I want to say that the concept of time going slower the deeper you go into the levels of dreams, makes some kind of reference to the fact that how deeper you go into yourself, you come closer to the Divine, portrayed by time. And that you can live a whole life (of contemplating or feeling God) in one short moment of being touched by Gods love, deep inside.
He says there was no enlightenment... I think the characters got at least a little bit when DiCaprio tried to resolve the issues with his wife, and the guy whose mind they were entering got some (false?) enlightenment when he met his dad in the secret room.
I didn't know that simply being serious without mentioning religion was "relentless secularism."
My issue with the film is not that its secular but that its amoral without any backlash. And for a movie about dreams, its not very dreamy. 2/4 Stars from me.
As a fan of Christopher Nolan, when Mr. Barron points out Inception's "relentless secularism", my I realized why I love Nolan's films so much. Nolan is an intellectual and he plays with ideas without the base trappings of ideas like good and evil or souls or spirits or sin or hell or heaven. This is why Nolan's films are so refreshing, engaging, and ... popular.
Inception gives good insight into the way demons enter the minds of human beings in order to manipulate. Interestingly, it did reveal both strengths and limitations. Demons work in groups against one human being. They implant ideas. But God still gives us our minds and the choice. God is still in control outside the dreamer as the creator. But in this movie the focus and sympathy was not with God. Demons were the saviours of the world by manipulating humans.
I suppose the story could be a little different but with a complicated plot, you have to keep the idea simple. If Father Barron expected to be a film about a man finding his spirituality or in this case GOD then it wouldn't be as interesting because it defeats the whole idea of inception on trying to PLANT an idea. I could go more on and on about it but like I said, I think he's going a little too far.
Although, I did like his review on the dark knight. WATCH THAT ONE!
I do admire and respect this guy for his views. However, as a christian myself, I find that he's going to far on calling the film very secular, which I don't know why he expects everything to be spiritual. If anything, Dicaprio and his wife tried inception because they wanted to be LIKE GODS and ESCAPE from the real world. Of course, as they got sick and tired of it, they left and realized it's not reality. That's the price Dicaprio had to pay.
In Hinduism our Universe is an illusion imagined by one god, that takes numerous forms. To translate it into the world of Inception, our universe is a dream, and we are subconscious or we might be dreamers stuck in somebody's dream waiting to be woken up. This movie isn't that much secular, it is just not christian.
Of course the movie is also about Cobb's inability to forgive himself. The relentless secularism can be explained by what motivates these criminals to do this - ambition, money, and return home. Yeah the idea of traveling inside one's subconscious and finding no God is unsettling for some. Actually the dreamers while inside their dreams could change and create and be like gods. Perhaps it is this idea that came from eastern religions that is unsettling.
I think you misunderstood the movie Inception. I can see your point about "relentless secularism". I watched all of the Nolan's movies. His latest movie is just like other films he made. Inception is a crime film and it is a clever social commentary on the nature of crime. Cobb is a criminal but not by choice. In the world of inception extraction is a crime because it is defined so by the laws. The structure of the movie is no different from other crime movies like the Italian job.
This is the review of this film I have been waiting for. I thought it was fabulously made with a haunting score by Hans Zimmer, but I was not moved philosophically, emotionally, or spiritually with anything in this film. A good, even a very good artist makes us think, but a truly great artist makes us wonder, meditate, etc. Nolan has yet to make me wonder or meditate. Inception is indeed a "missed opportunity." Brilliantly done Fr. Barron.
Trust me Fr. it would take you a lot longer than a day to fully cover the plots, its themes, and style. I recently spent about a week teaching a class about the film and still, i was not able to fully cover all the important stuff.
I only watched it once, so maybe I need to revisit it, but I thought that DiCaprio, unlike the others, was not really going deep down for mercenary reasons - he was going down for his wife, but didn't come up. It made me think the movie was almost saying DiCaprio was in hell - since his dead wife was the center of his focus, and God was not there to enrich the story, he had to make the crucial choice between a repugnant reality and a beautiful lie. I do believe he chose hell in the end.
Father, while you did not like the secularism of Inception, might I suggest another film that dares to delve deep into the unconscious. This film also happens to star Leonardo DiCaprio. It's Shutter Island.
I saw your analysis of The Departed and I was wondering what you thought of Scorsese's most recent outing.
Father Barron, I respectfully disagree with you. Firstly, before I begin, I must say that I have no religion. I believe in God; however, I do not have a specific religion that I belong to. Now, as for your discussion on Inception. The characters did not go deep within for "mercanary" action as you stated. In many ways, the main character found something deep down in there. Yes, it was not God (however in the atmosophere of Hollywood-it was never going to be). Instead, the character found the...
I am not Catholic but go to the Unitarian Universalist Church. I must say that this video gives me a greater respect for Catholicism. I am really interested in the mysticism of Catholicism though at the same time I am happy with my own faith.
Fr, thisis the first vid of yours to totally disappoint me. Movies are storytelling. Even if Chris Nolan were Catholic (no idea what he is) and agreed with your every point, to tell a story so on-the-nose as you seem to want would take it from dramatic to didactic. Rather than being disappointed, how about just saying, "this movie calls to mind __," then go into your description of the various thinkers you discuss? BTW, Merton eventually wound up in Flakeville. You owe the viewer that caveat.
Inception is basically a heist film, and should be interpreted as such. The characters are robbers, anti-heroes essentially. So yeah, their quest deep into the psyche of their subjects is mercenary and "secular", I agree, but I think that's what makes it interesting and creative. It's a mental bank robbery movie.
If they did traveled with the attitude of a spiritual adventurer then their would be no plot or conflict in the film. Don't get me wrong: I am faithful in Christ, but to criticize the film because it had mercenary tendencies doesn't make it a bad film. I think it explored the human psyche and the disposition of human nature more than anything. When you travel into the mind of a character who's lost his wife to suicide and lost his children due to being framed, it can be difficult to find God.
I am spiritual but not religious. I must say though that I am impressed by the intellectual thought put into this video. I have watched a few of your videos and even when I disagree, you give me a greater respect for Christianity. It shows me that Christianity can be a very deep spirituality.
Thanks for the commentary. I have a copy of The Interior Castle, Seven Storey Mountain, and other books by Merton. You gave me incentive to check these out. Now I need to start reading those. Do you recommend any other books?
It's funny how these Youtube discussions always evolve towards a discussion on whether there is a personal God or not. I suppose all roads lead to God in the end, but isn't inception interesting enough?
OK so, a christian reading of inception? Possibilty: Leonardo diCaprio's life is breaking down under a sense of GUILT about his wife and what does he do in the end? He goes down 1 more level at his own risk to save that asian guy. You could interpret that as a kind of redemptory act, I suppose !
There is no such "evidence" that "shows..."probablistic impersonal laws of physics". The laws of physics at best show the mechanism by which God acts. You might argue that the Cosmos for no apparent reason sprang out of nothing 13.6 BYA (a number that changes), or that God said , "Let there be light." Which do you choose and why? If the Catholic point of view, God is Love, is true, then Intellect can fully function only when serving Love/God.
I love your videos. This time, however, I think you missed what Inception's about. When Leonardo DiCaprio talked about Inception, he compared it to Fellini's 8 1/2, a film about the tortures of filmmaking, and he said that Cobb represents Chris Nolan.
I think Mal is a symbol for an artistic vision. Whatever dream (film) Cobb tries to make, he's haunted by Mal. He has to admit that he can't capture her full beauty in order to return to living.
"The deepest level of communication is not communication, but communion. It is wordless. It is beyond words, and it is beyond speech, and it is beyond concept. Not that we discover a new unity. We discover and older unity. My dear brothers and sisters, we are already one. But we imagine that we are not. And what we have to recover is our original unity. What we have to be is what we are."
I for one find it refreshingly encouraging to see a Catholic Priest show the humility and insight to validate the ancient spiritual practices so common in Eastern Religions, and that would undoubtedly be of benefit if more common in Christianity. Hats off to you Father Barron, this approach is a rising tide, one that floats all boats, regardless of their port of call.
Cool critique! :) They should pay you to "do" these big hollywood films in! But I am alarmed. . .how come you get to see more films than me!!!! Doh!
maybe its the American thing? In europe we have to wait unless its james bond or something like that . . .BTW love the Merton story. he was so cool too :)) hmmmmm
@Blazebon I'd like to hear/see a disclaimer on a Bob Dylan or a Thomas Merton is all. Pope Benedict himself has spoken out/warned the Faithful about Merton's writings/ideas. I refer you to yesterday's Gospel for those that sup with the Truth, yet avoid the narrow way. As to your point, again one must be careful, James 2:19, "You believe there's one God, you do well; Even the demons believe that and tremble." But we have a point of contact here also, so I need not tread softly, right? Plzdisclaim
Just an observation Father, but you seam to have a soft spot for holding up the "virtues" of those that "leave" the Faith. Might you be projecting your own thoughts into things you want to see... Theologically suspect writers such as Bob Dylan and Anne Rice have left their "christianity" behind, and here though it's debatable how heretical Thomas Merton was at the end, no one would call him orthodox to the Faith with his blending of Buddhism and Catholicism. Just something to think about Father.
@jackhoffmaster123 You are forgetting as Fr. Barron mentioned in one of his earlier talks, Catholicism is the great assimilator, the Universal Truth, that encompasses the significant fragments and shards of Truth found in other Sacred Traditions. Rather than a rigid dogmatism many Theologians, eg. Hans Urs Von Balthasar, find "points of contact" with other traditions. We trust in the power of contact with Truth (the I Am Presence of Christ) to ignite love in the soul for God.
@jackhoffmaster123 What do you mean when you say that Thomas Merton "blended" Buddhism with Catholicism? He explored certain aspects of Buddhism as a Catholic.
Isn't there some danger to saying the spiritual quest of the Christian is inward? I thought spiritual practices such as the centering prayer were considered dangerous by many spiritual directors.
What about what Chesterton writes in Orthodoxy, when critiquing the mindset that says Christianity and Buddhism are actually very similar in their spirituality? "Insisting that God is inside man, man is always inside himself. By insisting that God transcends man, man has transcended himself."
there is no God at the bottom of the psyche. We have invented God from the depths of our mind. At the bottom of our minds are the archetypes and myths that formulate our perception. Joseph Campbell was my hero here.
