The Realm of Omnipotence and The Power of Awareness: Lacanian Phenomenological View

Philosophy

This paper focuses on the realm of omnipotence from a Lacanian viewpoint.

Self Liberation in Phenomenology and Dzogchen, Essays THE REALM OF OMNIPOTENCE AND THE POWER OF AWARENESS: LACANIAN PHENOMENOLOGICAL VIEW By Rudolph Bauer, Phd Wed, Oct 23, 2013 Rudolph Bauer Ph.D., Author We are focusing our Lacanian and phenomenological understanding of the superego's domination of the perceptual field and the destruction by judgmentalness of relatedness with our self and those we love. Judgmentalness destroys whoness, destroys the person. When you are consistently located within the superego function, the very sense of critical judgmentalness and relentless criticism minimizes our sense of innate primordial awareness. The unbound judgmentalness and critical relentlessness replaces the sense of innermost self as the base and source of our person. Superego judgmentalness destroys the sense of whoness in our self and the sense of whoness in those we love. Only the thing remains. As Lacan describes the comedy shows up. The world as thingness. The primitive affective states of deprivation anxiety and annihilation anxiety dominate our thought and action. Because deprivation anxiety is so unbearable we impose and transmit this deprivation on the one we love, on to the other. There is not enoughness. Annihilation anxiety is so unbearable we impose and transmit this annihilation on the ones we love and so death anxiety pervades and we live in dread. We are always waiting for death. The One who Knows The more completely you become the superego function, and are encapsulated within this primitive childhood structure , the more you experience unbound omnipotence as the one who knows, and knows and always knows. The one who knows! Knows what? Knows exactly what is right and exactly what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, what is the truth and what is false. The Pharisee mind. As Merleau Ponty describes judgmentalness forecloses the gnosis of perception, forecloses the awareness of situation, forecloses the discernment of character and discrimination of right action. The very psyche of person , the anima dimension is sent away, exiled, and you are left in mind alone. When psyche disappears there is only mind alone. Solipsism replaces the great compassion and the ongoing continuity of relatedness or bondedness is ruptured yet again.The experiential instruction to get beyond our mind and to differentiate our mind from the sphere of awareness, allows you and I to make the shift to live within the field of awareness. To shift from being located within mind alone to being located in the 2 awareness of awareness allows us to enter the transitional space and to experience the nature of awareness within our self and within the other, allows us to live within the field of being, the field of being within our self and within the other. Non duality arises naturally, continuity of relatedness naturally arises and is sustained. For so many the life of relatedness is ongoing relentless rupturedness and fracturedness. This is the hell realm. Judgmentalness is ultimately self directedness. Self hatred is unworthiness and within the domination of the superego there is the vast lack of not knowing ones own desire. When faced with the openness of the situation and freedom of the situation, we will not know what to do with our own lack of authorship and with our own lack of inspiration. Without authorship and self inspiration a vast oppositionalness arises out of this lack of self inspiration and self authorship. Ambivalence becomes the way of life , waiting is the way of life. Nothing actually happens. When we are located within the superego function , we are in desperate need of the castle of the law and the Citadel of omnipotence .We slowly but surely become more and more compulsive, more and more fixated, more and more driven by an unknown master, never ending drivenness but for what or for whom is really not so clear, even for the one who knows. The realm of omnipotence is so very concrete operational, so very dense, and there is so very little space, there is no play, no place of space. This concrete operational world of density of experience results in sensory overload, and the fusion or intrusion of the presymbolic concrete realm. There is a background sense of terror with this unending containment, no space. The concreteness of the situation is endlessly closed, there is no space of awareness.The space of awareness is replaced by the Judge of judgment. In this realm of concreteness complete concreteness omnipotence reigns. There is the sense that the source of life and goodness lies outside of the self. Envy arises out of our sense of the entitlement of others and their unearned giftedness. We envy the freedom of others, and we envy their lack of burden. We envy what others are given. We envy children. Envy hates what it does not have, the hatred of the other is experienced as the hatred of the self. The hatred of the situation is experienced as hatred of the self. Just as the love of the other and the love of the situation is experienced as love of the self. The Little Used Power of the Awareness Field! The power of the awareness field has great and wonderful influence on the concrete mind and the concreteness of relentless judgmentalness. Primordial awareness can infuse the concrete mind. The great primordial field of the fire of awareness infuses, suffuses and dissolves, metabolizes concreteness mind and its judgments. Awareness cuts through the concreteness of mind . The energy and the light of awareness allows or brings forth the subtleness of mind and the translucidity of perception. The perception of awareness becomes more open, more apparent and more transparent. Awareness and its field infuses the mind, penetrates the mind, deconstructs the density and redundancy of thought, interrupts the repetition of thought and eventually allows thought free 3 experience. Space brings forth more space. There arises the non technical view of self and life. Emptiness of mind as space, the poetic state of spaciousness self arises. The first and most simple method is to hold the experience of the mind and most specifically the judgmentalness of mind within the awareness state and this action brings forth the power of metabolization of thoughts, sensations and affective states. Holding the mind and the judgments of the mind within the sea of awareness dissolves the relentless criticism of childhood structure of superego. One begins to get beyond the relentless judgmentalness of right and wrong.good and evil, better and best. Empty mind appears. Just like writing on the sea with your finger tips, the water dissolves the notation.Writing in a bowl of water with your finger tips the notation dissolves. If you have the stability of awareness and the fire like strength of awareness this dissolving takes place naturally and directly and with immediacy. The primary reason this healing event does not take place is that our judgmentalness is syntonic and not dystonic. So we must come to the conclusion that your compulsive mind, this castle of the lord superego, this king of crticalness robs us of our life of the freedom of awareness. Alas nothing will happen. The concreteness of mind forecloses the felt field of awareness. The judgmentalness of mind forecloses the field of awareness and we are left in a presymbolic concrete state of envy aggression and omnipotent self righteousness. This ruptures of relatedness will happen repeatedly in our life with those whom we love. We must release this demonic source of security and in doing we will bring forth what is within us..aham ah.I am becoming who I am. The cranial vault method is a simple cutting through method with great power and results. You focus from the back of the head and focus the energy, the light to the forehead. Then you focus to the eyes. Then to the palette of the mouth. And then if you wish the throat, heart, navel.If you wish you can also focus on the throat, the heart, the navel and the perineum. You can use the method to open the sense of space.You can focus the energy from the back of the head as if you were cutting through a paper bag. Dissolving the boundaries and opening the windows and doors into spaciousness. You are using the power of awareness, the space of awareness, the energy of awareness, the fire of awareness to cut through phenomena. Awareness cuts through awareness, cuts through the configurations of awareness. Cutting through opens phenomena so that the radiance and space of awareness shines through. .We can use the power of the source, the innermost heart essence. The self arising of the energy and light of the heart essence through the mind wherein there is the metabolization of the mental structures and ideation. We focus the heart of awareness, the luminous energy of awareness on the configurations of our mind. We infuse our mind. We focus on the functions of the mind and it corresponding affective states including terror. Sometimes the use of the cutting through sound of phat will be a most powerful. The mantric repetition must be in the vibrational field. Short fierce cuts of awareness cutting through the configurations of awareness. 4 The primal and magical sound of Ah opens containment and opens the constrictures of contracted mind and bodily states. Ah not only arise from the mouth, but from every part of the body. You will only discover this experience by practicing the somatic Ah. Ultimately our own integrity with primordial awareness is the doorway to self liberation. The luminous energy of the heart infuses the mind, infuses the concreteness of mind. The history of mind which is the mind itself. The mind arises out of relational history and can foreclose the transparency of awareness. The judgmentalness of the other is directly reflected within our own sense of self . Many times we attempt the unburdening of self criticism by attacking the other. There is tremendous pleasure in transmitting our own affective burdens into the other. This transmission is the most common way we unburden our affective states of pain. The greatest method of dissolving the domination of the superego is the transmission of the absolute compassion. This transmission or this extension of our own awareness field of light and energy overcomes and suffuses judgmentalness in the most direct manner. Extension cuts through and dissolves obscurations and the obstructions of primitive mind. Extension is the transcendence of a vast generative openness that takes us beyond good and evil, love and hate, truth and falsity, right and wrong,even liking and disliking. Extension infuses the other with light and energy and infuses our own mind and body with light and energy. This is the great secret of extension. The great lama Yangthang Rinpoche spoke to this in his transmission of the absolute bodichitta. Extension focused on person or the cosmos in the present,. in the past and in the future. This takes the power of timeless awareness beyond space and time and yet within space and within time.The power of timeless awareness is infused into time bound body and time bound mind. Since many a person do not practice this natural use of their own awareness nothing much may happen for them which can happen. Most persons rely on their mind alone or begging for help from the sky. The method of invocation of the archetypical dimension or Sambogakaya dimension reconfigurates the mind from within the field of innate primordial awareness. The manifestation of the archetypical actions penetrates the nirmanakaya experience from with and through the Sambogakya drama of the archetypical energies and shakti's. The cosmological deconstructs and transmutes the psychological. The invocation of compassion as the Dakini as the mother as the anima brings forth the essence of the nature of awareness with vast amounts of energy presence. This presence of the feminine is not outside you whatsoever, but is the very nature of your awareness. This apparitional manifestation is not a projection of your mind, an idea or affect. The archetypical may be seen as apparitional and outside of us, external to us. The archetypical presence manifests through us and around us. The archetypical presence is our own primordial presence. This knowing of this presence is a great gift and healing is directly connected with this manifestation. Naturally as this mysterious process unfolds we become the archetypical energy which becomes what we have always been. Many people who have the gift of 5 seeing archetypical apparitions do not integrate these visions of primal power into their life and mind as person. Sometimes the apparitional can be psychologized and contained as a psychology of mind alone. This position keeps the symbolic function contained like in picture book and lacks the power of actuality. This can actually manifest as the realm of the fairies. In completing the process of apparitional life you become the mother, your own awareness is the dakini. So you can see through the eyes and feel through the hands and the body of the dakini. Without becoming the apparitional there will be distance from the great compassion. .As the great Siddha Tilopa said look into the mirror of your mind , into mysterious realm of the Dakini Written by Rudolph Bauer, Ph.D. A.B.P.P. The Washington Center for Consciousness Studies


History of exposure to audiences as a developmental antecedent of public self-consciousness

Philosophy

