Lucid Lewis?

Clearing Away False Foundations In Order to Establish An Authentic One

In my business and in particular in the United States during this election year I hear lots of statements about morality–lots of “moral” assertions. I have lots of questions about these assertions and fear that many people act upon and react to them without really reflecting on them or their origins or their intentions.

I have tried to ask myself what I think are the important moral questions and what are the best foundations for moral decision making and action. It is a discussion I think the community of humanity must enter into more deeply on a global scale as we attempt to visualize and live into our global future.

If we are to establish a considered foundation for moral legislation and action I think we must first consider the question of an adequate anthropology. How do we fundamentally understand ourselves as human beings?

I often bridle at what are put forward as or treated as ontological categories or assertions. They have often obtained the status of established wisdom or common sense and to question them is often profoundly discouraged and frowned upon or even punished in some segments of society. For example, one of my professions is priest. Much of the theology that attempts to define this profession promotes the idea that ordination makes an indelible, that is, ontological mark on one’s being and thus forms a foundational aspect of one’s identity.

I don’t think that this is true for a number of reasons (another discussion) but even if it is it has a powerful shadow side. My experience is that many priest act as if this new “ontological” condition exempts them from more fundamental moral requirements like those expressed in their baptismal covenant, especially the bit about respecting the dignity of every human being.

Don’t even get me started on bishops. These constructs, priest, bishop do not seem to me to be based in any direct experience of living but is a claim that has been manufactured for political reasons and has historically given rise to amazingly ugly abuses.

I am not opposed to priesthood but I think it is a social role and not an ontological condition. This abuse or false predication is not unique to priest and bishops but is all too common in human behavior.

The larger point I hope to make is that this confusion around the nature and foundation of priesthood gives us an example of the elevation of a construct to the level of an ontological category and identity. Many other constructs, some built around accidents are thus elevated and then used as a foundation for moral legislation and action. Sex, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation and various cultural identifications are other examples of this confused elevation of accidents and constructs to the level of foundational identity and ontological category.

These identifications are sometimes so powerful that people are motivated to act against their own fundamental self interest as organisms in an ecosphere in their zeal to serve them, whether they have been assumed or imposed. Serving, promoting and defending them at any and all cost is often seen as the highest good.

Add these false predications on top of the even more fundamental split and disassociation that exist in almost all societies and traditions between spirit and matter, transcendence and eminence and the space in which, and the confused ground upon which, we have formed and continue to form pathological “moral” justifications for actions that fundamentally violate our deepest truths and identities, the integrity of our own humanity and that of others, is clearly established and illuminated.

Again, morality begins with understanding who and what we are–an adequate anthropology that proceeds from the very ground of our being and does not allow any of these predications, constructs or accidents to usurp the place of our authentic and foundational ontology.

In Part II, A Foundation Set In The Ground Of Being, I hope to explore a foundation for morality, for the rules and enforcements we must use in every aspect of our society from child rearing to global governance.

Love,
Lewis