@adstanra But what is the ground out of which the archetypes emerge? Even Campbell believed in a sacred source beyond the archetypes themselves. What he called the "undifferentiated reality from which all things come and to which they return" I call "God."
@wordonfirevideo Archetypes are entailed by spacetime which differentiates between qualities producing definition. The archetypes are symbolic representations of the pure forms of a quality.In undifferentiated spacetimelessness, there can be no definition or quality. Our minds use these archetypes to categorise, but that does not mean that they ontologically exist. I don't think , for eg, that the ideal form of human exists and this conceptualization can have its problems.
@adstanra The Jungian archetypes are a bit like the Platonic forms. And remember: there was a form of the Good, which illumined the lesser forms and corresponds to the sun in the parable of the cave. The Christian church fathers tended to identify God with the form of the Good. Campbell does much the same thing.
@wordonfirevideo well, that is true, but We have created the archetypes of categories of reality. Because we archetype things, does not mean the ideal form actually exists in some spacetimeless realm. Qualities are entailed by dualistic spacetime and cannot, as far as we know, exist in formless spcetimelessness. 13.6 billion yrs ago the universe was formless and undifferentiated ( completely entropic). No character or quality can exist in this state, even what we call " Good".
@wordonfirevideo We have an archetype " Good" as a quality of something as pertains to our subjective experience. We cannot imagine anything existing outside of spacetime and it seems problematic to assign a quality to some "thing" "outside" of spacetime. I think spacetimelessness would be equivalent to the state of the universe 13.6 BYA when there was no definition or quality.Quality is entailed by minds in dualistic spacetime; they do not exist "outside" of it.
@wordonfirevideo the concept of the ideal human is problematic ( ask the Nazis).Every person is a unique individual different from the next. When an institution says, this is what an ideal human is, it creates a gulf bt reality and what is percieved to be the ideal form. To the RCC, I suspect a homosexual is not an ideal form, eg; a woman is not an ideal form for a priest.Perhaps a priest is an example of the ideal form, married to God, male and cellibate. What does it mean to be fully human?
@adstanra The ideal is not problematic. What is problematic is holding anything other than perfect relationship with God as ideal/perfect. "Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." Colossians 1:28. Man here as the basic common denominator of man and woman. The Priest is a man because he is in the role of the person of Jesus at the Last Supper. To be fully human is to center one's existence in God.
@Blaseboniface Your post is, to me, jibberish. To begin with, there is no evidence for any deity at all,and no reason to believe that you ( a catholic christian) really knows what " a perfect relationship with God " is. Just like I might have a slightly different archetype of Dog than you, someone else has a different archetype of God than you. These are symbolic representation in our minds and logically these things cannot exist outside of spacetime.
@adstanra Spacetime is a subset of Eternity. The connection between the two is expressed in the formula of Einstein E=MC2 (squared) which if you examine it reveals that at the speed of light there is no time and is no matter, pure energy outside the timeline. When energy descends into the time line suddenly matter is created. Within that matter is the fingerprint from which it comes which is God. The archetypes are the charged and detailed wiring which an open Heart can follow back to God.
@Blaseboniface I agree with your analysis of E = Mc2 but there is no fingerprint of God in any of our physical theories or understanding of the universe. If you trace the universe back 13.6 BYA to the earliest time space that makes sense, it is to what we call the Planck Epock. At that spacetime, there was no order and the universe was in a state of complete entropy. There was no blueprint/design/fingerprint. This was the universe void of spacetime ( as we know it). Your God stuff is just whacky
@adstanra Then how do you explain the massive intelligibility evident in every corner of the universe, the intelligibility that is the assumed foundation of any science?
@wordonfirevideo The laws of physics are the foundation of intelligibility.They are mindless and act algorythmically producing the order that our brains have evolved to exploit. There can be no intelligibility in a completely entropic state ( like the universe 13.6 BYA).
Our brains categorize the order into qualities or traits, the symbolic representations of which I call the archetype. There is no reason to believe that these forms transcend time and space, but they are entailed by spacetime.
@wordonfirevideo con'd. re "intelligibility".This reminds me of other religious arguments,eg, " If the universe wasn't this way, we could never exist, therefore, it must have been created with us in mind". This is backwards. Naturally any trait we possess will be congruent with the laws of physics. It may not be so surprising that organisms have evolved brains that exploit the order that exists. We call this intelligibility, but it doesn't mean there is an intelligence behind the universe.
@adstanra Oh I don't know. The most fundamental features of the physical universe can only be described with stunningly complex mathematics. Sure, we're able to take this in, but how do you explain that it's there in the first place? I'm not talking about those features of the world that seem comfortable to us (that's explainable through evolution). I'm talking about the universe's objective structure. So just curious: how do you explain this? Where do the laws of nature come from?
@wordonfirevideo What is intelligible to us would be unfathomable to the ancients, so just imagine our understanding of the universe in 100 yrs ( only). We don't know why the planck sphere expanded into what we call the laws of physics, but as it expanded it made room for order.Why is there something in the first place...maybe a completely dosordered state is unstable. Just like God has a necessary character, so too maybe the universe. Do you know how any being can exist in spacetimelessness?
@adstanra Well if even further dimensions of intelligibility are discovered in the future, that supports my case, not yours! Even Einstein admitted that any serious scientist realizes that, in surveying the universe, he is dealing with a Mind that dwarfs our own minds. Or as Joseph Ratzinger has observed, all of our science is an act of re-cognition, literally thinking again what has already been thought.
@wordonfirevideo The evidence shows that the universe is governed by probabilistic impersonal laws of physics. The tseunami of 2004 which killed 200,000 people was not directed, nor the formation of continents or planets or the diversity of life. If you want to take a deistic position and say that a spacetimeless being is required to write the laws, then buggered off, then fine, but there is no reason to believe this. How does a spacetimeless being exist?
@adstanra Well for the time being, I'm happy to stay with what you're calling a Deistic God, as long as you hold that this reality has thought into existence the staggering and deeply beautiful intelligibility evident throughout the cosmos. Then we can take further steps. The tsunami issue you raise is, in regard to intelligibility, a red herring. That belongs in the context of a discussion of theodicy.
@wordonfirevideo I mention the deistic argument wrt laws of physics because you mentioned Einstein, who understood that the laws of physics operate according to mathematical principles and are impersonal. It is senseless to imagine anything existing spacetimelessly, for spacetime brings into existence, existence itself; including qualities like good and bad. Spacetimelessness is necessarily void of definition and completely entropic...con'd
@adstanra When you really understand a purely formal truth such as 2 + 2 = 4, you are experiencing a kind of space-timelessness, for that proposition is true no matter where or when you are. Its truth cannot be localized or temporalized. and thus it gives you, as even Bertrand Russell saw, a taste of eternity.
@wordonfirevideo i know we sometimes feel a wonderful sense of profundity when we experience truth, and i realise that religions certainly capture some of that, but 2 +2 is a spacetime truth. It is true within the universe, but it makes no sense in the chaos of spacetimelessness. The term "2" refers to a number, a symbolic representation of a quantity...in spacetime! We are drawn to these truths as brains trying to figure out how the universe works. It is beautiful.
@adstanra Oh come on! The number two was derived originally from spatial objects, sure. But any mathematician will tell you that it is no longer tethered necessarily to spatial things. Numbers are outside of space and time; otherwise, mathematical functions would not have their absolute character.
@wordonfirevideo Oh come on Father...lol. You act as though I was being unreasonable to assert that numbers are a spatial thing. Numbers are not outside spacetime and you cannot even concieve of such a thing. you may be assuming too much about "Absolute"......just because something is consistent throughout time and space does not necessarily mean it TRANSCENDS space and time. You have no clue about spacetime.
@wordonfirevideo Exactly Fr. Barron. Also some scientists are entertaining themselves with the idea that time is not a fundamental but an emergent property of the universe.
Of course this mixes mathematical logic and models with phiplosophy (a mix sometimes unavoidable in cosmology)
@wordonfirevideo I am compelled to comment here. You are actually mistaken in this regard. The notion of mathematics as having an "absolute character" is a Platonic one which was finally shown to be false by Godel's Theorems. Numbers literally have no meaning outside of space-time: if mathematics was, in fact, an "axiomatic" system, it would either produce contradictions, or be hopelessly incomplete to discover truth.
Math has been proven to be solely an a posteriori description of reality
@n3hemiah Tell me, please, how 2 + 2 = 4 is not absolutely true. And show me how the circle or square that pure geometricians deal with are ttied to matter.
@wordonfirevideo 2+2=4 is true, but not because it inhabits some lofty plane of reality. It is only true because it is a secondary expression of the absolute truth that is the universe's behavior. I recommend you research Godel's Theorems. Godel cut his teeth at a school that attempted to achieve what you suggest--finding an a priori plane of truth for mathematics to inhabit, a Platonic notion. Godel showed that to be impossible, and that there is no way to logically outflank that.
@n3hemiah But then why should I think that Godel's theorems aren't culturally conditioned and subject to revision? And if there really is "no way to logically outflank him," then he must have found the universal point of vantage that I was originally talking about! I know a little about Godel (who believed in God, by the way), but I don't see how the laws of the universe could possibly affect the pure abstractions that mathematicians deal with.
@wordonfirevideo I am not saying mathematics is subjective. I am the furthest thing from a relativist. But the simple fact is that were we born into a darkness without space or time--if we were disembodied intellects, like angels, I suppose--then mathematics could not exist. Math is actually not a pure abstraction. It is permanently moored to physicality by ropes which many have attempted to sever. It is not an a priori reality, but an a posteriori description.
@n3hemiah I certainly agree that mathematics begins in ordinary experience, but the symbols and concepts of pure math are not tied to worldly things. Otherwise, they would be subject to revision, refinement, etc.
@wordonfirevideo Just because it's a human invention doesn't mean you can toss it around willy-nilly and revise it. The universe will act as she will, and if math doesn't match up, then it's wrong. Physics is not an axiomatic system (although a lot of scientists regret this fact). This means that physical reality pre-exists mathematics. I can say, "you are a priest", and I've made a statement that is true and cannot be revised. But the truth of that statement depends entirely on your priesthood.
