human mind functions on at least three levels, the body-mind, the soul-mind, and the Spirit mind. I have also argued that there is thought which takes place on the Quantum level, on the level of what could be described as the Quantum mind. Dr. Deepak Chopra, M.D., in his book, “How to Know God,” argues that mind takes place beyond the biological brain or body, as well. Chopra argues that the mind operates on at least three levels, which are the material mind, the Quantum mind, and the Virtual mind. I argue
that Chopra’s schema and the one that I have set forth based upon Plato and Aristotle, parallel each other:
Fejfar Mind Spirit
Chopra Mind Virtual
Description Wisdom, Intuitive Mind
It is a mistake to equate the Intuitive Mind with the Emotional Mind even though each involves feeling. Intuitive feeling and Emotional feeling are not the same cognitive function. Additionally, Chopra’s work, written
by a medical doctor familiar with brain neurology, sets to rest the idea that the mind only operates on the material, biological, brain, level.
The Cosmic Christ and Cosmic Consciousness By Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
In his book, “The Coming of the Cosmic Christ,” Matthew Fox discusses a type of consciousness associated with the Cosmic Christ. Fox argues that cosmic consciousness is associated with the idea of Wisdom, found especially in the Old Testament. Wisdom, based upon Intuition, provides the Intuitive Mystic with Divine Knowledge. Saint Augustine called such knowledge, Divine Illumination. Fox also points out in his book that the Cosmic Christ is the Logos, or Creative Form or Creative Word of the gospel of John. The Logos is a cosmic, dynamic force in creation. I have argued elsewhere that Jesus the
Logos, the Cosmic Christ is also the Quantum Jesus, who makes miracles happen in the Quantum Field. The Quantum Jesus is a moderate relativist. Instead of imposing absolute standards upon his followers, he tells us that as you judge, so you shall be judged. A relativist standard, consistent with the idea of moderate relativism found in Quantum Physics. Additionally, I would like to argue that the Cosmic Christ finds his home at the Level 6 stage of consciousness. Level 6 is the stage characterized by Intuition and by Universality. Universality, here, is both a cosmic concept and a kosmic concept. Universality implies the whole geographic universe, not just the earth at the reference point. Additionally, universality also implies the idea of universals, such as universal ideas. As Ken Wilber points out, such a “vision logic” view of reality is kosmic in nature. Cosmic Intuition is the key then, to cosmic consciousness and the Coming of the Cosmic Christ in our minds and hearts.
The Implied Warranty of Habitability Revisited By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
There is an old saying that if something is broken, don’t try to fix it. Along those lines, I would like to argue that the Implied Warranty of Habitability in Residential Tenancies is not broken, that it is working just fine, and should be supported. The Implied Warranty of Habitability in Residential Tenancies is a legal doctrine which provides that the Landlord has the duty to keep the residential leased premises in a habitable condition. In other words, the Landlord has a duty to make all repairs. Presumably, because the Landlord is a rational actor, he knows that he must charge enough money in
rent to make sure that there will be a fund available to make any needed repairs. I argue that there are two basic reasons for placing the duty of repair on the Landord. First, the Landlord is in the business of supplying a dwelling, and as such, owes a natural law duty under the common good to ensure that every dwelling renting is capable of being a home. The idea of a home has intrinsic value. Second, I argue that the Implied Warranty of Habitability in Residential Tenancies promotes economic efficiency. In a market where the duty of repair is uncertain, it is impossible for a knowledgeable prospective tenant to determine the real value of the apartment. Obviously, if all apartments come with a full duty of repair, then there is no hidden repair charge for the tenant. To some degree, then, the apartment becomes a fungible good. Where uncertainty is involved the tenant cannot ascertain in advance whether or not there is a hidden repair charge not represented in the rent. Economic efficiency argues for a uniform duty of repair placed upon the residential Landlord in every case.
The Nature of Law By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Critical Legal Studies argues that Law is Politics. Some Logical Positivists argue Law is Power. Postmodernists argue the Law is Linguistics. I argue that Law is based primarily upon reason and secondarily upon intuition. While law can indeed involve politics, power, and linguistic analysis, I argue that these are not the primary attributes of Law. Law, based upon reason, operates in a three fold manner: experience, understanding, judgment and reflection. It is in judgment and reflection, especially, that intuition comes into play. In a law class, the law professor
typically starts the discussion of a case by asking about the facts. The facts involve the level of experience. Without facts there can be no law. The facts tell me whether I have a car crash case, or a train robbery. Without facts it is impossible to tell what aspect of the law is applicable. Understanding, is the next aspect of reason, and law. At the level of understanding, the law professor wants to know the theory of the case. He or she wants to know what legal issues are presented in the case. He or she wants to compare and contrast different legal theories and their application to the facts. This, again, is the level of Understanding. The last aspect of reason and law is judgment and reflection. Judgment tells us how to apply the law to the facts and come up with the holding of the case. It we have a difficult time figuring out how the law applies, then policy analysis is appropriate. Reflection is that cognitive function which involves policy analysis. Both judgment and reflection are intuitive functions. So, to summarize, I argue that law is based in the first instance upon reason, and then secondarily upon intuition. Law is not merely a matter of arbitrary politics. Law is not just power, unless law is corrupt. Law involves some linguistic analysis, but cannot be limited to linguistic
analysis, since experience, judgment and reflection are also involved. In the final analysis, Law is its own discipline.