CURRENT RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Volume 5, Number 3 Submitted: January 9, 2000 Resubmitted: March 4, 2000 Accepted: March 4, 2000 Publication date: March 6, 2000 HISTORY OF EXPOSURE TO AUDIENCES AS A DEVELOPMENTAL ANTECEDENT OF PUBLIC SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS Alain Morin Saint Francis Xavier University [33] --------------- [34] ABSTRACT Little is know about factors that influence the development of public self-consciousness. One potential factor is exposure to audiences: being repeatedly aware of one's object status could create a high disposition to focus on public self-aspects. To explore this hypothesis public selfconsciousness was assessed in two groups of subjects: 62 professors and actors (high exposure to audiences) and 39 people without audience experience. Analysis show that significant differences exist for public self-consciousness in men only. Also, history of frequent exposure to audience is significantly but weakly correlated with high public self-consciousness in men. This supports previous observations indicating that self-consciousness seems to develop differently for men and women. [34] --------------- [35] INTRODUCTION The publication of Duval and Wicklund's book in 1972 marked the beginning of a new era in the study of self-awareness. By defining this concept as the ability to become the object of one's own attention, and especially, by proposing that a state of self-awareness can be created--and thus manipulated--by exposing subjects to self-focusing stimuli, Duval and Wicklund showed that experimental investigations of, as opposed to phenomenological approaches to, self-awareness, were possible. In a state of self-awareness, a person will actively look at and examine any selfaspect that is most salient at the moment. Self-focusing stimuli remind a person of his or her object status in the world; this fosters self-observation. Being confronted to a mirror, an audience or a single observer, or seeing pictures or videotape recordings of oneself, or hearing one's voice on a tape recording, provoke self-focused attention (Carver & Scheier, 1978). Another major development in this effort to bring the study of self-awareness on empirical grounds was the construction of a scale measuring self-consciousness, the chronic tendency to engage more or less frequently in self-observation. Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss (1975) started with the assumption that people vary in the time they typically spend in a state of self-awareness; these individual differences are supposedly stable and independent of environmental influences (e.g., self-focusing stimuli) (Davis & Franzoi, 1991b). Thus, self-consciousness is considered to be a personality trait. Factor analyses on the Self-Consciousness Scale (SCS) consistently showed the existence of two distinct subscales referring to attention focused on two different dimensions of the self. The first one is called private self-consciousness, a natural tendency to think about covert self-aspects such as moods, motives, cognitive processes, desires, sensations, and so on. The second subscale taps public self-consciousness, a tendency to think about one's visible characteristics such as physical appearance, social behavior, or the impression one makes on others. [35] --------------- [36] The amount of correlational and experimental studies published using either the SCS or selffocusing stimuli is impressive (for reviews, see Carver & Scheier, 1981; Gibbons, 1990). Yet, an issue that did not receive much attention is the question of how individual differences in selfconsciousness develop (Davis & Franzoi, 1991a). Little research has tried to identify specific past experiences that are likely to shape people's tendency to reflect on themselves more or less frequently. Buss (1980) proposed a few intriguing hypotheses, some of which have been tested by Klonsky, Dutton and Liebel (1990). Their main findings can be summarized as follows. High private self-consciousness in men seems to be associated with maternal achievement demands, warmth, principled discipline, low body satisfaction and poor health during childhood. In women, maternal principled discipline and/or restrictive practices when growing up are related to high private self-consciousness. Men and women who receive rather important achievement demands and negative parental practices during childhood tend to develop high public selfconsciousness. Franzoi, Davis and Markwiese (1990) explored motivational bases underlying differences in private self-consciousness. Their tentative conclusion is that high private selfconsciousness is partially a function of one's need for self-knowledge (as long as it out-weighs a need to protect one's self-esteem), whereas low private self-consciousness is the result of a motivation for self-defense that is stronger than a need for self-knowledge. As far as I know, these two sets of studies represent the only available data on the etiology of self-consciousness. Another hypothesis has been put forward by Rimé and LeBon (1984). Their general premise is that the emergence of dispositions is provoked by the effects of situations. In that perspective, Rimé and LeBon suggest that the disposition to self-focus (self-consciousness) is dependant upon past situational factors, so that highly self-conscious individuals would be characterized by a history of frequent exposure to self-focusing stimuli. In other words, being frequently in a state of self-awareness (induced by self-focusing stimuli) would create a high disposition to self-focus--a tendency that would persist even in the immediate absence of these stimuli. For instance, recent evidence indicates that famous people are highly self-conscious (Schaller, 1997): fame can be seen as a self-focusing stimulus, and for public figures this heighten self-awareness would keep exerting effects even in the immediate absence of its cause-fans. [36] --------------- [37] Previous research shows that temporary manipulations of self-awareness (using self-focusing stimuli) do not influence self-consciousness (Davies & Fixter, 1988; Knapp & Deluty, 1987). This does not preclude the possibility that extended exposure to self-focusing stimuli in natural settings might affect self-consciousness on the long run. Morin (1997) tested this hypothesis by using scales to measure self-consciousness and past exposure to self-focusing stimuli. Although weak, correlations between past exposure to self-focusing stimuli and the level of selfconsciousness were significant. Specifically, significant results were found between past exposure to self-focusing stimuli and private self-consciousness in men and public selfconsciousness in women. A major limitation in Morin's (1997) study was the use of a pilot self-report questionnaire to assess past exposure to self-focusing stimuli. The goal of the present study was to get round this limitation by selecting subjects on the basis of an objective, real extensive history of exposure to self-focusing stimuli rather than on a retrospective, subjective evaluation of such an exposure based on subjects'(possibly biased) recall. While one could certainly identifying groups of people that had extensive contact with mirrors or audio and video devices for example, I reasoned that finding people with experience of speaking or performing in front of audiences would be easier. Two such groups of people are professors and actors--both spend hours in front of students or a public. Since all self-focusing stimuli, with the exception of small mirrors, have been shown to induce a state of public self-awareness (Buss, 1980; Carver & Scheier, 1981), extensive exposure to audiences should primarily be related to high public self-consciousness. Also, as results found by Klonsky et al. (1990) and Morin (1997) suggest, the routes to the development of selfconsciousness appear to differ for the two sexes. Past exposure to audiences is thus likely to have a different impact on public self-consciousness in men and women. METHOD Subjects Thirty-six Saint Francis Xavier University professors (20 men and 19 women, M age = 43 yr.), 26 professional actors from a local theatre (7 men and 19 women, M age = 24.6 yr.), and 39 subjects with no experience with audiences (20 men and 19 women, M age = 32 yr.) participated in the study. [37] --------------- [38] Procedure and Measures The private and public subscales of the SCS were administered to all subjects. Three different questionnaires, one for each group of subjects, were also used to assess past exposure to audiences. All material was distributed in envelopes to ensure confidentiality. It was given to professors at their office and picked up the following day; the same material was distributed to actors personally or through a member of the local theater and picked up the following day. The third group of subjects with no experience with audiences were recruited at local mails and were asked to fill-in the measures immediately. The SCS consists of 17 items. The private self-consciousness subscale contains 10 items; a sample item is "I'm generally attentive to my inner feelings". The public self-consciousness subscale is made up of 7 items; a sample item is "I'm usually aware of my appearance". Subjects are asked to evaluate each item on Likert-type scales ranging from extremely uncharacteristic of myself (0) to extremely characteristic of myself (4). A total score is obtained by adding up each rating. Extensive research has repeatedly indicated that the SCS is an highly reliable and valid instrument. Fenigstein et al. (1975) obtained high reliability coefficients for private selfconsciousness (.79) and public self-consciousness (.84). Three different questionnaires were developed to assess subjects' history of exposure to audiences. The subjects with no obvious experience with audiences were asked if they had ever been in plays, performing music in a band or an orchestra in front of an audience, or had given any lectures. Nine subjects that indicated so were discarded from the present study. The questionnaire given to professors assessed the amount of time they spent in front of students. It was estimated that the average professor teaches three full courses per year; a full year course involves approximately 60 hours of teaching in class, and this was multiplied by three for a total of 180 hours per year. The total number of hours teaching in front of a class was calculated by multiplying this amount of hours by the number of years professors reported they had been teaching. Since a professor may also give conferences at scientific meetings and teach summer courses, this additional exposure to audiences was taken into account. Thus subjects were asked to evaluate the approximate number of hours they spent presenting papers at conferences each year; this was multiplied by the number of years they had been teaching. The number of hours spent teaching summer courses was also calculated. The length of a summer course was estimated to be 60 hours; this was multiplied by the total number of summer courses given over the years, as reported by the subjects. [38] --------------- [39] Some professors may also be involved in artistic activities--namely, performing music in a band or an orchestra in front of an audience or acting in plays. This too was considered to be pertinent experience with audiences, and it was calculated in the following way. For performing music, subjects were asked to estimate the number of years they had been in a band or an orchestra; this was multiplied by the number of concerts presented each year, and by the approximate length of a concert, which was estimated to be approximately two hours. For possible involvement in acting, subjects were asked to estimate the number of years they had been in plays; this was multiplied by the number of plays per year, and by the average length of a play, which was also estimated to be approximately two hours. All of the hours were added up to get a total amount of time spent in front of an audience. For actors, the total amount of time spent in front of an audience in plays was calculated by multiplying the number of plays subjects estimated they were in with the number of times each play was presented, with the average length of a play. Since some actors reported also performing music and giving lectures, this additional time spent in front of an audience was calculated as indicated above. The total amount of hours in front of an audience was calculated by adding up all of the hours. RESULTS Calculations indicated that professors spent an average of 2370.32 hours in front of an audience; for actors the estimated means of hours was 198.92. Comparisons of t tests between groups were calculated, revealing significant sex differences for public self-consciousness, t(99) = -3.86, p < .001 (women got higher public self-consciousness scores); no significant difference was found for private self-consciousness. Given these differences, separate analyses were performed for public self-consciousness. Independent sample t-tests were also used to determine if history of exposure to audiences had an impact on the level of public or private self-consciousness of actors, professors, and subjects without audience experience. Means were higher for actors and professors but differences did not reach statistical significance. No significant differences were found between actors and professors. Results for professors and actors were thus combined, forming one larger group with extensive experience with audiences. [39] --------------- [40] Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for private and public self-consciousness as a function of group and sex. Independent sample t-tests were used again and significant differences were observed for public self-consciousness in men, t(45) = -2.78, p < .008. No significant differences were found for public self-consciousness in women, or for private self-consciousness both in men and women. Table 1. Means and standard deviations of private and public self-consciousness as a function of group and sex. Group Audience No Audience Men (N=27) Women (N=38) Men (N=20) Women (N=19) Private SelfConsciousness M 21.04 21.43 19.62 17.58 SD 5.59 5.96 5.95 7.27 Public SelfConsciousness M 17.15 19.23 13.60 19.16 SD 3.81 4.39 4.95 5.19 A significant correlation was found between public self-consciousness and the total number of hours spent in front of an audience for men, r = .33, p <. 01. There was no correlation found between these same variables in women. A significant correlation was observed between private self-consciousness and the total number of hours spent in front of an audience for all subjects, r = .30, p <. 