Wow...if math doesn't match up to the universe then it's wrong?! Physical reality pre-exists mathematics? Do you even know what you're talking about? I work in theoretical physics and I can tell you right now there's not a damn thing in this universe that can prove or disprove ANY mathematical theorem. Mathematics is completely seperate from the sciences and is only used in science because the universe expresses itself in mathematical laws.
@wordonfirevideo Also, as a side note, mathematics has gone under much refinement over the years. Calculus was invented by Newton and Leibniz at the same time, and other forms of mathematics such as perturbation, topology, group theory, and the calculus of differentiations have all been invented and explored as the centuries passed.
Nothing in mathematics is revised! The cosine law isn't incorrect now that we have Topology! We just understand that these laws that were derived by the greeks are valid only for Euclidean space, we are merely furthering our understanding of the mathematics.
I'm so glad you mentioned Bonaventure! I love his book (well it's 35 pages tranlated in english) Journey of the Mind to God. I'm a theoretical physicist but when I did my undergrad degree I took a lot of philosophy classes and I ended up taking one on Medieval Latin Philosophy, where we studied Augustine, Aquinas and Bonaventure. The prof also gave an allegorical reading of Genesis and I remember some atheists friends of mine being blown away!
@adstanra Outside of spacetime is Eternity. Spacetime is created as the energy descends below the speed of light into time where everything including we spacetime creatures are created within spacetime. Of course anything outside spacetime is beyond our intellect's capacity to know except obviously there is "something" outside the time line that translates into 2+2 in the time line. That Energy creates us and the "absolute character" of "mathematical functions" to which Father Barron refers.
@Blaseboniface You are projecting onto spacetimelessness features inherant to spacetime. The number 2 is a quantity of dimentional spacetime, not the void of spacetimelessness. If you were to contract the universe back in time, it would become more and more undifferentiated to the point of complete entropy 13.6 BYA. There would be no order,no form,no information, no quality, no dimention, no character, no indiduality, no Good or Bad..no thing. 2+2=4 is meaningless in the featureless void.
@adstanra What we should be celebrating is spacetime existence itself. It is spacetime that brings individual consciousness, perception of beauty and love,... experience. These are intangible , but still features of spacetime, not undifferentiated nothingness. If you want to symbolise these things into anthropomorphic angels,demons,saints and myths, fine..but these are features of our consciousness in spacetime. Your consciousness after death will cease to be, like it was before you were born.
@adstanra Archetypes (yes, a term coined by Carl Jung) intrigued Joseph Campbell precisely because as Jung observed archetypes contain a charged structural constant independent of culture & individual, the surface variations of which Campbell referred to as "inflections", a theme in his 4 vol. Masks Of God. You disagree with Jung which is to disagree with Campbell, and then you give archetypes your own relativistic spin which is to redefine the term and misses the point of Jung and Campbell.
@Blaseboniface Well, that migfht very well be true, but if humans symbolise things in a similar way, it is not evidence that the pure form is metaphysical in some way, existing in an incomprehensible and incoherant plane of existence. We humans share a similar brain, evolved to interprete reality. It does this through mental symbols. I don't think any of this is surprising or requires a belief in the supernatural. There are some "archetypes" not shared bt all humans.
@adstanra Actually believers recognize that the Creator-even in the impersonal manner you depict Him-is in "an incomprehensible & incoherent plane of existence" re us creatures. Romans 11:33-36: "Oh the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments and how unsearchable His ways!..."
@Blaseboniface exactly. It amazes me how some religious people have an incling that STLN is incomprehensible , then proceed to claim to have knowledge about it. " it is incomprehensibe and here is what it is like".....brilliant.
Spacetime brings order, which brings intelligibility. STLN is dimentionless and so there is nothing to comprehend, nothing to conceive of, no-thing at all.
@adstanra "Entropy" by definition is the tendency of a closed system to move towards homogeneity of the constituents of its thermodynamic system. If "undifferentiated" "complete entropy" was all there was at the start of the big bang, then by definition an outside source was required that suddenly created all the laws of physics and mathematics or there was no entropy (void). I argue this outside force is God. In principio erat Verbum...It is the Giver behind the gift that should be celebrated.
@Blaseboniface The 2nd law of thermodynamics requires than entropy cannot decline in a closed system. If it did, an outside source would be required. The inflation of the universe allows order to occur without ouside influence and the 2nd law is not broken. In addition , the total energy of the universe is zero, so an outside source is not required to energise the universe either, breaking the 1st law of thermodynamics. the universe explains itself.
@adstanra Fascinating! "The universe explains itself." You are coming close to an intellectual proof of God. You seem to get the part that we cannot comprehend, as well as the created part that our intellects finds "intelligible"-to borrow a phrase from Fr. Barron. The only thing missing is the personal interest of the incomprehensible Creator in us creatures. You might check out Buckminster Fuller's "scientifically meticulous, direct-experience based proof of God" in Critical Path, pgs153-158.
@Blaseboniface you seem to understand the part we cannot comprehend, then inject comprehension. The inherent nature of the universe is that it requires no outside interference to exist. If it was formed like described in genesis with stars,planets and formed animals popping into existence, this would break the 1st and 2nd laws,and a creator would have to exist. The planck epock is the necessary condition of the universe, and it was formless.
@Blaseboniface there is no evidence that any deity takes a "personal interest" in creatures. He does not feed the sparrows ( they die of starvation every day). The universe is governed by impersonal laws of physics that care nothing for persons. The nested heirarchial bush of life is a testiment to the mindless nature of the struggle for life ( the only thing directing is cold, survival of the fitest). Planets, stars,continents form through mindless probabilistic laws of physics.
@Blaseboniface At any rate, spacetime delivers existence, and talking about anything "existing" in the chaotic void of spacetimelessness (STLN) is incoherant. I notice you calling God, an outside force....this is a little more ineffable description, isn't it? the more one contemplates a deity in STLN, the less and less definition one can use ( try talking to eastern mystics.lol). STLN is void of anything,inclu character,quality,quantity,truth,beauty ,individual,design..it is no-thing-ness
@adstanra you will notice religious people,partic fundys ascribe to God all sorts of characteristics and qualities,similar to human characteristics (they arthropomorphize). The more sophisticated ones and eastern gurus use less and less definative language in their descriptions of deity.The milk to meat phenomenon. I don't think, if there were a deity, "he" would be interested in our worship or thanks. We owe it nothing, but if we develop beutiful symbologies than enhance this life- great
@adstanra The phenomena of anthropomorphizing actually gets in the way of experiencing God. People at first get the idea that God is a loving Parent, but then project their imperfect parents onto God. And worse they evaluate the Creator via their created intellects-Hans Urs Von Balthasar called this "anthropomorphic reduction"-as if the subset encompassed the set. You seem to be versed in mathematics, so I use that metaphor.
@adstanra Go easy on the "eastern gurus" esp. if you refer to Buddha and Krishna, or Lao Tzu. They provide very precise, even if from the Catholic point of view incomplete maps, that help navigate the reality that opens up when you shift from identifying consciousness with the intellect, emotive, or feeling (body awareness) centers to the soul which observes all three as sources of equally valuable info. I realize that prior to the "metanoia te" Jesus recommends, this may seem whacky jibberish.
@Blaseboniface I identify consciousness with individual bodies functioning in spacetime.It involves intellect, emotions, feelings. It is not one part, but the whole functioning. The term individual implies some form of separatio. It axiomatically infers spacetime. Consciousness, as I have argued, is a product of spacetime. These things are sensless and inconceivable in STLN. In a completely undifferentiated state, there is nothingness; no quality, no beauty, no love, no truth, no mind.
@adstanra Yes, that expression "outside force" makes me a bit anxious that I might be misunderstood that God is not within us as well. God/your impersonal universe that explains itself is within the creation it manifests as well as the wholly Other outside what creatures can comprehend. Until your Heart opens up, how can, as Henri de Lubac notes "that Fullness, if reached by analysis alone, not seem at first sight empty?" (The Discovery of God, pg. 107).
@Blaseboniface It may seem empty to consider that we are products of spacetime, not some entity trapped in corrupt spacetime struggling to escape, but I don't think of it that way. This world offers challange, beauty, love and even tradgedy ( sp?). It offers individual consciousness ( how can that exist in STLN?). I am amazed at monks who try to escape ego, who withdraw from this world to try to find incomprehensible Nirvana. It is good to be alive. Lets make it good for everyone.
@Blaseboniface 'In Principio erat Verbam...' curious that you chose the Latin and not the original Greek, although I think I know why. This is mumbo-jumbo to most folk today, but it's the NeoPlatonists excuse to make Jesus the go-between from emperical to the transendental. As NeoPlatonism was crushed by Justinian in 529 the meaning has become lost, and it's essentially meaningless to a modern Christian. Curiously it would have made perfect literal sense to Pythagoras, but scuppers god.
@wordonfirevideo The tsunami demonstrated the impersonal nature of the laws. It was caused by plate tectonics, the same mechanics that formulate the continents, which influence evolution etc. Similar principles govern the formation of planets and stars. No thoughtful direction involved.This is the truth discovered by Newton, Einstein and Darwin, that mindless principles acting algorythmically produce order..that our brains have evolved to exploit and represent symbolically.It is indeed beautiful
@wordonfirevideo Einstein didn't believe he was dealing with a mind at all. His God was Spinoza's, but as Hagel said, you're either a Spinozaist or your not a Philosopher at all.
In asking where these laws come from you seem to imply that other laws are possible, and that these were somehow 'chosen'. That's certainly not what Einstein believed.
Ratzinger , the Nazi who used to run the Inquisition, cannot, of course, substantiate his observations. It's vacuuous verbage.
@adstanra I don't mean to be critical of you personally, but as far as you "might have a slightly different archetype" then you are no longer talking about archetypes. Carl Jung states: "...the archetype is not just an inactive form, but a real force charged with a specific energy...it is not the personal human being who is making the statement, but the archetype speaking through him." The core idea of archetype is that it is in fact the same in each of us independent of time or location.