The Quantum Jesus By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar Typically, we refer to Jesus of Nazareth as Jesus Christ. The “Christ” meaning “the anointed one” or a power archetype. I, and others
have written about multidimensional reality. If Jesus was crucified on Earth as the Gospels say, then one can argue that such a crucifixion took place or takes place in only those universes where such an event was probable. The same would be true of the resurrection of Jesus. I have argued that Jesus is present in and in fact represents the Quantum Field. I have argued that the only real unifying factor in the universe, physically, as such, is the Quanta or Quantum, subatomic particle.
This particle is a chameleon and masks itself as other subatomic particles based upon meaning. The Quantum Field, as Deepak Chopra has argued, can affect dross matter on the physical level. With the right Quantum move one could turn air into a bunch of grapes to eat. This explains the miracles that Jesus performed, as well as those of the Old Testament. I argue that in some reality frames Jesus was crucified and then was placed in the tomb, and then underwent a Quantum resurrection. In the tomb, the physical, material body of Jesus was transformed into Quantum subatomic particles, which are essentially energy. The resurrected Jesus is the Quantum Jesus. When Jesus appeared to his disciples after the resurrection he manifested in his Quantum “Glorified” Body. Before doing this, Jesus dematerialized into the Quantum Field in the tomb and became one with the Earth and the Universe. I argue that the Jesus of the public ministry was also the Quantum Jesus, but in material form. By the Power of the Holy Spirit, the Quantum Jesus helped to “father” himself in the womb of his Mother Mary, in the first instance as a Quantum Energy Field.
Chapter 36 The Range of Legal Arguments By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
In Law not every legal argument works. Some arguments are ruled out as illogical or irrational. For example, if I were to argue to a court that my client should win the case because “Sagittarius is in the Ascendancy,” as a matter of astrology, my argument would not be taken seriously, and would be considered frivolous. So, some arguments work and some don’t. I suspect there is a range of arguments which work and that some typically work better than others. The strongest argument that I can make is where the law is directly on point
in favor of my position based upon a case, statute, constitutional provision, etc. I simply argue to the court that “the law perfectly clear that….” The next most acceptable form of argument is legal interpretation. Here, for example, I may have to argue my case by analogy. So, for example, I might say, “your honor, the court in the Flint case applied a legal rule which is analogous to that which is applicable in this case….” Next, if the law does not favor me, I should probably argue public policy. “Your honor, public policy clearly requires that you rule in favor of my client, otherwise economic instability will result.” Next, if the law does not favor me, I should probably argue Equity. Equity only applies when there is no adequate remedy at law. “Your honor, a grave injustice is about to perpetrated here, the court must intervene in Equity. There is no adequate remedy at law to prevent this injustice, so the court must rule in Equity.” Finally, if law and Equity does not work there is natural law. “Your honor, as a matter of natural law a grave injustice is being done to my client. The court must do the right thing and rule on the basis of natural law to prevent a grave injustice.
The foregoing gives a good framework for understanding what type of legal arguments courts find persuasive. It is suggested that Equity and natural law arguments be saved unless there is no alternative.
The Ethical Matrix Revisited By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Previously, I have introduced the Ethical Matrix and the Ethical principles of Reciprocity, Utility, Proportionality, and Equity contained therein. Reciprocity is based upon the idea that one should treat another as one would wish him or herself to be treated in similar circumstances. Similarly, reciprocity states that as you judge, so you shall be judged. Put
another way, reciprocity provides that as you treat others, so you shall be treated. After reciprocity, the next ethical principle is Utility. Utility, at it’s simplest, means, maxization of value. Put more linearly, utility requires
that one judge reality in light of a scale of values. I argue that the first, and for some, the only rational scale of values, involves Rational Self Interest. In this sense, one chooses to maximize one’s own Rational Self Interest as one‘s highest value. The Self is capitalized because one much choose to pursue the rational interest of the Self, that is the Jungian Self, or True Self. This means that not only are sensate-sensory experiential values to be maximized, but also Mind values, and Wisdom or Spiritual values. One following Rational Self Interest will, all other things being equal, choose a Self-fulfilling job with good pay, rather than a non-fulfilling job with excellent pay. Self Interest provides for higher values and feelings, which the lower, more mundane rational self, does not. Once again, proportionality is the Ethical Principle which promotes the idea of Equality and Equality before the law. Equity, on the other hand, favors the one in need. Equity makes an equitable exception from a general rule based upon need. This is the Ethical Matrix.