003. [40] --------------- [41] DISCUSSION The hypothesis tested in the present study was that frequent past exposure to audiences should be related to a high tendency to focus on public self-aspects. The prediction thus was that individuals with a extensive history of exposure to audiences (professors and actors) would have a higher level of public self-consciousness in comparison to individuals with no audience experience. It was also expected that there should be a significant correlation between the total number of hours spent in front of an audience and the level of public self-consciousness. A significant difference in the level of public self-consciousness between individuals with and without audience experience was found; also, a significant correlation was observed between exposure to audiences and public self-consciousness. These results only partially supports the hypothesis however, because they were observed in men only and the correlation is rather weak. Rimé and LeBon's original proposition (1984) postulates the existence of a causal relationship between exposure to audiences and the development of a high self-consciousness. The logic behind this link is as follows: being repeatedly aware of one's object status (as a result of being in front of an audience) would create a high disposition to focus on public self-aspects. But obviously, a correlation never entails a causal link between two variables, and the possibility that highly public self-conscious men would somehow actively seek exposure to audiences cannot be ruled out. It must be acknowledged that some confounding variables might account for the observed relation between audience exposure and public self-consciousness. A potential candidate is age: the university professor group was substantially older than the other subjects, and it is at least conceivable that age itself, or some correlate of it, explains the higher scores of this group on public self-consciousness. However, to our knowledge, the existence of a relation between age and self-consciousness has never been shown in past research. On the contrary, the only available data rather suggests that the stability of scores on the SCS tends to increase with age (Davis & Franzoi, 1991b). Schaller (1997), using a method called "single-case historiometry", measured self-awareness in three famous individuals and found a decrease in self-consciousness with age. Also, it is possible that other dimensions along which professors and actors differ from the average person (the no-audience-experience group) could account for the results. While this cannot be ruled out, it should be noted that no significant differences were found for public selfconsciousness in professors and actors. Surely these two groups of subjects are different on many psychological dimensions, and yet these differences did not significantly affect levels of private self-consciousness. [41] --------------- [42] Some moderating variables can readily be identified, that could partially explain the rather weak correlation obtained in the present study. For one thing, actors' public self-awareness in front of an audience could be minimal since interpreting another character is susceptible to attract attention away from the real self. Also, professors who are teaching familiar class are likely to be less aware of themselves as social objects as opposed to when they repeatedly encounter a new audience. These factors could have reduced the possible impact of audiences on the development of public self-consciousness for professors and actors. For some reason, exposure to audiences did not affect public self-consciousness in women. A possible explanation may be that women, being more publicly self-aware than men, think more about their appearance and as being social objects than men do. As a result, women may be immune, so to speak, to the effects of an audience. Men, on the other hand, may think less about public self-aspects, so that being repeatedly confronted to an audience might have more of an impact on them. Surprisingly, a significant correlation was found between exposure to audiences and private selfconsciousness for all subjects. Recall that only small mirrors have been shown to induce a state of private self-awareness in past research. Thus extensive exposure to audiences was not expected to be related to high private self-consciousness. One possible explanation is to postulate that professors are characterized by a higher level of intellectual development that would foster cognitive activities like self-reflection--and thus private self-consciousness. Indeed, it was found that private self-consciousness in professors is significantly higher than for actors and individuals with no audience experience, t(99) = -2.33, p <.02. Also, people high in private selfconsciousness report themselves to be generally reflective and philosophically inclined (Turner, Scheier, Carver & Ickes, 1978), which somewhat supports the hypothesis of a link between intellectual development and private self-consciousness. It is conceivable then that audience experience would not be responsible for the observed correlation. [42] --------------- [43] Note that Morin (1997) found opposite results in his study: significant (but modest) correlations were observed between past exposure to self-focusing stimuli and private self-consciousness in men and public self-consciousness in women. The major difference between this study and the present one, that might account for this, is the measure used to assess past exposure to selffocusing stimuli. The present study exclusively focused on audience exposure, whereas Morin's study (1997) also evaluated past exposure to mirrors, audio and video devices, and cameras. Maybe these other self-focusing stimuli are specifically related to high public self-consciousness in women and to private self-consciousness in men--whereas audience exposure in particular is not. CONCLUSION The empirical identification of specific past experiences that are likely to shape people's tendencies to reflect on themselves more or less frequently represents a new and exciting avenue of research. It is an important one because individual differences in self-consciousness have powerful effects on behavior (Davis & Franzoi, 1991a). Surely, the question of the origin of these differences is a highly complex one. In that perspective, it would have been naive to expect a strong relation between past experience with audiences and public self-consciousness. Clearly, the present results indicate that this particular experience represents only one possible factor among many others. But I would like to think that the identification of yet another factor draw us towards a better understanding of the developmental process of self-consciousness. [43] --------------- [44] REFERENCES Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: Freeman. Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1978). "Self-focusing effects of dispositional self-consciousness, mirror presence, and audience presence." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36:324332. Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag. Davis, M. H. & Franzoi, S. L. (1991a) "Self-awareness and self-consciousness." In Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A. & Jones, W. H. (Eds), Personality: Contemporary theory and research. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, pp. 314-347. Davis, M. H. & Franzoi, S. L. (1991b). "Stability and change in adolescent self-consciousness and empathy." Journal of Research in Personality, 25:70-87. Davies, M. F. & Fixter, J. (1988). "Self-focusing effects on self-consciousness." Psychological Reports, 62:482. Duval, S. & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self awareness. New York: Academic Press. Fenigstein, A, Scheier, M. F. & Buss, A. H. (1975). "Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36:1,241-1,250. Franzoi, S. L., Davies, M. H. & Markwiese, B. (1990). "A motivational explanation for the existence of private self-consciousness differences." Journal of Personality, 58(4):641-659. [44] --------------- [45] Gibbons, F. X. (1990). "Self-attention and behavior: A review and theoretical update." In Zanna, M. P. (Ed), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 249-303). New York: Academic Press. Klonsky, B. G., Dutton, D. L. & Liebel, C. L. (1990). "Developmental antecedents of private self-consciousness, public self-consciousness and social anxiety." Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 116(3):273-297. Knapp, P. A. & Deluty, R. H. (1987). "Private and public self-consciousness in clinical and nonclinical samples." Social behavior and Personality, 15(1):43-51. Morin, A. (1997). "History of past exposure to self-focusing stimuli as a developmental antecedent of self-consciousness." Psychological Reports, 80:1,252-1,254. Rimé, B. & LeBon, C. (1984). "Le concept de conscience de soi et ses opérationnalisations" [The concept of self-consciousness and its operationalizations]. L'Année Psychologique, 84:535-553. Schaller, M. (1997). "The psychological consequences of fame: Three tests of the selfconsciousness hypothesis." Journal of Personality, 65(2):291-309. Turner, R. G., Scheier, M. S., Carver, C. S. & Ickes, W. (1978). "Correlates of selfconsciousness." Journal of Personality Assessment, 42:285-289. AUTHOR'S NOTE I thank Shelley Maldre for her help during data collection. [45] --------------- [46] AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY Alain Morin received his Ph.D in psychology from Laval University (Quebec, Canada) in 1992. He has been teaching and doing research on self-awareness at many different French and English speaking institutions. He is currently a lecturer at the Universite de Montreal. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com. Web page: www.upc.qc.ca/~morina. Mailing address: 823 Nouvelle-Orléans, Ste-Foy, (Québec) G1X-3J4 CANADA. [46] ---------------


Review of Current Controversies in Experimental Philosophy

Philosophy

Review of Edouard Machery and Elizabeth O'Neill (eds.), Current Controversies in Experimental Philosophy, Routledge, 2014, 160pp., $38.95 (pbk), ISBN 9780415519670. Reviewed by Yuri Cath, La Trobe University Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2015. 08. 28 http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/60067-currentcontroversies-in-experimental-philosophy/ This collection is an excellent addition to Routledge's Current Controversies in Philosophy series. Together the different entries compose a snappy and accessible introduction to experimental philosophy for those who are new to the subject whilst still providing plenty of material that will interest specialists. The introduction by Edouard Machery and Elizabeth O'Neill also gives a helpful overview of some of the big picture questions about experimental philosophy and its relationship to more traditional forms of philosophy. The collection is organized into four parts, each consisting of two chapters defending opposing positions on a given topic. This collection is not long enough to use as the sole basis for an entire course on experimental philosophy as the individual entries are fairly short and there are some important debates in and about experimental philosophy that the collection does not cover. But it would form a good basis for such a course in conjunction with selected papers. And an innovative supplement to the collection is that for each part there is an accompanying Philosophy TV discussion between the authors of the opposing chapters, which looks like it would be a great resource for students. Part 1, 'Language', features two chapters debating the value of the survey studies of Machery et al (2004), which were offered as evidence of cross-cultural differences in folk intuitions about the reference of proper names. In Chapter 1 Machery defends the claim that these studies have important implications for Kripke's arguments against descriptivism against criticisms by Max Deutsch (2009, 2010) and Genoveva Martí (2009, 2012), who each argue (in different ways) that these experimental results are irrelevant because Kripke's arguments do not rely on the use of intuitions as evidence. In Chapter 2 Martí presents her case for this irrelevancy charge, appealing to the idea that Kripke's arguments only rely on observations of how people use proper names and not on people's intuitions about how they use names. Martí argues that such intuitions are, at best, a guide to how people think they use names and not how they actually use them. A slightly odd feature of the presentation is that Machery's chapter appears first and discusses claims made in Martí's chapter, but Martí does not discuss Machery's chapter, reversing the more natural order followed in the rest of the book. Perhaps it was just an effect of this ordering, but it seemed to me this debate would have been improved if Martí's chapter had included a reply to Machery's criticisms. As it was, it felt like this interesting debate needed to go on for just a bit longer. Part 2, 'Consciousness', is concerned with experimental studies of folk psychology. In Chapter 3 Brian Fiala, Adam Arico and Shaun Nichols discuss how their agency model of folk attributions of mental states relates to the survey studies of Justin Sytsma and Machery (2010) involving "Jimmy", a hypothetical robot they described in different vignettes. According to Fiala et al.'s model, mental state attributions are based on a dual-process cognitive system, consisting of a low road process (fast and domain specific) and a high road process (slow and domain general). The low road process attributes mental states based on whether the relevant entity has certain cue properties like having facial features, and moving and interacting in 2 distinctive ways. Fiala et al.'s model predicts that when this low-road processing is triggered, subjects will be disposed to attribute a wide range of mental states to entities which have these features. But this prediction seems to conflict with Sytsma and Machery (2010), who found that subjects didn't attribute certain kinds of mental states to Jimmy even though he is described as having some of these cue properties. Fiala et al. discuss how the agency model can accommodate these findings if we think of the subjects as having a disposition to attribute the relevant mental states that is overridden by high-road processing, and they present findings from a new study in support of this hypothesis. In Chapter 4 Sytsma raises worries about the setup of Fiala