@Blaseboniface With all due respect to Jung who i believe invented the term ( correct me if you know otherwise), I think he is wrong here, as was Plato. These archetypres are not living ontological entities that live in pure form in spacetimelessness, but symbols we use to categorise objects in spacetime according to qualities we recognise in them. What we have learned over the decades is that we have evolved to fit with the laws of physics, and our brains are masterful at categorising.
@Blaseboniface You might say, well there is only one archetype that transcends spacetime and that our individual versions are imperfect representations, but there is no evidence for that and I, at least, can hardly concieve of any quality existing outside of spacetime. These qualities are entailed by the emergence of spacetime as order arises and brains try to interprete. Our brains evolved for this purpose, amongst others. Every culture, every individual, has a slightly different representation
I have disagree with you here Father. You're essentially imploring, why couldn't it be a completely different movie with new characters, plot, and motivations.To quote another review, it is a typical Chris Nolan movie in that it's centered around a hypermasculine view of the world. To label it as secular makes it sound like it wants to challenge religion, when it is reasoning that is being challenged by visceral emotion through Leonardo DiCaprio's character. Either way, cool movie.
How about...it's just a movie. No need to find religious meaning, nor criticize a lack of one, because its a movie. It's a means of entertainment, nothing more.
Cool poetic thoughts padre. Yes, movie is about subconscious, but I can't see correlation you are making between subconscious and our soul. As I understood St. Francis; he wasn't talking about our subconscious(motives behind our actions), he was talking about meditation of the soul where we can know God's love, behind world's actions...behind our selfs, our subconscious.
Fairytale Inception is about how people's thoughts can be programmed in Sigmund Freud's way: motives behind actions.
BTW, doesn't it go without saying that a movie is always going to be based on the religion of its makers? That being said, I walk away from most movies, especially ones that grapple with death and the meaning of life and love struck with the emptiness of a life when it is lived without knowledge that there is a God and that morality brings true freedom. On the other hand, most Catholic movies are not true works of art. Too earnest and single-layered ....
Fr., you lost me when you spoke of Merton as a great spiritual master. Seven Story Mountain was inspiring, but his writerly egotism took over later. From what I’ve read, he was a vain man, disobedient to his abbot, a hard drinker holding court with fans in the little hermitage he had built for himself, a dabbler in Eastern religion (a synchretist), even had a fling. He also sympathized with and encouraged those who were revising Catholic morality and doctrine in the aftermath of Vatican II.
Beautifully done! It is not a waste of time to find lost souls where they are and show them a map back to the spirit. But what is spirit? Passing through the dark night of the soul, where the corrupted intellect, cannot perceive, where as in the ancient Tridentine Mass with communion, the soul in wordless conversation with God discovers itself, the Inner Sanctum of St. Teresa Avila's Interior Castle, and then is able to go back to the intellect and use that "tool". Good work Fr. Barron!
It's not a film review - the movie is just a "jumping-off point". The film is all about looking into the depths of person so he spoke about the concept of deep self-examination in the Christian tradition.
I think he has done enough movie reviews to be honest. Unless it has some sort of point as to make a human person better in his religious life, be it a movie review or not, a priest should safeguard against wasting their time with frivolous pop culture analysis.
@Childinfaith ... It is worthwhile to analyze "pop culture" in terms of how it relates to (or detracts from) each person's journey to find his or her purpose in life. Let's face it... We are immersed in secularism every day, and it requires effort and determination to uncover and grasp what really matters, that is to know and love God, and each other.
I wouldn't say the movie was so much secularism as opposed to questioning are we really capable of interpreting reality. The movie seems to say more about how we take things for granted and instead is trying to show a world where Cogito ergo sum is turned upside down, after all, once you enter a dream as they had done, how can you ever be sure you've actually left that dream however still a good video from you as usual and I have to say I enjoyed the film. :)
I was disappointed in the movie as well but I would say it lacked any real moral message or struggle rather than call it "secular". I wasn't happy about paying ten bucks to see it. I was hoping it would be more like "The Time Traveler's Wife" which actually had my mind working.
Very interesting comments. I really loved what you were saying about Merton's "Fire Watch" and the journey within. While I was watching the film I was more interested in his relationship with his wife. I saw parallels with the way that he clung to her and the way that we can often cling to our sins and vices. I saw redemptive qualities in the way that their relationship resolved (I'm trying hard to avoid spoilers) and in the ending of the film. Best movie of the summer IMHO.
So much of this theology talk is just completely meaningless. Primarily because the words are just so vague and do not refer to anything real. Spiritual. Holy. Righteous. None of those words mean anything.
@CitizenSkeptic Is it that they don't mean anything or don't mean anything to you? Rather than vague, I would say his choice of words is very specific. As for not referring to anything "real" that's also very subjective. Some would say "love" isn't "real" - they would, however, be wrong.
"My spirit is what makes my body alive." Modern biology has relegated vitalism to the dust bin of history. Read up on biology.
"How else do we define death other than the separating of this spirit from a physical body?" What evidence do you have that any part of you survives your bodily death?
"I am self aware, not just a machine." You are a self aware machine.
When we build self aware AI machines, will they have a spirit?
@CitizenSkeptic .... You really need to get into Peter Kreeft's philosphy audio lectures. All the words you listed have meaning or else they wouldn't exist. It's #31 on the list, "Language of Beauty".
Well, I haven't seen it yet, but it sorta reminds me of that horrible Jennifer Lopez movie "The Cell" where she goes inside the mind of a serial killer to find some victim of his.
I think it just may be a backdrop in this case. I know if you watch the older videos he is sitting in a professorial offce. Fr. Barron has been traveling quite a bit working on a project so I can imagine that the backdrop of his office has been used for the sake of continuity.
However, I agree that you are expecting a lot from a Hollywood film. 'Inception' isn't just supposed to be a big-effects summer blockbuster. It's a heist story, basically! It's hard to work in a moral, spiritual angle into such a premise. Viewers are supposed to just eat their pop corn and enjoy the eye candy.
Having said that, I suspect writer and director Christopher Nolan would be very intrigued or even inspired by your comments.
@SmokiSounds I would say the same thing about religion. Secular humanism is where the real journey's of self discovery and outward discovery can exist with the sciences and free thought. While Inception portrays the dream world very simplistically, what it gets right is the idea that you don't need God to exist for spiritual experience and introspection.
@Nemesis000000 "you don't need God to exist for spiritual experience and introspection"
Did someone dispute this? Someone who doesn't believe in God can, of course, introspect. However, grace builds on nature.in that it elevates this introspection towards the source of life rather than simply the self.
Without God I could introspect, I just couldn't exist ;-)
@Nemesis000000 "Life is the source of life"? I'm afraid that statement doesn't make any sense to me.
I didn't mean to suggest that in introspection we discover God within us *which is ourselves*, rather we discover the fingerprints of Him who made us, the source from which came. In introspection we discover the restlessness inside which aches for more than the world can give.
"Our hearts were made for you, O Lord, and we will wander restless until we rest in You" - St. Augustine
@DarthMambo When i say life is the source of life I don't mean that literally exactly... life just is. If you mean how it came about, well that's still slightly mysterious but we have a better scientific understand now than ever before. My DNA made me, you may see Gods fingerprints I see life itself.
@Nemesis000000 You can't hack it. Stuck on the surface, much like a useless medidation. "Life just is", "my DNA made me". lol. Talk about living in a box, man. Dig deeper. Rationalize the ultimate Cause.
@SmokiSounds I'm the one in a box when I admit to knowing nothing about the big questions? And you claim to know answers because an old book tells you? Which one of us is in a box? I am in a box the size of the universe, and know a tiny sliver of it's area. You are the one who isn't digging, not me.
@Nemesis000000 No, you're in a box for not asking the big questions. What, you think you need some scietific evidence to logically conclude a Creator? Or consequently, you think I need a "book" to reason shit out? So you're digging, huh, what have you come across so far?
I want to say that the concept of time going slower the deeper you go into the levels of dreams, makes some kind of reference to the fact that how deeper you go into yourself, you come closer to the Divine, portrayed by time. And that you can live a whole life (of contemplating or feeling God) in one short moment of being touched by Gods love, deep inside.
blablabla1864 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
masterofmining 2 months ago
What links does it have to Edgar Allen Poe?
477lrn 3 months ago
He says there was no enlightenment... I think the characters got at least a little bit when DiCaprio tried to resolve the issues with his wife, and the guy whose mind they were entering got some (false?) enlightenment when he met his dad in the secret room.
I didn't know that simply being serious without mentioning religion was "relentless secularism."
tifforo1 3 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
gg
112chilla 3 months ago
g
g
g
g
g
gg
112chilla 3 months ago
inception rocks
112chilla 3 months ago
My issue with the film is not that its secular but that its amoral without any backlash. And for a movie about dreams, its not very dreamy. 2/4 Stars from me.
AMElRaheb 4 months ago
As a fan of Christopher Nolan, when Mr. Barron points out Inception's "relentless secularism", my I realized why I love Nolan's films so much. Nolan is an intellectual and he plays with ideas without the base trappings of ideas like good and evil or souls or spirits or sin or hell or heaven. This is why Nolan's films are so refreshing, engaging, and ... popular.
Vincentaneous 4 months ago
Inception gives good insight into the way demons enter the minds of human beings in order to manipulate. Interestingly, it did reveal both strengths and limitations. Demons work in groups against one human being. They implant ideas. But God still gives us our minds and the choice. God is still in control outside the dreamer as the creator. But in this movie the focus and sympathy was not with God. Demons were the saviours of the world by manipulating humans.
voyagersystem 4 months ago
I suppose the story could be a little different but with a complicated plot, you have to keep the idea simple. If Father Barron expected to be a film about a man finding his spirituality or in this case GOD then it wouldn't be as interesting because it defeats the whole idea of inception on trying to PLANT an idea. I could go more on and on about it but like I said, I think he's going a little too far.
Although, I did like his review on the dark knight. WATCH THAT ONE!
RogerSands1 5 months ago
I do admire and respect this guy for his views. However, as a christian myself, I find that he's going to far on calling the film very secular, which I don't know why he expects everything to be spiritual. If anything, Dicaprio and his wife tried inception because they wanted to be LIKE GODS and ESCAPE from the real world. Of course, as they got sick and tired of it, they left and realized it's not reality. That's the price Dicaprio had to pay.