Jesuit Spirituality: To Be a Contemplative in Action By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Previously, following Aristotle, I have argued that intuitive contemplation is the highest end of the human person. Intuitive contemplation can of course involve the intuition of Being, An Unrestricted Act of Understanding. I argue also, however, that intuitive contemplation must be complemented by at least analytic action, that is, intuition integrates
analytic understanding to form intellectual activity. For me, the intellect and the Spirit are one. The intellectual life and the spiritual life are the same. Ignatius of Loyola makes a similar argument. Ignatius argues that contemplation must be complemented with action based upon love. Thus, one utilizing Jesuit spirituality is to try an become a person who is a “contemplative in action.” The intellect moves the will to act. Whether love motivates one to act or the will motivates one to act, the result is the same, contemplation finds its fulfillment in action which carries out the results of contemplation. Thus, if I use the intellect to design a great building, the will moves me to actually have the building built, not just stay a blueprint. If the intellect moves me to develop a new legal theory supporting social justice, then the will or love moves me to want to have that theory published and applied in the real world. In this way we create the intuition of Being in all things. This called infused contemplation.
Bibliography Ignatius of Loyola, The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, 22-23 (1970).
Wisdom By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Wisdom transcends ordinary conventional morality. Conventional morality tells us that we \can only use Good to achieve Good, or perhaps good to achieve Good. Wisdom on the other hand argues that we are permitted, but not required to use not only good to achieve Good,
but also we are permitted to use evil to combat evil and evil to accomplish Good. Without Wisdom we could not function in a less than perfect society. Every society is characterized by some corruption. Even in a world of noncorruption, friends favor friends, and one must learn to deal with this situation, as well as others. Wisdom is not evil and Wisdom is not Evil. Wisdom is a Gift from God. The Wise person intends Being as an unrestricted act of understanding. The Wise person developes Intuition to better know, judge, and reflect upon his or her world. The supposed Wise person who intends evil or Evil and not the Good or Being, is himself unwise and evil.
Wisdom Revisited By Anthony J. Fejfar © Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Many religions speak of Wisdom. For Catholics, there is an entire book of the Bible devoted to Wisdom. Wisdom purports to give the Wise person a special type of knowledge. In the Solomonic book of Wisdom in the Catholic Bible, Wisdom promises special knowledge in the affairs of
men as well as scientific knowledge. Wisdom also promises knowledge of metaphysics. Wisdom, in the first instance is based upon Intuition. Intuition is a Natural Gift of the Spirit. It is through Natural Intuition that we can find out about God and understand God even without the help of books such as the Bible. Intuition is a Gift that has always been with humanity. It is a type of understanding which can be described as alinear, or arational, or curvelinear. The insights of Wisdom are not always readily apparent to the rational mind. Intuition was with us as Cro Magnon man living in caves, and helped to guide us even then. Intuition is the basis for all Divine Inspiration. Without Intuition there would be no Bible. All of us are born with Intuition, but some of us choose not to listen to Intuition and so it is only minimally present in that person’s consciousness. Just as there are some natural athletes, so too there are some who naturally have Intuition. Just as the uncoordinated kid can train to become a good athlete, so too can the person with minimal Intuition develop more Intuition through Meditation. Wisdom typically tries to accomplish the Good or the Truly Worthwhile through the use of the good. But sometime circumstances force
the person of Wisdom to use evil against evil, and evil to accomplish the Good, as a greater Good. For example, let us say that I was a Catholic parent in World War II Germany. The Nazi’s were in control. The Nazi’s were persecuting religious and spiritual Catholics as well as Jews. This is widely known. I and my family hide a Jewish family in a hidden room in the roof. After a year of this situation, the Gestapo, the secret police, comes to the door and asks if we are hiding any Jews. I lie and tell the Gestapo, no we are not. It is Wisdom that enables me to commit the evil of lying to civil authority in order to accomplish the Greater Good of protecting the lives of the Jewish family. In other words, in this situation, Wisdom allows me to
combat evil with evil. Most people are taught at an early age that you should always be honest and tell the truth. Wisdom creates an exception to this.
The Good and the Common Good By Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Thomas Aquinas argued in his “Treatise on Law” that the end of the Law is the Common Good. I once even cited this proposition of law as authority in a law review article that I wrote dealing with landlord tenant law. Today, I would argue something similar, but different. I argue that the end of the Law is the Good or the Truly Worthwhile.
In the end, I would argue that the Common Good becomes simply equated with Conventional Authority to the disregard of Higher Values. The Good is a heuristic and Immutable Platonic Form. The Good is that which we intend when we try to be good. The Good is the Truly Worthwhile.