et al.'s study, which he supports with four follow-up studies that found a different pattern of responses after making various adjustments to the experiments that Fiala et al. ran. However, Sytsma also argues that Fiala et al.'s agency model is consistent with the negative hypothesis that Sytsma and Machery (2010) advanced, namely, that the existence of phenomenally conscious mental states is not obviously true from the first-person perspective. Part 3, 'Free Will and the Scientific Vision', is concerned with experimental studies of people's free actions and moral responsibility. In Chapter 5 Joshua Knobe makes a distinction between "two broad visions of human action" (p. 69): the scientific vision and the transcendence vision. According to the scientific view one's actions are caused by one's mental states, whereas on the transcendence view one's "actions are caused by nothing at all" (p. 69). Knobe thinks that the hypothesis that the folk conception of action most resembles the transcendence vision gives the best explanation of a range of different survey studies probing intuitions about free will and moral responsibility in deterministic worlds. In Chapter 6 Eddy Nahmias and Morgan Thompson suggest that the folk conception of human action is theory-lite in such a way that it is compatible with a naturalistic view of human action because it is not committed to substantive claims about the metaphysical underpinnings of human action. They report on new studies they have done which they take to support this position. Part 4, "Epistemology and the Reliability of Intuition", is concerned with questions about the reliability and trustworthiness of epistemic intuitions. In Chapter 7 Kenneth Boyd and Jennifer Nagel argue that there are good reasons to expect that epistemic intuitions will generally be a reliable guide to the nature of knowledge itself, appealing to claims about the function of knowledge attributions. They go on to raise concerns about various experimentalist challenges to the practice of using epistemic intuitions as evidence in epistemology. They conclude that: "Epistemic intuition is not infallible, but at present it looks reliable enough to continue serving its traditional function of supplying us with valuable evidence about the nature of knowledge" (p. 124). In Chapter 8 Joshua Alexander and Jonathan M. Weinberg respond by appealing to an ambiguity they perceive in the term "reliability" between what they call the baseline accuracy versus the trustworthiness senses of reliability (which for convenience I'll refer to as 'reliabilityba' and 'reliabilityt'). Applied to intuitions, their distinction (at least when first introduced, p. 130) seems to be this: a given class of intuitions is reliableba just in case the contents of those intuitions are true some suitably large proportion of the time, where that proportion is set invariantly. On the other hand, a class of intuitions is reliablet just in case the contents of those intuitions are true some suitably large proportion of the time, where that proportion is domain and purpose relative. According to Alexander and Weinberg, Boyd and Nagel are concerned with defending the overall reliabilityba of our epistemic intuitions, what Alexander and Weinberg call the general reliability thesis (GRT). However, Alexander and 3 Weinberg claim that proponents of the experimentalist challenge need not contest GRT because their critique only relies on the claim that intuitions are not reliablet. A lot could be said about every chapter; they are all high quality. I will confine myself to a few thoughts about Chapter 8. As described above, the strategy of Alexander and Weinberg's response to Boyd and Nagel seems clear but I found the details hard to follow. What I found confusing is that Alexander and Weinberg end up appealing to various different ideas when discussing what the experimentalist critique does rely on, most of which don't seem to rely on their ambiguity claim. For example, after introducing this claim Alexander and Weinberg suggest that the experimentalist critique does not challenge GRT because it only relies on the claim that (1) there exist "worries about our intuitions about specific hypothetical cases or families of cases" (p. 131). This might be right but this point only requires a distinction between attributing a property to a subset of epistemic intuitions versus attributing it to all epistemic intuitions rather than any distinction between different senses of "reliability". In the following section, they switch to the claim that (2) epistemic intuitions are at threat of "unwelcome and unexpected intuitional sensitivity". But, again, this claim looks very different from the claim that epistemic intuitions are not reliablet (as far as I could tell neither entails the other), and Alexander and Weinberg never state what they take the relationship to be between these two claims. Finally, in other places they appeal to the claim that (3) unlike perception, we do not have good means of checking when our epistemic intuitions are incorrect. The only place where their distinction between two senses of "reliability" appeared to do much work was on pp. 136137, where they appeal to the purpose relativity of reliabilityt. The idea in this discussion seemed to be that when our purpose is using intuitions as inputs into philosophical theorizing, those intuitions will have to be correct some very high proportion of the time in order for them to qualify as being reliablet.[1] I had some difficulties then in nailing down Alexander and Weinberg's views on what the experimentalist critique is committed to saying about our epistemic intuitions. They might reply that all that matters is that (1)-(3) are each examples of claims that are consistent with GRT and which could support a critique of the use of epistemic intuitions in epistemology. Fair enough, but then why place so much weight on the distinction between two senses of reliability? And in attributing various different, and not clearly distinguished, claims to the experimentalist critique, one had the feeling that Boyd and Nagel were being asked to defend epistemic intuitions from a moving target. More importantly, I think Alexander and Weinberg misrepresent Boyd and Nagel when suggesting that they merely raise considerations that could be used to defend GRT. Boyd and Nagel identify various prima facie reasons for doubting whether experimental philosophers have established versions of (1)-(3). For example, in relation to (1) and (2), Boyd and Nagel do all of the following: identify studies which failed to replicate Weinberg et al.'s (2001) findings of cross cultural variation in Gettier intuitions; express concerns about the empirical credentials of Richard Nisbett's views on cultural differences in cognition which influenced Weinberg et al (2001); criticise studies by Wesley Buckwalter and Stephen Stich (2013) and Christina Starmans and Ori Friedman (2009), which purport to show that Gettier intuitions are gender sensitive; identify a study which failed to replicate the findings of Starman and Friedman; and discuss how studies by Jennifer Cole Wright (2010) give us reason to think that Stacey Swain et al. (2008) overestimate the contextual variation of epistemic intuitions. And, in relation to (3), Boyd and Nagel note that Wright (2010) also provides some reasons to think 4 that one's degree of confidence in one's intuitions might be a guide to their reliability. Of course, Alexander and Weinberg could dispute the legitimacy or significance of any of the various experimental and theoretical considerations that Boyd and Nagel discuss, and they do offer brief replies to some of these considerations. For example, they suggest (p. 132) that the studies that Boyd and Nagel criticise are not that important to the experimentalist's challenge, which can rely instead on evidence from other kinds of studies. But, on the whole, they forgo detailed discussion of the considerations Boyd and Nagel offer to focus instead on the complaint that Boyd and Nagel's chapter does not even address the experimentalist's critique because they fail to heed an important ambiguity in the word "reliability", an objection that seemed like a red herring. Furthermore, suppose we endorse Alexander and Weinberg's reasonable looking claim that the truth of GRT is at best a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the trustworthiness of intuitions (p. 128). It does not follow that GRT is irrelevant to evaluating the experimentalist's critique. For the truth of GRT might still provide us with grounds to regard, say, Gettier intuitions as being trustworthy until shown to be otherwise even if it does not entail that they are so worthy. And these grounds, together with the kinds of concerns Boyd and Nagel raise about studies that purport to show that Gettier intuitions are not trustworthy, might make it reasonable to continue to view Gettier intuitions in this light even after considering the experimental results which have been offered as evidence of their untrustworthiness. Again, Alexander and Weinberg provide arguments that may outweigh such considerations,[2] but the point remains that GRT is relevant to evaluating the experimentalist's challenge. At one juncture Alexander and Weinberg advise that: philosophers have to resist the temptation to jump too quickly to broad philosophical conclusions based on what individual studies seem to show. Science is slow business, and we need to resist the urge to make it go faster simply because that would better suit our philosophical goals (p. 138). This advice is offered to philosophers, like Boyd and Nagel, who appeal to experimental studies to defend the way intuitions are currently used in philosophy. But this advice should cut both ways, applying equally well to philosophers, like Alexander and Weinberg, who infer sweeping conclusions about how philosophy should be practiced on the basis of their own preferred subset of the current results we have from experimental philosophy (Alexander and Weinberg suggest that there should be local restrictions on the use of certain unnamed intuitions and a global shift in how we use intuitions in general, p. 133). My own impression is that, so far, the overall picture these results provide of the origins and reliability of our intuitions is too conflicted and preliminary to support these ambitious inferences. And this is not to say anything of the further bridging premises about philosophical methodology that such inferences rely on, premises which seem to become ever more contestable the closer they are inspected (see e.g. the debates about whether intuitions really do play a crucial evidential role in philosophy). But I'm in danger now of merely sharing my metaphilosophical opinions and Alexander and Weinberg have plenty of interesting things to say in support of their very different opinions. Let me close instead by returning to my opinions of this volume. This is a very good collection. If you're at all interested in experimental philosophy you will want to get your hands on a copy. 5 REFERENCES Buckwalter, W, and Stich, S. 2013. Gender and Philosophical Intuition. In J. Knobe and S. Nichols (eds.), Experimental Philosophy, Volume 2. Oxford University Press. Deutsch, M. 2009. Experimental Philosophy and the Theory of Reference. Mind and Language 24 (4): 445-466. Deutsch, M. 2010. Intuitions, Counter-Examples, and Experimental Philosophy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (3): 447-460. Martí, G. 2009. Against Semantic Multi-Culturalism. Analysis 69 (1): 42-48. Martí. G. 2012 Empirical Data and the Theory of Reference. W. Kabasenche, M. O'Rourke, M. Slater, (eds.) Topics in Contemporary Philosophy: Reference and Referring. MIT Press. Starmans, C. and Friedman O. 2012. The Folk Conception of Knowledge. Cognition 124 (3): 272-283. Swain, S. Alexander, J. and Weinberg, J. 2008. The Instability of Philosophical Intuitions: Running Hot and Cold on Truetemp. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76 (1):138155. Weinberg, J. Nichols, S and Stich, S. 2001. Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions. Philosophical Topics, 29 (1-2):429-460. Wright, J. 2010. On Intuitional Stability: The Clear, the Strong, and the Paradigmatic. Cognition 115 (3): 491-503. [1] Alexander and Weinberg reason that as intuitive counterexamples trump theories in philosophy-a claim they support by appealing to the reaction to Gettier's cases-then the stakes involved when philosophers use intuitions will be very high because a false intuition could lead to large scale errors in our revised theories (p. 134 and p. 136). One worry with this line of argument is that it is debatable how representative the Gettier case is. For example, consider instead how physicalists respond to the knowledge argument or how consequentialists respond to trolley cases. Alexander and Weinberg might point out that even in these cases the proponent of the relevant theory is obliged to explain away the intuition they reject. But the potential cost of philosophers wasting their time by trying to explain away intuitions that were untrustworthy in the first place doesn't seem like such a terrible cost to risk incurring, especially when weighed against the cost of avoiding apparent truths about the subject one is investigating. [2] For example, Alexander and Weinberg suggest that there is an important difference between thought experiments and the usual situations in which we employ our epistemic capacities that "will weaken an attempted inference from accuracy on the later to our trustworthiness in using the former" (p. 135). The disanalogy Alexander and Weinberg appeal to is that thought experiments often "include highly specific information about an agent's mental states" (p. 135), whereas in everyday life "we typically have rather sparser, noisier access to what is going on in someone's head" (p. 135). This line of argument struck me as unpromising because in 6 everyday life we not only have the capacity to attribute judgments about what mental states people are in on the basis of limited evidence but we can also evaluate conditionals which embed claims attributing highly specific mental states (e.g. "If Tony had known about the party, then he would have wanted to be here").


Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Psalms, Psalm 8 (translation)

Philosophy

English translation of Thomas Aquinas' Commentary on the Psalms, Psalm 8

/2/23, 2:29 PM Psalm 8 hosted.desales.edu/w4/philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Psalm_8.html 1/9 Psalm 8 In finem pro torcularibus. a. PSAL. VIII. Domine Dominus noster, quam admirabile est nomen tuum in universa terra? Quoniam elevata est magnificentia tua super caelos. Unto the end, for the presses: a psalm of David. O Lord our Lord, how admirable is thy name in the whole earth! For thy magnificence is elevated above the heavens. b. Ex ore infantium et lactentium perfecisti laudem propter inimicos tuos, ut destruas inimicum, et ultorem. Out of the mouth of infants and of sucklings thou hast perfected praise, because of thy enemies, that thou mayst destroy the enemy and the avenger. c. Quoniam videbo caelos tuos, opera digitorum tuorum, lunam et stellas, quae tu fundasti. For I will behold thy heavens, the works of thy fingers: the moon and the stars which thou hast founded. d. Quid est homo quod memor es eius, aut filius hominis quoniam visitas eum? What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? e. Minuisti eum paulo minus ab angelis, gloria et honore coronasti eum: et constituisti eum super opera manuum tuarum. Omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius; oves et boves universas, insuper et pecora campi. Volucres caeli, et pisces maris, qui perambulant semitas maris. Domine Dominus noster, quam admirablile est nomen tuum in universa terra. Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: and hast set him over the works of thy hands. Thou hast subjected all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen: moreover the beasts also of the fields. The birds of the air, and the fishes of the sea, that pass through the paths of the sea. O Lord our Lord, how admirable is thy name in all the earth! a. Supra posuit Psalmum in quo David orabat pro sua persecutione; hic ponit Psalmum ad gratiarum actionem: et primo praemittitur Psalmus pro beneficiis collatis toti humano generi. Secundo alius pro beneficiis collatis sibi pro destructione inimicorum, vel pro bonis concessis. Tertio pro malis sublatis, ibi, Confitebor: nam hic exprimit affectionem hominis considerantis beneficia Dei concessa humano generi, et gratias agentis. Above is the Psalm in which David prayed on account of his persecution; he sets the Psalm down for the purpose of giving thanks: and, first of all, he begins the Psalm with thanks for the benefits conferred upon the entire human race. Second, the rest of the Psalm for the benefits conferred upon him through the destruction of his enemies. Third, on account of the evils removed, thereby, I will put my trust: so, he expresses the emotion of a man considering the good things God has bestowed upon the entire human race, and the graces given by the Worker. Titulus, In finem Psalmi David pro torcularibus. Quia aliud est supra expositum, exponam hic solum ultimum. Ubi considerandum est, quod Deut. 16 dicitur, Septum diebus facies festum tabernaculorum, quando de area et torculari colliges fruges tuos etc. Sciendum enim est, quod David specialem devotionem habebat in festis celebrandis: et aliquid faciebat speciale ad laudem Dei. Festum autem tabernaculorum praecipuum erat. The title, Unto the end, for the presses. Since this has been explained above, I will explain only the last word. What should be considered is that which is said in Deut. 16: You shall keep the feast of booths seven days, when you have gathered in the produce from your threshing floor and your wine press. One should know that David had a special role of devotion of celebration during the feast; and he would do something special for the praise of God. For, the Feast of Booths was a major feast. Et hoc fiebat in vindemiis in commemorationem divini beneficii, quando eduxit de Aegypto filios Israel in tabernaculis, et induxit in terram promissionis ubi sunt fructus: et ideo oportebat quod haberent fructus pulcherrimos, quo tempore erant torcularia; et ideo dicitur pro torcularibus, hoc ad litteram. And this would happen during the grape harvest to commemorate the divine bounty, because God led the sons of Israel out of Egypt in booths, and led them into the land of promise where there were fruits to enjoy: and for this reason it was fitting that they possessed the finest fruits to enjoy, during the time 10/2/23, 2:29 PM Psalm 8 hosted.desales.edu/w4/philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Psalm_8.html 2/9 that they were in the booths; and, therefore, he said for the presses, this meant literally. Sed specialiter torcular est ecclesia: Isa. 5. Plantavit vineam electam, torcular extruxit in ea: Matth. 21. Plantavit vineam, et fondit in ea torcular. But, in particular, the press is the Church; Isaiah 5: And he fenced it in, and picked the stones out of it, and planted it with the choicest vines, and built a tower in the midst thereof, and set up a winepress therein; Matthew 21: There was a man an householder, who planted a vineyard...and dug in it a press. Dicit ergo pro torcularibus, idest ecclesiis orbis: et dicitur ecclesia torcular, quia sicut in torculari seperatur vinum a vinatiis, sic in ecclesia boni seperantur a malis opere ministrorum: etsi non loco semper, affectu tamen. Eadem ratione dicitur et area: quia separatio fit grani a paleis. He says therefore for the presses, that is, the circle of the church: and he calls the church a press, because, just as in a press the wine is separated from the lees, so in the church the good are separated from the evil by the work of the ministers: and if not in place, at least by their state of mind. For the same reason it is called also a threshing-floor: for the separation is made of the grain from the chaff. Item a verbis literaliter positis seperantur sensus spiritualis. Likewise, the spiritual sense is separated from the words which have been set down literally. Item torcularia sunt martyria, in quibus fit separatio animarum a corporibus, dum corpora eorum qui pro Christi nomine afflictione et persecutione calcantur, quassatim remanent in terra, animae vero ad requiem in caelestibus emanant. Likewise, the presses are the martyrdoms, in which the separation of the souls from the bodies is made, for when their bodies, which are tread upon in affliction and persecution for the name of Christ, at the same time remain in the earth, their souls arise to rest in the heavens. Psalma ista dividitur in duas partes. Primo enim Psalmista admiratur divinam excellentiam. Secundo eius clementiam, ibi, Quid est homo. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit maiestatam Dei esse admirabilem. Secundo esse manifestam, ibi, Ex ore infantium. Circa primum duo facit: quia primo ponit eum mirabilem. Secundo rationem dicti manifestat, ibi, Quoniam elevata etc. This Psalm is divided into two parts. In the first, the Psalmist marvels at the divine excellence. In the second, at His primacy, whence, What is man. Regarding the first, he does two things. First, he shows that the majesty of God is marvelous. Second, that it is manifested, whence, Out of the mouths of infants. Regarding the first, he does two things: for, first, he writes of its marvels. Second, he displays the reason for saying this, whence, How elevated etc. Dicit ergo Domine omnium: Hester 13. Dominus omnium tu es; sed specialiter Dominus noster, qui te colimus, tibi adhaeremus. Hieronymus habet, Dominatur noster: Iudic. 8. Non dominabor vestri, nec filius meus, sed dominabitur super vos Dominus. Quam admirabile est nomen tuum etc. scilicet divinitatis: Psal. 92. Mirabiles elationes maris etc. Genes. 32. Cur quaeris nomen meum quod est mirabile? Item Christi incarnati: Isa. 9. Vocabit nomen eius admirabilis. He says therefore Lord of all: Esther 13: Thou art Lord of all; but in particular our Lord, who we worship, we cleave to Thee. Jerome has, our Ruler: Judges 8: I will not rule over you neither shall my son rule over you, but the Lord shall rule over you. How admirable is your name etc. Namely that of the divinity: Psalm 92: Wonderful are the surges of the sea etc. Genesis 32: Why dost thou ask my name [which is mighty]? Also, Christ incarnate: Isaiah 9: He shall be called [his marvelous name]. [additions by Thomas] Sed numquid solum in Iudaea, ut dicunt Iudaei, vel in Africa, ut Donatistae? non; sed in universa terra: Malach. 1. Ab ortu solis usque ad occasum magnum est nomen meum in gentibus. Ratio admirabilis subiungitur, But, is it only in Judea, as the Jews have said, or in Africa, as said the Donatists? No, but rather in every land: Malachiah 1: For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles. The reason for the admiration is 10/2/23, 2:29 PM Psalm 8 hosted.desales.edu/w4/philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Psalm_8.html 3/9 Quoniam elevata est magnificentia tua, quia in caelis apparet magnitudo tua. appended, Thy magnificence is elevated, for Your greatness appears in the heavens. Admiratio est quando aliquis videt effectum, et ignorat causam. Dupliciter est ergo aliqua causa admirabilis: vel quia ignota totaliter, vel quia non producit effectum manifestantem causam perfecte. Primum non est in Deo: quia producit effectum: Ro. 1. Invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt etc. Producit dico effectum, non tamen manifestantem perfecte causam: et ideo remanet admirabilis: et hoc est quod dicit, Magnificentia tua, idest laus vel virtus tua, quae potest facere magna: Est elevata super caelos, improportionaliter excedens factionem caelorum. Admiration is when somebody sees the effect and does not know the cause. The cause of admiration is therefore twofold: either because the cause is totally unknown, or because the effect manifesting the cause does not do so perfectly. The first does not apply to God: since he produces the effect: Romans 1: For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made etc. I say that he produces the effect, but not one which perfectly manifests its cause: and thereby it remains marvelous: and this is why he says Your magnificence, that is, your praise or virtue, that can make such great things: Is elevated above the heavens, exceeding incommensurably the making of the heavens. Unde excludit errorem dicentium, quod Deus sit forma caeli: esset enim secundum hoc proportionatus caelis. Item dicentium quod agit ex necessitate naturae: quia non extenderet se super caelos: tamen potest in infinitum maius facere: vel super caelos, idest Scripturas, quia plus est quam in Scripturis commendetur: Eccl. 43. Glorificantes Deum quantumcumque potestis, supervalebit adhuc, et admirabilis magnificentia eius: vel magnificentia tua, idest filius tuus Deus homo: Elevata est, in accensionem: Super caelos: Ephes. 