RogerSands1 5 months ago
In Hinduism our Universe is an illusion imagined by one god, that takes numerous forms. To translate it into the world of Inception, our universe is a dream, and we are subconscious or we might be dreamers stuck in somebody's dream waiting to be woken up. This movie isn't that much secular, it is just not christian.
dmitriymazur 7 months ago
Of course the movie is also about Cobb's inability to forgive himself. The relentless secularism can be explained by what motivates these criminals to do this - ambition, money, and return home. Yeah the idea of traveling inside one's subconscious and finding no God is unsettling for some. Actually the dreamers while inside their dreams could change and create and be like gods. Perhaps it is this idea that came from eastern religions that is unsettling.
dmitriymazur 7 months ago
I think you misunderstood the movie Inception. I can see your point about "relentless secularism". I watched all of the Nolan's movies. His latest movie is just like other films he made. Inception is a crime film and it is a clever social commentary on the nature of crime. Cobb is a criminal but not by choice. In the world of inception extraction is a crime because it is defined so by the laws. The structure of the movie is no different from other crime movies like the Italian job.
dmitriymazur 7 months ago
This is the review of this film I have been waiting for. I thought it was fabulously made with a haunting score by Hans Zimmer, but I was not moved philosophically, emotionally, or spiritually with anything in this film. A good, even a very good artist makes us think, but a truly great artist makes us wonder, meditate, etc. Nolan has yet to make me wonder or meditate. Inception is indeed a "missed opportunity." Brilliantly done Fr. Barron.
reginacaeli123 7 months ago
Trust me Fr. it would take you a lot longer than a day to fully cover the plots, its themes, and style. I recently spent about a week teaching a class about the film and still, i was not able to fully cover all the important stuff.
grayk47 8 months ago
I only watched it once, so maybe I need to revisit it, but I thought that DiCaprio, unlike the others, was not really going deep down for mercenary reasons - he was going down for his wife, but didn't come up. It made me think the movie was almost saying DiCaprio was in hell - since his dead wife was the center of his focus, and God was not there to enrich the story, he had to make the crucial choice between a repugnant reality and a beautiful lie. I do believe he chose hell in the end.
mmanley2010 10 months ago
Father, while you did not like the secularism of Inception, might I suggest another film that dares to delve deep into the unconscious. This film also happens to star Leonardo DiCaprio. It's Shutter Island.
I saw your analysis of The Departed and I was wondering what you thought of Scorsese's most recent outing.
sondrebeatlebaker 11 months ago
Father Barron, I respectfully disagree with you. Firstly, before I begin, I must say that I have no religion. I believe in God; however, I do not have a specific religion that I belong to. Now, as for your discussion on Inception. The characters did not go deep within for "mercanary" action as you stated. In many ways, the main character found something deep down in there. Yes, it was not God (however in the atmosophere of Hollywood-it was never going to be). Instead, the character found the...
TonyMaster007 11 months ago
I think he missed the theme of the movie quite well.
davidmerriss 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
NOBODY WANTS TO WATCH A SHITTY MOVIE ABOUT PEOPLE DREAMING ABOUT GOD, IF YOU WANT THAT LOOK IN YOUR FUCKING PEWS! YOU SUCK AND SO DOES GOD!
Halsoft1 1 year ago
@Halsoft1 The movie is not shitty, firstly. #2, your opinion is your opinion on God. However, other people have opinions as well.
TonyMaster007 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
GOD SUCKS
Halsoft1 1 year ago
I am not Catholic but go to the Unitarian Universalist Church. I must say that this video gives me a greater respect for Catholicism. I am really interested in the mysticism of Catholicism though at the same time I am happy with my own faith.
RagnarKraki 1 year ago
Fr, thisis the first vid of yours to totally disappoint me. Movies are storytelling. Even if Chris Nolan were Catholic (no idea what he is) and agreed with your every point, to tell a story so on-the-nose as you seem to want would take it from dramatic to didactic. Rather than being disappointed, how about just saying, "this movie calls to mind __," then go into your description of the various thinkers you discuss? BTW, Merton eventually wound up in Flakeville. You owe the viewer that caveat.
ElvisRockatansky 1 year ago
Inception is basically a heist film, and should be interpreted as such. The characters are robbers, anti-heroes essentially. So yeah, their quest deep into the psyche of their subjects is mercenary and "secular", I agree, but I think that's what makes it interesting and creative. It's a mental bank robbery movie.
bloodr0cuted 1 year ago
@Wordonfire I've got to read those books at some time. I Enjoy also how you explain it.
Serge165 1 year ago
Hell yeah! Leo should be searching for Morgan Freeman while in limbo.
mitscor 1 year ago
Look mate, you stick to your religion. Let Hollywood make the films.
Raymint 1 year ago
So 'Inception' needs God ...
Raymint 1 year ago
If they did traveled with the attitude of a spiritual adventurer then their would be no plot or conflict in the film. Don't get me wrong: I am faithful in Christ, but to criticize the film because it had mercenary tendencies doesn't make it a bad film. I think it explored the human psyche and the disposition of human nature more than anything. When you travel into the mind of a character who's lost his wife to suicide and lost his children due to being framed, it can be difficult to find God.
Evidentz07 1 year ago
I am spiritual but not religious. I must say though that I am impressed by the intellectual thought put into this video. I have watched a few of your videos and even when I disagree, you give me a greater respect for Christianity. It shows me that Christianity can be a very deep spirituality.
RagnarKraki 1 year ago
Wonderful : )
megaead69 1 year ago
Thanks for the commentary. I have a copy of The Interior Castle, Seven Storey Mountain, and other books by Merton. You gave me incentive to check these out. Now I need to start reading those. Do you recommend any other books?
Stitchman3875 1 year ago
It's funny how these Youtube discussions always evolve towards a discussion on whether there is a personal God or not. I suppose all roads lead to God in the end, but isn't inception interesting enough?
OK so, a christian reading of inception? Possibilty: Leonardo diCaprio's life is breaking down under a sense of GUILT about his wife and what does he do in the end? He goes down 1 more level at his own risk to save that asian guy. You could interpret that as a kind of redemptory act, I suppose !
alexington459 1 year ago
@alexington459 Good! I like it!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
There is no such "evidence" that "shows..."probablistic impersonal laws of physics". The laws of physics at best show the mechanism by which God acts. You might argue that the Cosmos for no apparent reason sprang out of nothing 13.6 BYA (a number that changes), or that God said , "Let there be light." Which do you choose and why? If the Catholic point of view, God is Love, is true, then Intellect can fully function only when serving Love/God.
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
I love your videos. This time, however, I think you missed what Inception's about. When Leonardo DiCaprio talked about Inception, he compared it to Fellini's 8 1/2, a film about the tortures of filmmaking, and he said that Cobb represents Chris Nolan.
I think Mal is a symbol for an artistic vision. Whatever dream (film) Cobb tries to make, he's haunted by Mal. He has to admit that he can't capture her full beauty in order to return to living.
NMikeM 1 year ago
Very insightful! What a blessing you are to us!
coug1286 1 year ago 6
"The deepest level of communication is not communication, but communion. It is wordless. It is beyond words, and it is beyond speech, and it is beyond concept. Not that we discover a new unity. We discover and older unity. My dear brothers and sisters, we are already one. But we imagine that we are not. And what we have to recover is our original unity. What we have to be is what we are."
~Thomas Merton, 1968 Calcutta, India
itslifeisall 1 year ago
Go Father Barron!! I'm gonna read the Firewatch book you suggested! :)
By the way, I ordered the "Eucharist" DVD and I'm watching it now - I love it. God Bless you Father!
RJMelbourne 1 year ago
I for one find it refreshingly encouraging to see a Catholic Priest show the humility and insight to validate the ancient spiritual practices so common in Eastern Religions, and that would undoubtedly be of benefit if more common in Christianity. Hats off to you Father Barron, this approach is a rising tide, one that floats all boats, regardless of their port of call.
itslifeisall 1 year ago
Cool critique! :) They should pay you to "do" these big hollywood films in! But I am alarmed. . .how come you get to see more films than me!!!! Doh!
maybe its the American thing? In europe we have to wait unless its james bond or something like that . . .BTW love the Merton story. he was so cool too :)) hmmmmm
KaiseRex42 1 year ago
@Blazebon I'd like to hear/see a disclaimer on a Bob Dylan or a Thomas Merton is all. Pope Benedict himself has spoken out/warned the Faithful about Merton's writings/ideas. I refer you to yesterday's Gospel for those that sup with the Truth, yet avoid the narrow way. As to your point, again one must be careful, James 2:19, "You believe there's one God, you do well; Even the demons believe that and tremble." But we have a point of contact here also, so I need not tread softly, right? Plzdisclaim
jackhoffmaster123 1 year ago
Just an observation Father, but you seam to have a soft spot for holding up the "virtues" of those that "leave" the Faith. Might you be projecting your own thoughts into things you want to see... Theologically suspect writers such as Bob Dylan and Anne Rice have left their "christianity" behind, and here though it's debatable how heretical Thomas Merton was at the end, no one would call him orthodox to the Faith with his blending of Buddhism and Catholicism. Just something to think about Father.
jackhoffmaster123 1 year ago
@jackhoffmaster123 You are forgetting as Fr. Barron mentioned in one of his earlier talks, Catholicism is the great assimilator, the Universal Truth, that encompasses the significant fragments and shards of Truth found in other Sacred Traditions. Rather than a rigid dogmatism many Theologians, eg. Hans Urs Von Balthasar, find "points of contact" with other traditions. We trust in the power of contact with Truth (the I Am Presence of Christ) to ignite love in the soul for God.
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
@jackhoffmaster123 What do you mean when you say that Thomas Merton "blended" Buddhism with Catholicism? He explored certain aspects of Buddhism as a Catholic.
Jugglable 1 year ago
Isn't there some danger to saying the spiritual quest of the Christian is inward? I thought spiritual practices such as the centering prayer were considered dangerous by many spiritual directors.
What about what Chesterton writes in Orthodoxy, when critiquing the mindset that says Christianity and Buddhism are actually very similar in their spirituality? "Insisting that God is inside man, man is always inside himself. By insisting that God transcends man, man has transcended himself."
eternityisyouth 1 year ago
there is no God at the bottom of the psyche. We have invented God from the depths of our mind. At the bottom of our minds are the archetypes and myths that formulate our perception. Joseph Campbell was my hero here.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra But what is the ground out of which the archetypes emerge? Even Campbell believed in a sacred source beyond the archetypes themselves. What he called the "undifferentiated reality from which all things come and to which they return" I call "God."
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 10
@wordonfirevideo Archetypes are entailed by spacetime which differentiates between qualities producing definition. The archetypes are symbolic representations of the pure forms of a quality.In undifferentiated spacetimelessness, there can be no definition or quality. Our minds use these archetypes to categorise, but that does not mean that they ontologically exist. I don't think , for eg, that the ideal form of human exists and this conceptualization can have its problems.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra The Jungian archetypes are a bit like the Platonic forms. And remember: there was a form of the Good, which illumined the lesser forms and corresponds to the sun in the parable of the cave. The Christian church fathers tended to identify God with the form of the Good. Campbell does much the same thing.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 2
@wordonfirevideo well, that is true, but We have created the archetypes of categories of reality. Because we archetype things, does not mean the ideal form actually exists in some spacetimeless realm. Qualities are entailed by dualistic spacetime and cannot, as far as we know, exist in formless spcetimelessness. 13.6 billion yrs ago the universe was formless and undifferentiated ( completely entropic). No character or quality can exist in this state, even what we call " Good".
adstanra 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo We have an archetype " Good" as a quality of something as pertains to our subjective experience. We cannot imagine anything existing outside of spacetime and it seems problematic to assign a quality to some "thing" "outside" of spacetime. I think spacetimelessness would be equivalent to the state of the universe 13.6 BYA when there was no definition or quality.Quality is entailed by minds in dualistic spacetime; they do not exist "outside" of it.
adstanra 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo the concept of the ideal human is problematic ( ask the Nazis).Every person is a unique individual different from the next. When an institution says, this is what an ideal human is, it creates a gulf bt reality and what is percieved to be the ideal form. To the RCC, I suspect a homosexual is not an ideal form, eg; a woman is not an ideal form for a priest.Perhaps a priest is an example of the ideal form, married to God, male and cellibate. What does it mean to be fully human?
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra The ideal is not problematic. What is problematic is holding anything other than perfect relationship with God as ideal/perfect. "Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." Colossians 1:28. Man here as the basic common denominator of man and woman. The Priest is a man because he is in the role of the person of Jesus at the Last Supper. To be fully human is to center one's existence in God.
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface Your post is, to me, jibberish. To begin with, there is no evidence for any deity at all,and no reason to believe that you ( a catholic christian) really knows what " a perfect relationship with God " is. Just like I might have a slightly different archetype of Dog than you, someone else has a different archetype of God than you. These are symbolic representation in our minds and logically these things cannot exist outside of spacetime.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Spacetime is a subset of Eternity. The connection between the two is expressed in the formula of Einstein E=MC2 (squared) which if you examine it reveals that at the speed of light there is no time and is no matter, pure energy outside the timeline. When energy descends into the time line suddenly matter is created. Within that matter is the fingerprint from which it comes which is God. The archetypes are the charged and detailed wiring which an open Heart can follow back to God.
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface I agree with your analysis of E = Mc2 but there is no fingerprint of God in any of our physical theories or understanding of the universe. If you trace the universe back 13.6 BYA to the earliest time space that makes sense, it is to what we call the Planck Epock. At that spacetime, there was no order and the universe was in a state of complete entropy. There was no blueprint/design/fingerprint. This was the universe void of spacetime ( as we know it). Your God stuff is just whacky
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Then how do you explain the massive intelligibility evident in every corner of the universe, the intelligibility that is the assumed foundation of any science?
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo The laws of physics are the foundation of intelligibility.They are mindless and act algorythmically producing the order that our brains have evolved to exploit. There can be no intelligibility in a completely entropic state ( like the universe 13.6 BYA).
Our brains categorize the order into qualities or traits, the symbolic representations of which I call the archetype. There is no reason to believe that these forms transcend time and space, but they are entailed by spacetime.
adstanra 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo con'd. re "intelligibility".This reminds me of other religious arguments,eg, " If the universe wasn't this way, we could never exist, therefore, it must have been created with us in mind". This is backwards. Naturally any trait we possess will be congruent with the laws of physics. It may not be so surprising that organisms have evolved brains that exploit the order that exists. We call this intelligibility, but it doesn't mean there is an intelligence behind the universe.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Oh I don't know. The most fundamental features of the physical universe can only be described with stunningly complex mathematics. Sure, we're able to take this in, but how do you explain that it's there in the first place? I'm not talking about those features of the world that seem comfortable to us (that's explainable through evolution). I'm talking about the universe's objective structure. So just curious: how do you explain this? Where do the laws of nature come from?
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo What is intelligible to us would be unfathomable to the ancients, so just imagine our understanding of the universe in 100 yrs ( only). We don't know why the planck sphere expanded into what we call the laws of physics, but as it expanded it made room for order.Why is there something in the first place...maybe a completely dosordered state is unstable. Just like God has a necessary character, so too maybe the universe. Do you know how any being can exist in spacetimelessness?
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Well if even further dimensions of intelligibility are discovered in the future, that supports my case, not yours! Even Einstein admitted that any serious scientist realizes that, in surveying the universe, he is dealing with a Mind that dwarfs our own minds. Or as Joseph Ratzinger has observed, all of our science is an act of re-cognition, literally thinking again what has already been thought.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo The evidence shows that the universe is governed by probabilistic impersonal laws of physics. The tseunami of 2004 which killed 200,000 people was not directed, nor the formation of continents or planets or the diversity of life. If you want to take a deistic position and say that a spacetimeless being is required to write the laws, then buggered off, then fine, but there is no reason to believe this. How does a spacetimeless being exist?
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Well for the time being, I'm happy to stay with what you're calling a Deistic God, as long as you hold that this reality has thought into existence the staggering and deeply beautiful intelligibility evident throughout the cosmos. Then we can take further steps. The tsunami issue you raise is, in regard to intelligibility, a red herring. That belongs in the context of a discussion of theodicy.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo I mention the deistic argument wrt laws of physics because you mentioned Einstein, who understood that the laws of physics operate according to mathematical principles and are impersonal. It is senseless to imagine anything existing spacetimelessly, for spacetime brings into existence, existence itself; including qualities like good and bad. Spacetimelessness is necessarily void of definition and completely entropic...con'd
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra When you really understand a purely formal truth such as 2 + 2 = 4, you are experiencing a kind of space-timelessness, for that proposition is true no matter where or when you are. Its truth cannot be localized or temporalized. and thus it gives you, as even Bertrand Russell saw, a taste of eternity.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo i know we sometimes feel a wonderful sense of profundity when we experience truth, and i realise that religions certainly capture some of that, but 2 +2 is a spacetime truth. It is true within the universe, but it makes no sense in the chaos of spacetimelessness. The term "2" refers to a number, a symbolic representation of a quantity...in spacetime! We are drawn to these truths as brains trying to figure out how the universe works. It is beautiful.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Oh come on! The number two was derived originally from spatial objects, sure. But any mathematician will tell you that it is no longer tethered necessarily to spatial things. Numbers are outside of space and time; otherwise, mathematical functions would not have their absolute character.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 5
@wordonfirevideo Oh come on Father...lol. You act as though I was being unreasonable to assert that numbers are a spatial thing. Numbers are not outside spacetime and you cannot even concieve of such a thing. you may be assuming too much about "Absolute"......just because something is consistent throughout time and space does not necessarily mean it TRANSCENDS space and time. You have no clue about spacetime.
adstanra 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Exactly Fr. Barron. Also some scientists are entertaining themselves with the idea that time is not a fundamental but an emergent property of the universe.
Of course this mixes mathematical logic and models with phiplosophy (a mix sometimes unavoidable in cosmology)
Entropy3ko 1 year ago
Comment removed
n3hemiah 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo I am compelled to comment here. You are actually mistaken in this regard. The notion of mathematics as having an "absolute character" is a Platonic one which was finally shown to be false by Godel's Theorems. Numbers literally have no meaning outside of space-time: if mathematics was, in fact, an "axiomatic" system, it would either produce contradictions, or be hopelessly incomplete to discover truth.
Math has been proven to be solely an a posteriori description of reality
n3hemiah 1 year ago
@n3hemiah Tell me, please, how 2 + 2 = 4 is not absolutely true. And show me how the circle or square that pure geometricians deal with are ttied to matter.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo 2+2=4 is true, but not because it inhabits some lofty plane of reality. It is only true because it is a secondary expression of the absolute truth that is the universe's behavior. I recommend you research Godel's Theorems. Godel cut his teeth at a school that attempted to achieve what you suggest--finding an a priori plane of truth for mathematics to inhabit, a Platonic notion. Godel showed that to be impossible, and that there is no way to logically outflank that.
n3hemiah 1 year ago
@n3hemiah But then why should I think that Godel's theorems aren't culturally conditioned and subject to revision? And if there really is "no way to logically outflank him," then he must have found the universal point of vantage that I was originally talking about! I know a little about Godel (who believed in God, by the way), but I don't see how the laws of the universe could possibly affect the pure abstractions that mathematicians deal with.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo I am not saying mathematics is subjective. I am the furthest thing from a relativist. But the simple fact is that were we born into a darkness without space or time--if we were disembodied intellects, like angels, I suppose--then mathematics could not exist. Math is actually not a pure abstraction. It is permanently moored to physicality by ropes which many have attempted to sever. It is not an a priori reality, but an a posteriori description.
n3hemiah 1 year ago
@n3hemiah I certainly agree that mathematics begins in ordinary experience, but the symbols and concepts of pure math are not tied to worldly things. Otherwise, they would be subject to revision, refinement, etc.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Just because it's a human invention doesn't mean you can toss it around willy-nilly and revise it. The universe will act as she will, and if math doesn't match up, then it's wrong. Physics is not an axiomatic system (although a lot of scientists regret this fact). This means that physical reality pre-exists mathematics. I can say, "you are a priest", and I've made a statement that is true and cannot be revised. But the truth of that statement depends entirely on your priesthood.
n3hemiah 1 year ago
@n3hemiah
Wow...if math doesn't match up to the universe then it's wrong?! Physical reality pre-exists mathematics? Do you even know what you're talking about? I work in theoretical physics and I can tell you right now there's not a damn thing in this universe that can prove or disprove ANY mathematical theorem. Mathematics is completely seperate from the sciences and is only used in science because the universe expresses itself in mathematical laws.