4. Qui descendit, ipse est qui ascendit super omnes caelos etc. Thereby he excludes the error of those who say that God is the form of the heavens: for then he would be, in accordance with this, commensurable to the heavens. Again, he excludes the error of those who say that God acts out of a necessity of nature : because he would not extend himself above and beyond the heavens: Nevertheless he can do even more to infinity: or, Above the heavens, that is, Scripture, because He is more than He is praised for in the Scripture: Sirach. 43: Glorify the Lord as much as ever you can, for he will yet far exceed, and his magnificence is wonderful, that is, Your son God and man: is raised, in ascension: Above the heavens: Ephesians 4: He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens etc. b. Deinde cum dicit, Ex ore, ostendit quod est maxime manifesta. Et primo ostendit manifestationem. Secundo eius rationem, ibi, Quoniam videbo: quod sit manifesta, probat: quia illud est manifestum quod est omnibus inditum, quantumcumque simplicibus, quasi quadam naturali cognitione. Duplex namque est genus hominum, qui consequitur naturalem et rectum instinctum, sicut sint simplices, vel sapientes. Quod sapientes cognoscant Deum, hoc non est magnum, sed quod simplices sic. Sunt autem quidam qui naturalem instinctam pervertunt: et isti cognitionem Dei repellunt: Ps. 81. Nescierunt, idest nescire voluerunt, neque intellexerunt etc. Iob. 22. Dixerunt Deo, recede a nobis, scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus. Therefore, when he says, out of the mouths, he shows that it is manifest to the highest degree. And first he indicates the manifestation. Second, its reason, whence, For I will behold: that it is manifest, he proves: for that is manifest which is placed in all things, in as much as it is in all of the simple things, as if by a certain natural cognition. And now, the genus of humans is twofold, which follows natural and right instincts, as are the simple people, or the wise. That the wise might know God, this is not a great thing, but that the simple people do, is. For there are those who pervert the natural instincts: and these people push away the cognition of God: Psalm 81: They have not known, that is, they choose not to know, neither understood etc. Job 22: Who said to God: Depart from us: [we do not want to know your ways]. Deus autem facit ut per illos, idest per simplices, qui sequuntur naturalem instinctum, confundantur qui pervertunt naturalem instinctum. Per infantes designantur simplices: But, God makes it so that by those people, that is, the simple ones, who naturally follow their instincts, the others who pervert the natural instinct are confounded. By infants, the Psalmist designates the 10/2/23, 2:29 PM Psalm 8 hosted.desales.edu/w4/philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Psalm_8.html 4/9 1. Pet. 2. Sicut modo geniti infantes, rationabiles sine dolo etc. simple people: 1 Peter 2: As newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile etc. Dicit ergo, Admirabile quidem est nomen tuum, ita tamen quod ex ore infantium et lactentium perfecisti laudem, qui interius instigat ad hoc: et hoc propter inimicos tuos, qui adversantur scientiae et cognitioni tuae: Phil. 3. Inimicos crucis Christi etc. Ut destruas inimicum et ultorem, quemcunque persecutorem. He says therefore, Admirable is your name, in that Out of the mouths of infants and of sucklings, thou hast perfected praise, you who inwardly bring them to this: and this because of thy enemies, who turn against the knowledge and cognition of You: Philippians 3: They are enemies of the cross of Christ etc. That thou mayst destroy the enemy and the avenger, along with whatever other persecutors. Vel Pharaonem qui velit ulcisci contra confitentem nomen tuum: 2. Cor. 10. Consilia destruentes et omnem altitudinem extollentem se adversus scientiam Dei. Or Pharaoh, who wanted to take vengeance against the one who trusted in your name 2 Corinthians 10: Destroying counsels, And every height that exhalteth itself against the knowledge of God. Vel tyrannum qui armis impugnat nomen tuum. 1. Pet. 2. Ut benefacientes obmutescere faciatis imprudentium hominum ignorantiam; hoc fecit Christus: nam Matt. 21. de pueris Hebraeorum respondit Christus, quod ex eorem verbis perfecta sit laus, qui Spiritus sancti instinctu laudabant: quod tamen videbatur pueriliter agi. Hic locum habet quando simplices recognoscunt Deum, et alii pervertunt studia cognitionis naturalis, ne cognoscant ipsum Deum. Or the tyrant who fights with arms against your holy name: 1 Peter 2: For so is the will of God, that by doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men; this Christ did: now, in Matthew 21, Christ responded, about the children of the Jews, that praise was perfected from their words, those who instinctively praised the Holy Spirit: even when they seemed to act childishly. This takes place when the simple people recognize God, and others pervert the studies of natural cognition, lest they come to know that very God. Item hoc in Apostolis qui sine literis et idiotae: Act. 4. Simplices sicut columbae: Matt. 10. Et sicut oves in medio luporum; et destruxerunt omnes inimicos Christi: 1. Cor. 1. Quae stula sunt mundi elegit Deus, ut confundantur sapientes, et infirma etc. Consequenter huius manifestationis rationem subnectit dicens, Quoniam. Again, in the Apostles who were illiterate and ignorant: Acts 4: Simple like doves: Matthew 10: As sheep in the midst of wolves; and, they destroyed all of the enemies of Christ. 1 Corinthians 1: But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak etc. Accordingly the writer adds to this the proportion of His manifestation, saying For. c. Tullius dicit in lib. de natura deorum, et fuit dictum etiam ab Aristotle, quamvis in eius libris quae apud nos habentur non inveniatur, quod si aliquis homo intraret palatium, quod videret bene dispositum, nullus est ita amens, qui licet non videret quomodo factum fuerit, quin percipiat quod fabricatum sit ab aliquo. Cicero says in the Book on the Nature of the Gods, and it was said as well by Aristotle, even though we do not find it in the books of his which we possess, that if someone entered a palace, which seemed to be well established, no one is so insane that even though he does not see by what fashion it was made he would still not perceive that it was made by somebody. Nos intremus mundum, nec videmus quando factus sit: sed ex hoc ipso quod est ita bene ordinatus, debemus percipere quod est factus ab aliquo. Et hoc specialter ostendit ordo corporum caelestium. Fuerunt quidam errantes qui causas rerum attribuunt necessitati materiae: unde dicunt facta omnia propter calidum et frigidum, siccum et humidum, ut elementa quae sic convenerunt: hoc autem si apparentiam posset habere in aliis, nullo tamen modo in caelestibus corporibus: quia non possunt attribui necessitati materiae, quod We enter into the world, and we do not see when it was made; but from this very fact that it is wellordered, we must perceive that it was made by somebody. And the order of the heavenly bodies especially shows this. There were those in error who attributed the causes of things to material necessity: thereby they said everything to be made according to heat and cold, dryness and dampness, as elements which so worked together: but this, if it can have an appearance of being so in other things, can in no way, however, be so in the heavenly bodies: because they cannot be attributed to material 10/2/23, 2:29 PM Psalm 8 hosted.desales.edu/w4/philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Psalm_8.html 5/9 tantum distet hoc ab illo, et tanto tempore compleant cursum suum. Hoc autem nonnisi in causam intellectivam oportet reducere. necessity, since this differs so much from that, and since they complete their course in such a length of time. But this should be reduced only to an intellective cause. Et ideo Scriptura quando vult manifestare Dei potentiam, reducit nos in considerationem caelorum: Is. 40. Levate in excelsum oculos vestros, et videte quis creavit haec; ideo dicit, Quoniam videbo caelos tuos, opera digitorum tuorum. And accordingly, when Scripture wishes to manifest the power of God, it directs us to the consideration of the heavens: Isaiah 40: Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these things; similarly he says, For I will behold thy heavens, the work of thy fingers. Dicit autem, Opera digitorum, propter tria: quia quae cum digitis facimus, attente et distincte faciamus. Et quae de corporibus caelestibus consideranda sunt, non reducuntur nisi in causam intelligibilem; et ideo dicit, Opera digitorum tuorum: Ps. 135. Qui fecit caelos in intellectu: vel respondet ad id quod dicit Elevata. But, he says The work of thy fingers, for three reasons: because what we make with our fingers, we make attentively and distinctly. And what is to be considered about the heavenly bodies cannot be reduced except to an intellective cause; and therefore he says, the work of thy fingers: Psalm 135: Who made the heavens in understanding: or he responds to that which he wrote, Elevated. Quando quis facit elevari quod grave est, supponit humerum; sed quando facit elevari quod est leve, supponit digitum; et ideo dicit, opera digitorum, quasi leve sit ei facere caelos: Isa. 40. Quis appendet tribus digitis molem terrae, et caelos palma ponderabit? When one makes to be raised that which is heavy, he supports it with his shoulder; but when he makes to be raised something that is light, he supports it with a finger; and for this reason he says, The work of thy fingers, as if it were as easy thing for God to make the heavens: Isaiah 40: Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and weighed the heavens with his palm? who hath poised with three fingers the bulk of the earth...? vel quae digitis facimus subtilia opera sunt. Ut ostendat ergo quod haec subtiliora sunt aliis, dicit Opera digitorum etc. Lunam vero nominat, et non solem, propter Gentiles, qui credebant eum summum Deum: et ideo ponit specialiter, Lunam et stellas, in quibus non est manifesta ratio erroris: Eccl. 43. Species caeli gloria stellarum, mundum illuminans in excelsis Dominus. Or because that which we make with our fingers are subtle works. In order that it be shown that these are more subtle works than others, he says Thy fingers etc. For he names the moon, and not the sun, for the sake of the Gentiles who believed that the sun was the highest God. And therefore the Psalmist writes in particular, The moon and stars, in which there is no proportion of error manifest. Sirach 43: The glory of the stars is the beauty of heaven; the Lord enlighteneth the world on high. Mytice apostolos vel Scripturas opera digitorum. Tres digiti tres personae; quasi dicat, Opera totius trinitatis vel Spiritus sancti. Lunam, ecclesia: stellas, doctores. Et haec Deus fundavit. Quid. In a mystical sense, the Apostles and Scriptures are Works of thy fingers. Three fingers, three persons; as if to say, "the works of the entire Trinity or the Holy Spirit". The moon, the church: Stars, the doctors. And God has established this. d. Supra Psalmista admiratus est divinae maiestatis excellentiam; et nunc commemorat duo beneficia divinitus collata hominibus. Secundo ex hoc psalmum terminat in laudem, ibi, Domine Dominus noster etc. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit clementiam Dei ad homines, per comparationem ad ea quae sunt supra homines. Secundo per comparationem ad primum hominem, ibi, Gloria et honere. Tertio per comparationem eorum, quae sunt sub homine, Et constituisti. Supra hominem duplex The excellence of the divine majesty is what is admired as above the Psalmist; and now he commemorates two benefits of the divinity conferred on humans. Following from this he ends the Psalm in praise, whence, O Lord our Lord etc. Regarding the first, he does three things. First, he shows the mercy of God towards humans, by comparison to those things which are above humans. Second, by comparison to the first human, whence, With glory and honor. Third, by comparison with those things which are below humans, And thou hast set him. 10/2/23, 2:29 PM Psalm 8 hosted.desales.edu/w4/philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Psalm_8.html 6/9 est natura, divina scilicet, et angelica. Primo ergo ponit beneficia per comparationem ad Deum. Secundo per comparationem ad angelos, ibi, Minuisti. Primo exponatur secundum quod competit quantum ad beneficia naturalia. Secundo quantum ad gratuita. Et secundum primum modum et circa eum duo facit. Primo ponit specialem curam hominis a Deo. Secundo familiaritatem specialem, Aut filius hominis. The nature above humans is twofold, namely, the divine and the angelic. First, therefore he writes of the benefits by comparison to God. Second, by comparison to the angels, whence, Thou hast made him a little less. First, he explains this according to what is compatible to natural benefits. Second, what to those of grace. And in accordance with the first way and referring to it, he does two things. First, he writes of a special care for humans by God. Second, a special familiarity, Or the son of man. Mirabile est quod quis magnus alicui parvo speciali familiaritate coniungitur: et ideo primo Psalmista commemorat parvitatem hominis ex conditione quid est homo, tam parva res: Iob. 14. Homo natus de muliere: et 25. Homo putredo, et filius hominis vermis. Secundo quantem ad originem: quia etiam vilis: Iob. 24. Quis potest facere mundum de immundo conceptum semine? Et 10. Nonne sicut lac etc. Et ideo dicit, Aut filius hominis. It is marvelous that anyone so great would tie Himself to someone small by a special familiarity: and thereby the Psalmist first commemorates the littleness of man out of the condition what is man, since he is such a small thing: Job 14: Man, born of a woman: and 25: Man that is rottenness and the son of man who is a worm. Second, in as much as his origin: since it is vile: Job 14: Who can make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed? And 10: Hast thou not milked me like milk etc. And therefore he says, And the son of man. Sed isti sic parvo, sic vili, dicit quod duo facit: scilicet quod memoratus est eius, et quod visitat eum. Primum pertinet ad curam. Secundum ad familiaritatem specialem. Et est talis modus loquendi: sicut si aliquis artifex fecisset magna, et inter aliqua unum minimum, scilicet acum, et quando fecit acum ostendit se habere eius scientiam. Sed quod in dispositione operum curaret de acu, esset valde mirabile; et ideo dicit, Quis est homo, quod inter magnus creaturas recordaris eius? Eccl. 16. Ne dicas, a Deo abscondar etc. et quae est anima etc. Quia propter parvitatem Deus non obliviscitur tui. Sed quod magnum est hoc? Deus enim habet curam de omnibus: Sap. 12. Nec est enim alias quam tu, cui cura est de omnibus. Dicendum, quod de homine habet specialem curam, scilicet quod in iudicio remunerentur actus eius: Iob. 14. Dignum duci super huiuscemodi aperire oculos etc. But, to this so little, so vile man, he says that He does two things: namely, that He is mindful of him, and that he cares for him. The first pertains to attentive care, the second to the special familiarity. And it is of such a manner of speaking: just as if somebody made a great artifice, and among others one which was most small, namely a needle, and when he made the needle, he showed himself to have the knowledge of it. But that he would care for the needle, in the disposition of his works, this would be marvelous; and therefore he says, What is man, that among great created things you turn your heart back to him? Sirach 16: Say not: I shall be hidden from God. and who shall remember me from on high? For God does not, on account of your littleness, forget you. But that this is great? For God takes care about everything: Wisdom 12: For there is no other God but thou, who hast care of all. That is to say, that He has a special care for humans, namely that they will be repaid for their actions in the judgement: Job 14: And dost thou think it meet to open thy eyes upon such an one, and to bring him into judgment with thee? Item non curam solum habet de homine, sed familaritatem habet cum eo; et hoc est quod dicit, Quoniam visitas eum. Sola natura rationalis est capax Dei, cognoscendo, et amando. Inquantum ergo Deus nobis praesens efficitur per amorem vel cognitionem, visitat nos: Iob. 10. Visitatio tua custodivit etc. Also, he does not have only care for man, but he has a familiarity with him; and this why he says, That thou art mindful of him. Only the rational nature is capable of God, to know Him, and to love Him. In as much therefore as God makes himself present to us, by love or cognition, he cares for us: Job 10: And thy visitation hath preserved my spirit. Sic ergo magna clementia Dei est in comparatione hominis ad Deum; sed sequitur So, therefore, God's mercy is great in the comparison of man to God; but this follows from man 10/2/23, 2:29 PM Psalm 8 hosted.desales.edu/w4/philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Psalm_8.html 7/9 de homine hoc in comparatione ad angelos, quibus homo invenitur propinquus. Minuisti. in the comparison to the angels, who man comes into proximity to. Thou hast made him a little less. e. In angelis invenitur imago Dei per simplicem intuitum veritatis, absque inquisitione; in homo vero per discursum; et ideo in homine aliquantulum. Inde est quod homines dicuntur angeli: Malac. 2. Legem requirent ex ore eius: quia angelus Domini exercituum est. Est et homo corruptibilis, sed modicum; quia aliquando homo in patria omnia sine discursu cognoscet; et erit secundum corpus incorruptibilis: 1. Cor. 15. Oportet corruptibile hoc inducere incorruptionem. Consequenter ostendit clementiam Dei ad hominem, per comparationem ad ipsum hominem, cum dicit, Gloria et honore etc. Coronari est regum. Deus facit hominem quasi regem inferiorum, et haec est gloria, scilicet claritas divinae imaginis: et haec est quaedam corona hominis: 1. Cor. 11. Vir imago est gloria Dei: Ps. 4. Signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui Domine. The image of God is found in the angels by the simple intuition of truth, without any inquiry; but in humans discursively: and therefore in man only in a certain small degree. This is why humans are called angels: Malachi 2: For the lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth: because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts. And, man is corruptible, but in a certain way; since, at a certain time, man will know all things without discursive thought in his homeland (heaven); and he will be incorruptible in the way of his body: 1 Corinthians 15: For this corruptible must put on incorruption. Consequently, he shows the mercy of God to man, by comparison to that very man, when he says, Glory and honor etc. To be crowned belongs to kings, and God made man as if the king of lower things, and man is the glory, that is, the clarity of the divine image: and this is a certain crown of man. 1 Corinthians 11: Because he is the image and glory of God: Psalm 4: The light of thy countenance O Lord, is signed upon us. Sed iste honoratur, qui non subiicitur alicui. Homo enim nulli creaturae natura corporali subiicitur, quantam ad animam, nec in ingressu, nec in progressu: non in ingressu, quia a creatura non producitur, et libere agit; nec perit cum corpore; et in hoc honor hominis consistit; et ideo dicutur Sap. 2. Nec iudicaverunt hominem animarum sanctarum etc. usque fecit illum: Ps. 48. Homo cum in honere esset non intellexit etc. Consequentur cum dicit, Constituisti, ponit clementiam Dei ad hominem per comparationem ad ea, quae sunt sub homine, quia voluit habere hominem dominium super ista inferiora: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit dominium. Secundo facultatem dominandi. Tertio numerum subditorum. Secundum, ibi, Oves et boves. But someone is honored, who is not subordinated to someone else. And man, with respect to his soul, is not subject to any natural corporeal creature, whether in the beginning or in continuance, because he is not produced by a creature, and he acts freely: he does not perish with the body; and in this the honor of man consists. And likewise it is said in Wisdom 2: They did not judge man to have a holy soul: continually, however He made him: Psalm 48: Man when he was in honour did not understand etc. Consequently, when he says, Thou hast made, he writes of the mercy of God to man by comparison to the things which are below man, because He wanted man to have dominion over all those things below him: and regarding this he does three things. First, he sets forth the dominion. Second, the faculty of dominating. Third, the number of things subordinated. Second, therefore, Thou hast subjugated all things. Third, therefore, sheep and oxen. Dicit ergo, Ex quo homo est rex, dedisti ei dominium super opera manum tuarum: Gen. 1. Ut praesit piscibus maris, et volucribus caeli, et bestiis universae terrae, et reptili quod movetur in terra. Hoc habet per rationem, quia excedit omnia animalia; et ideo statim cum dixit, Gloria et honere, subdidit, Constituisti, idest dedisti dominium. Sed nota quid dicit, quod homo habet auctoritatem super opera manuum, non digitorum. Homo non potest sibi ea subiicere; et He says therefore, "from that man is king, you have given him dominion" over all the works of thy hands: Genesis 1: And let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. This man has by reason, for he surpasses all animals; and so at the same time that he says, glory and honor, he also implies, Thou hast made, that is, you have given dominion. But it is significant that he says that man 10/2/23, 2:29 PM Psalm 8 hosted.desales.edu/w4/philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Psalm_8.html 8/9 ideo secundo ostendit facultatem dominandi. Omnia, inquit, subiecisti, ut praeesset et dominaretur ad nutum. Hoc signatur Gen. 2. ubi Deus adduxit omnia animalia ad Adam. Et haec subiectio plenarie fuit ante peccatum; sed aliqua nunc resistunt in poenam peccati. Tertio cum dicit, Oves et boves etc. ennumerat subiecta: et ponit animalia ut etiam plantae intelligantur. In animalibus autem quaedam subiiciuntur secundum totum genus suum, scilicet animalia mansueta et domestica secundum suam naturam, scilicet oves et boves: et hoc in feminino dicit, Universas, qui armenta fiunt praecipue de vaccis et ovibus. Alia sunt quae non subiicuntur secundum totum genus: et horum quaedam sunt gressibilia: et quantum ad hoc dicit, Insuper et pecora campi etc. scilicet apri, cervi, et huiusmodi: quaedam volatilia, scilicet aves: et quaedam natatilia sicut pisces. has authority over all the works of His hands, but not those of his fingers, because the works of his hands are not subtle ones like the heavens, which are the work of his fingers. Man cannot subordinate these things to himself; and therefore he shows second his facility of dominating. All things, he says, thou hast subjugated, so that man should surpass and rule them to his will. This is signified by Genesis 2, where God parades all the animals past Adam. And this subjection was full and sufficient before sin; but any things in particular now resist man in the punishment of sin. Third, when he says, sheep and oxen etc. he enumerates the things subjected: and he writes animals so that plants are understood here as well. Among animals, certain of them are subject following their entire genus, namely, as beasts of burden and domestic animals according to their nature, namely, sheep and oxen: and he says this in the feminine gender, All [feminine in the Latin], because herds are made primarily of cows and ewes. There are others which have not been subordinated following from their entire genus: and certain of these can be graded: and in as much as he says, moreover all the beasts of the fields etc. Namely, boars, deer, and things of this like: certain flying things, namely birds; and certain swimming things, namely fish. Possunt ad hoc ad beneficia gratiae referri: et tunc in his omnia mysteria Christi numerantur. Primo incarnationis, Quid est homo? Duo tangit, scilicet causam incarnationis, et ipsam incarnationem: et dicit, Quid est homo? Videbatur enim Deus oblitus hominis, quando expulit eum de paradiso: huiusmodi recordatur quando reducitur illud Psalm. 79. Memento nostri Domine. Et sic sequitur incarnatio: quia visitat, et ideo dicit, Aut filius hominis etc. Quia licet totum genus humanum visitaverit, specialiter tamen illum hominem assumptem in unitate hypostasis: Hebr. 1. Nusquam angelos apprehendit, sed semen Abrahae. Secundum est passionis. Minuisti propter passionem, Heb. 2. Eum autem qui modico quam angeli minoratus est etc. In hebraeo habetur, Et minues eum parvum a Deo, quia coniunctus est Deo in unitate personae; sed minutus propter passibilitatem assumptam. Tertium est beneficium resurrectionis in honore exhibito Apostolis, qui numeratur per passionem: Phil. 1. In nomine Iesu omne geneflectatur etc. Ioa. 5. Ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honorificant Patrem. Quartem mysterium est accensionis, Constituisti eum super etc. Eph. 1. Constituens eum ad dexteram suam, supra omnem principatum et potestatem etc. Quintum And these things can be referred to the benefit of grace: and afterwards, among all of these, the mysteries of Christ are numbered. First, of the incarnation, What is man? He touches on two points, namely the cause of the incarnation, and that very incarnation: and he says, What is man? For, God appears to have forgotten man when he expelled him from paradise: It is recorded in a like manner when that forgetting is revoked Psalm 79: O Lord of Hosts restore us. And so followed the incarnation: because he cared, and therefore it says, or the son of man. Because it was fitting that he should care for the entire human race, but in particular for that man taken into the unity of the hypostasis: Heb. 2: For nowhere doth he take hold of the angels: but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold. Second is the Passion. Thou hast made him a little less on the account of the Passion, Heb. 2: Who was made a little lower than the angels, etc. In the Hebrew, it has, And You make him equal from God, since he is conjoined with God in the unity of person; but a little less because of his capacity for taking on suffering. Third is the benefit of the Resurrection in glory made manifest through the Apostles, which is reckoned through suffering; Philippians 2: That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow etc. John 5: That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. The fourth mystery is the Ascension, Hast 10/2/23, 2:29 PM Psalm 8 hosted.desales.edu/w4/philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Psalm_8.html 9/9 mysterium est adventus ad iudicium, Omnia subiecisti etc. idest constituisti eum iudicem super omnia: Hebr. 2. Nunc autem necdum videmus omnia subiecta ei: tunc omnia subiicientur sub pedibus eius, idest humanitate eius, quia caput Christi Deus, 2. Cor. 11. Et sunt pedes humanitas, Io. 5. Potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere. set him over etc. Ephesians 1: And setting him on his right hand in the heavenly places. Above all principality, and power, etc. The fifth mystery is the coming to judgement, Thou hast subjugated all things etc., that is, you have set him to judge over all things: Hebrews 2: Thou hast subjected all things under his feet...But now we see not as yet all things subject to him, that is, his humanity, because the head of Christ is God, 2 Corinthians 11. And the feet are humanity; John 5. But hath given all judgement to the Son. Et hi in iudicio quidam boni: et horum quidam subditi sunt signati per oves: 2. Reg. ult. Isti qui sunt oves quid fecerunt? Quidam praelati, et hi signati sunt per boves: Pro. 14. Ubi plurimae segetes, ibi manifesta fortitudo bovis. Quidam mali: et horum sunt tria genera: Io. 1. Omne quae est in mundo, aut est concupiscentia occulorum, aut concupiscentia carnis, aut superbia vitae. Et primo ponit luxuriosus: et hi sunt oves et boves et pecora campi, quia bestialibus delectantur: Ioel. 1. Putruerunt iumenta in stercore suo, et demoliti sunt horrea campi. Dicit hoc, qui vadunt per amplam viam, Matt. 7. Secundo superbos, Volucres: Matt. 14. Aves caelis commederunt illud: Deut. 32. Devorabunt eos aves morsu amarissimo. Tertio cupidos, Qui perambulant semitas maris, ad literam; vel mundi: Ps. 11. In circuitu impii ambulant: Iob. 1. Circuivi terram, et perambulavi eam: sicut Deus est mirabilis ex eminentia maiestatis, ita ostenditur ex clementia; et ideo concludit admirationem, Domine Dominus noster etc. Tamen sciendum est, quod iste psalmus est circularis, quia eundem versum habet in principio et in fine. Quidam sunt semicirculares, qui non repetunt totum versum, sed partem; sicut Benedic anima mea Domino, finis, In omni loco dominationis eius. And some good people are in this judgement too: and some of these placed under judgement have been signified by sheep: 2 Kings 24: These that are the sheep, what have they done? Some are preferred, and these are signified by oxen: Proverbs 14: Where there are no oxen, the crib is empty: but where there is much corn, there the strength of the ox is manifest. And some are evil: and of these there are three genera: 1 John 2: For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life. And first, he writes of the pleasure-seeking: and these are sheep and cows and the beasts of the field, since they delight in bestial things: Joel 1: The beasts have rotted in their dung, the barns are destroyed. He says this, because they hasten down the wide path, Matthew 7: Second, he writes of the proud, Flying: Matthew 13: And the birds of the air came and ate them up; Deuteronomy 32: And birds shall devour them with a most bitter bite. Third, the lustful, Whatever swims the paths of the seas, either literally or of the world: Psalm 11: The wicked walk round about: Job 1: And he answered and said: I have gone round about the earth, and walked through it: just as God is marvelous from the eminence of his majesty, so this is displayed from clemency; and therefore he concludes the admiration, O Lord, our Lord etc. And though it is to be seen that this Psalm is circular, because it has the same verse in the beginning as in the end, they are in a certain way semicircular, because they do not repeat the entire verse, but rather a part; as if to say, "Bless my soul through God", finally "in every place of His rule". © Dr. Gregory Sadler (firstname.lastname@example.com) The Aquinas Translation Project (http://www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/index.html)