Jim1905 1 year ago
Comment removed
n3hemiah 1 year ago
Comment removed
n3hemiah 1 year ago
Comment removed
n3hemiah 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Also, as a side note, mathematics has gone under much refinement over the years. Calculus was invented by Newton and Leibniz at the same time, and other forms of mathematics such as perturbation, topology, group theory, and the calculus of differentiations have all been invented and explored as the centuries passed.
n3hemiah 1 year ago
@n3hemiah
Nothing in mathematics is revised! The cosine law isn't incorrect now that we have Topology! We just understand that these laws that were derived by the greeks are valid only for Euclidean space, we are merely furthering our understanding of the mathematics.
Jim1905 1 year ago
Comment removed
n3hemiah 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo
I'm so glad you mentioned Bonaventure! I love his book (well it's 35 pages tranlated in english) Journey of the Mind to God. I'm a theoretical physicist but when I did my undergrad degree I took a lot of philosophy classes and I ended up taking one on Medieval Latin Philosophy, where we studied Augustine, Aquinas and Bonaventure. The prof also gave an allegorical reading of Genesis and I remember some atheists friends of mine being blown away!
Jim1905 1 year ago
@adstanra Outside of spacetime is Eternity. Spacetime is created as the energy descends below the speed of light into time where everything including we spacetime creatures are created within spacetime. Of course anything outside spacetime is beyond our intellect's capacity to know except obviously there is "something" outside the time line that translates into 2+2 in the time line. That Energy creates us and the "absolute character" of "mathematical functions" to which Father Barron refers.
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface You are projecting onto spacetimelessness features inherant to spacetime. The number 2 is a quantity of dimentional spacetime, not the void of spacetimelessness. If you were to contract the universe back in time, it would become more and more undifferentiated to the point of complete entropy 13.6 BYA. There would be no order,no form,no information, no quality, no dimention, no character, no indiduality, no Good or Bad..no thing. 2+2=4 is meaningless in the featureless void.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra What we should be celebrating is spacetime existence itself. It is spacetime that brings individual consciousness, perception of beauty and love,... experience. These are intangible , but still features of spacetime, not undifferentiated nothingness. If you want to symbolise these things into anthropomorphic angels,demons,saints and myths, fine..but these are features of our consciousness in spacetime. Your consciousness after death will cease to be, like it was before you were born.
adstanra 1 year ago
Comment removed
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
@adstanra Archetypes (yes, a term coined by Carl Jung) intrigued Joseph Campbell precisely because as Jung observed archetypes contain a charged structural constant independent of culture & individual, the surface variations of which Campbell referred to as "inflections", a theme in his 4 vol. Masks Of God. You disagree with Jung which is to disagree with Campbell, and then you give archetypes your own relativistic spin which is to redefine the term and misses the point of Jung and Campbell.
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface Well, that migfht very well be true, but if humans symbolise things in a similar way, it is not evidence that the pure form is metaphysical in some way, existing in an incomprehensible and incoherant plane of existence. We humans share a similar brain, evolved to interprete reality. It does this through mental symbols. I don't think any of this is surprising or requires a belief in the supernatural. There are some "archetypes" not shared bt all humans.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Actually believers recognize that the Creator-even in the impersonal manner you depict Him-is in "an incomprehensible & incoherent plane of existence" re us creatures. Romans 11:33-36: "Oh the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments and how unsearchable His ways!..."
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface exactly. It amazes me how some religious people have an incling that STLN is incomprehensible , then proceed to claim to have knowledge about it. " it is incomprehensibe and here is what it is like".....brilliant.
Spacetime brings order, which brings intelligibility. STLN is dimentionless and so there is nothing to comprehend, nothing to conceive of, no-thing at all.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra "Entropy" by definition is the tendency of a closed system to move towards homogeneity of the constituents of its thermodynamic system. If "undifferentiated" "complete entropy" was all there was at the start of the big bang, then by definition an outside source was required that suddenly created all the laws of physics and mathematics or there was no entropy (void). I argue this outside force is God. In principio erat Verbum...It is the Giver behind the gift that should be celebrated.
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
Comment removed
adstanra 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface The 2nd law of thermodynamics requires than entropy cannot decline in a closed system. If it did, an outside source would be required. The inflation of the universe allows order to occur without ouside influence and the 2nd law is not broken. In addition , the total energy of the universe is zero, so an outside source is not required to energise the universe either, breaking the 1st law of thermodynamics. the universe explains itself.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Fascinating! "The universe explains itself." You are coming close to an intellectual proof of God. You seem to get the part that we cannot comprehend, as well as the created part that our intellects finds "intelligible"-to borrow a phrase from Fr. Barron. The only thing missing is the personal interest of the incomprehensible Creator in us creatures. You might check out Buckminster Fuller's "scientifically meticulous, direct-experience based proof of God" in Critical Path, pgs153-158.
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface you seem to understand the part we cannot comprehend, then inject comprehension. The inherent nature of the universe is that it requires no outside interference to exist. If it was formed like described in genesis with stars,planets and formed animals popping into existence, this would break the 1st and 2nd laws,and a creator would have to exist. The planck epock is the necessary condition of the universe, and it was formless.
adstanra 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface there is no evidence that any deity takes a "personal interest" in creatures. He does not feed the sparrows ( they die of starvation every day). The universe is governed by impersonal laws of physics that care nothing for persons. The nested heirarchial bush of life is a testiment to the mindless nature of the struggle for life ( the only thing directing is cold, survival of the fitest). Planets, stars,continents form through mindless probabilistic laws of physics.
adstanra 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface At any rate, spacetime delivers existence, and talking about anything "existing" in the chaotic void of spacetimelessness (STLN) is incoherant. I notice you calling God, an outside force....this is a little more ineffable description, isn't it? the more one contemplates a deity in STLN, the less and less definition one can use ( try talking to eastern mystics.lol). STLN is void of anything,inclu character,quality,quantity,truth,beauty ,individual,design..it is no-thing-ness
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra you will notice religious people,partic fundys ascribe to God all sorts of characteristics and qualities,similar to human characteristics (they arthropomorphize). The more sophisticated ones and eastern gurus use less and less definative language in their descriptions of deity.The milk to meat phenomenon. I don't think, if there were a deity, "he" would be interested in our worship or thanks. We owe it nothing, but if we develop beutiful symbologies than enhance this life- great
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra The phenomena of anthropomorphizing actually gets in the way of experiencing God. People at first get the idea that God is a loving Parent, but then project their imperfect parents onto God. And worse they evaluate the Creator via their created intellects-Hans Urs Von Balthasar called this "anthropomorphic reduction"-as if the subset encompassed the set. You seem to be versed in mathematics, so I use that metaphor.
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface agree.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Go easy on the "eastern gurus" esp. if you refer to Buddha and Krishna, or Lao Tzu. They provide very precise, even if from the Catholic point of view incomplete maps, that help navigate the reality that opens up when you shift from identifying consciousness with the intellect, emotive, or feeling (body awareness) centers to the soul which observes all three as sources of equally valuable info. I realize that prior to the "metanoia te" Jesus recommends, this may seem whacky jibberish.
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface I identify consciousness with individual bodies functioning in spacetime.It involves intellect, emotions, feelings. It is not one part, but the whole functioning. The term individual implies some form of separatio. It axiomatically infers spacetime. Consciousness, as I have argued, is a product of spacetime. These things are sensless and inconceivable in STLN. In a completely undifferentiated state, there is nothingness; no quality, no beauty, no love, no truth, no mind.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Yes, that expression "outside force" makes me a bit anxious that I might be misunderstood that God is not within us as well. God/your impersonal universe that explains itself is within the creation it manifests as well as the wholly Other outside what creatures can comprehend. Until your Heart opens up, how can, as Henri de Lubac notes "that Fullness, if reached by analysis alone, not seem at first sight empty?" (The Discovery of God, pg. 107).
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface It may seem empty to consider that we are products of spacetime, not some entity trapped in corrupt spacetime struggling to escape, but I don't think of it that way. This world offers challange, beauty, love and even tradgedy ( sp?). It offers individual consciousness ( how can that exist in STLN?). I am amazed at monks who try to escape ego, who withdraw from this world to try to find incomprehensible Nirvana. It is good to be alive. Lets make it good for everyone.
adstanra 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface 'In Principio erat Verbam...' curious that you chose the Latin and not the original Greek, although I think I know why. This is mumbo-jumbo to most folk today, but it's the NeoPlatonists excuse to make Jesus the go-between from emperical to the transendental. As NeoPlatonism was crushed by Justinian in 529 the meaning has become lost, and it's essentially meaningless to a modern Christian. Curiously it would have made perfect literal sense to Pythagoras, but scuppers god.
gamesbok 8 months ago
Comment removed
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo The tsunami demonstrated the impersonal nature of the laws. It was caused by plate tectonics, the same mechanics that formulate the continents, which influence evolution etc. Similar principles govern the formation of planets and stars. No thoughtful direction involved.This is the truth discovered by Newton, Einstein and Darwin, that mindless principles acting algorythmically produce order..that our brains have evolved to exploit and represent symbolically.It is indeed beautiful
adstanra 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Einstein didn't believe he was dealing with a mind at all. His God was Spinoza's, but as Hagel said, you're either a Spinozaist or your not a Philosopher at all.
In asking where these laws come from you seem to imply that other laws are possible, and that these were somehow 'chosen'. That's certainly not what Einstein believed.
Ratzinger , the Nazi who used to run the Inquisition, cannot, of course, substantiate his observations. It's vacuuous verbage.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@adstanra I don't mean to be critical of you personally, but as far as you "might have a slightly different archetype" then you are no longer talking about archetypes. Carl Jung states: "...the archetype is not just an inactive form, but a real force charged with a specific energy...it is not the personal human being who is making the statement, but the archetype speaking through him." The core idea of archetype is that it is in fact the same in each of us independent of time or location.
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface With all due respect to Jung who i believe invented the term ( correct me if you know otherwise), I think he is wrong here, as was Plato. These archetypres are not living ontological entities that live in pure form in spacetimelessness, but symbols we use to categorise objects in spacetime according to qualities we recognise in them. What we have learned over the decades is that we have evolved to fit with the laws of physics, and our brains are masterful at categorising.
adstanra 1 year ago
@Blaseboniface You might say, well there is only one archetype that transcends spacetime and that our individual versions are imperfect representations, but there is no evidence for that and I, at least, can hardly concieve of any quality existing outside of spacetime. These qualities are entailed by the emergence of spacetime as order arises and brains try to interprete. Our brains evolved for this purpose, amongst others. Every culture, every individual, has a slightly different representation
adstanra 1 year ago
I have disagree with you here Father. You're essentially imploring, why couldn't it be a completely different movie with new characters, plot, and motivations.To quote another review, it is a typical Chris Nolan movie in that it's centered around a hypermasculine view of the world. To label it as secular makes it sound like it wants to challenge religion, when it is reasoning that is being challenged by visceral emotion through Leonardo DiCaprio's character. Either way, cool movie.
MKTF 1 year ago
How about...it's just a movie. No need to find religious meaning, nor criticize a lack of one, because its a movie. It's a means of entertainment, nothing more.
VQuiZ11 1 year ago
Exellent Father, that was "Hole in one" if I ever seen one!
coldforgedcowboy 1 year ago 5
Cool poetic thoughts padre. Yes, movie is about subconscious, but I can't see correlation you are making between subconscious and our soul. As I understood St. Francis; he wasn't talking about our subconscious(motives behind our actions), he was talking about meditation of the soul where we can know God's love, behind world's actions...behind our selfs, our subconscious.
Fairytale Inception is about how people's thoughts can be programmed in Sigmund Freud's way: motives behind actions.
MonoKulen 1 year ago
BTW, doesn't it go without saying that a movie is always going to be based on the religion of its makers? That being said, I walk away from most movies, especially ones that grapple with death and the meaning of life and love struck with the emptiness of a life when it is lived without knowledge that there is a God and that morality brings true freedom. On the other hand, most Catholic movies are not true works of art. Too earnest and single-layered ....
roseannesullivan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fr., you lost me when you spoke of Merton as a great spiritual master. Seven Story Mountain was inspiring, but his writerly egotism took over later. From what I’ve read, he was a vain man, disobedient to his abbot, a hard drinker holding court with fans in the little hermitage he had built for himself, a dabbler in Eastern religion (a synchretist), even had a fling. He also sympathized with and encouraged those who were revising Catholic morality and doctrine in the aftermath of Vatican II.
roseannesullivan 1 year ago
Comment removed
roseannesullivan 1 year ago
Beautifully done! It is not a waste of time to find lost souls where they are and show them a map back to the spirit. But what is spirit? Passing through the dark night of the soul, where the corrupted intellect, cannot perceive, where as in the ancient Tridentine Mass with communion, the soul in wordless conversation with God discovers itself, the Inner Sanctum of St. Teresa Avila's Interior Castle, and then is able to go back to the intellect and use that "tool". Good work Fr. Barron!
Blaseboniface 1 year ago
Father Barron, your commentaries motivate me more than anything else I can think of.
I also can't wait for the Catholicism Project.
Praise be God that we have such an amazing representative such as Father Barron!
Childinfaith 1 year ago
Is this video really about "Inception"?
Father, this video was a bit off topic. Stay on point next time
Your efforts are appreciated nonetheless.
ezemdi 1 year ago
@ezemdi hahah
It's not a film review - the movie is just a "jumping-off point". The film is all about looking into the depths of person so he spoke about the concept of deep self-examination in the Christian tradition.
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@ezemdi
I think he has done enough movie reviews to be honest. Unless it has some sort of point as to make a human person better in his religious life, be it a movie review or not, a priest should safeguard against wasting their time with frivolous pop culture analysis.
Childinfaith 1 year ago
@Childinfaith ... It is worthwhile to analyze "pop culture" in terms of how it relates to (or detracts from) each person's journey to find his or her purpose in life. Let's face it... We are immersed in secularism every day, and it requires effort and determination to uncover and grasp what really matters, that is to know and love God, and each other.
BeeZee2 1 year ago
I wouldn't say the movie was so much secularism as opposed to questioning are we really capable of interpreting reality. The movie seems to say more about how we take things for granted and instead is trying to show a world where Cogito ergo sum is turned upside down, after all, once you enter a dream as they had done, how can you ever be sure you've actually left that dream however still a good video from you as usual and I have to say I enjoyed the film. :)
ryan651 1 year ago
Any evidence that dreams and/or consciousness is not only a consequence of the physical body? In other words, why is it 'spiritual' ?
Always like your videos Fr. Barron!
hugopelland 1 year ago
@hugopelland God regularly spoke through dreams in the Bible and most psychoanalysts go nuts over dream analysis to better understand "the inner man".
Also, if we are composed of body and soul then you would expect a very close relationship between the two.
DarthMambo 1 year ago
I was disappointed in the movie as well but I would say it lacked any real moral message or struggle rather than call it "secular". I wasn't happy about paying ten bucks to see it. I was hoping it would be more like "The Time Traveler's Wife" which actually had my mind working.
david521598 1 year ago
Very interesting comments. I really loved what you were saying about Merton's "Fire Watch" and the journey within. While I was watching the film I was more interested in his relationship with his wife. I saw parallels with the way that he clung to her and the way that we can often cling to our sins and vices. I saw redemptive qualities in the way that their relationship resolved (I'm trying hard to avoid spoilers) and in the ending of the film. Best movie of the summer IMHO.
BriTh0mas 1 year ago
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the other movie I really enjoyed, "Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World"
It's a comic book and video game tribute movie, but it's a lot of fun!
BriTh0mas 1 year ago
So much of this theology talk is just completely meaningless. Primarily because the words are just so vague and do not refer to anything real. Spiritual. Holy. Righteous. None of those words mean anything.
CitizenSkeptic 1 year ago
@CitizenSkeptic Is it that they don't mean anything or don't mean anything to you? Rather than vague, I would say his choice of words is very specific. As for not referring to anything "real" that's also very subjective. Some would say "love" isn't "real" - they would, however, be wrong.
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@DarthMambo
What is a spirit? What are some of its properties? By what method do you use to obtain knowledge about spirits?
CitizenSkeptic 1 year ago
@CitizenSkeptic Many philosophers believed in the concept of the spirit, as well as other immaterial realities - in a couple of sentences...
My spirit is what makes my body alive. How else do we define death other than the separating of this spirit from a physical body?
I am self aware, not just a machine.
My spirit is what makes me, me. If in surgery they cut off an arm or part of my brain, I am still me. That is my spirit.
If you'd like to know more I'd suggest reading Thomas Aquinas.
DarthMambo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarthMambo
"My spirit is what makes my body alive." Modern biology has relegated vitalism to the dust bin of history. Read up on biology.
"How else do we define death other than the separating of this spirit from a physical body?" What evidence do you have that any part of you survives your bodily death?
"I am self aware, not just a machine." You are a self aware machine.
When we build self aware AI machines, will they have a spirit?
CitizenSkeptic 1 year ago
@CitizenSkeptic .... You really need to get into Peter Kreeft's philosphy audio lectures. All the words you listed have meaning or else they wouldn't exist. It's #31 on the list, "Language of Beauty".
coldforgedcowboy 1 year ago
Well, I haven't seen it yet, but it sorta reminds me of that horrible Jennifer Lopez movie "The Cell" where she goes inside the mind of a serial killer to find some victim of his.
pickitupp 1 year ago
Is that bookshelf a backdrop?
Nemesis000000 1 year ago
@Nemesis000000
I think it just may be a backdrop in this case. I know if you watch the older videos he is sitting in a professorial offce. Fr. Barron has been traveling quite a bit working on a project so I can imagine that the backdrop of his office has been used for the sake of continuity.
ammazzamoro 1 year ago
Very interesting take, Father. Thank you.
However, I agree that you are expecting a lot from a Hollywood film. 'Inception' isn't just supposed to be a big-effects summer blockbuster. It's a heist story, basically! It's hard to work in a moral, spiritual angle into such a premise. Viewers are supposed to just eat their pop corn and enjoy the eye candy.
Having said that, I suspect writer and director Christopher Nolan would be very intrigued or even inspired by your comments.
anthtan 1 year ago
secularism isn't diametrically opposed to introspection, or even spirituality.
NwZ2 1 year ago
secularism is awesome :)
FreedomLiberty21 1 year ago
@FreedomLiberty21 It's blind, boring and superficial. Not much awesomeness there.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds not really.
NwZ2 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds I would say the same thing about religion. Secular humanism is where the real journey's of self discovery and outward discovery can exist with the sciences and free thought. While Inception portrays the dream world very simplistically, what it gets right is the idea that you don't need God to exist for spiritual experience and introspection.
Nemesis000000 1 year ago
@Nemesis000000 "you don't need God to exist for spiritual experience and introspection"
Did someone dispute this? Someone who doesn't believe in God can, of course, introspect. However, grace builds on nature.in that it elevates this introspection towards the source of life rather than simply the self.
Without God I could introspect, I just couldn't exist ;-)
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@DarthMambo SmokiSounds disputed it.
Life is the source of life and we are all own a sliver of that pie. We are all "God" in the sense that you seem to mean here. IMO of course.
Nemesis000000 1 year ago
@Nemesis000000 "Life is the source of life"? I'm afraid that statement doesn't make any sense to me.
I didn't mean to suggest that in introspection we discover God within us *which is ourselves*, rather we discover the fingerprints of Him who made us, the source from which came. In introspection we discover the restlessness inside which aches for more than the world can give.
"Our hearts were made for you, O Lord, and we will wander restless until we rest in You" - St. Augustine
DarthMambo 1 year ago
@DarthMambo When i say life is the source of life I don't mean that literally exactly... life just is. If you mean how it came about, well that's still slightly mysterious but we have a better scientific understand now than ever before. My DNA made me, you may see Gods fingerprints I see life itself.
Nemesis000000 1 year ago
@Nemesis000000 You can't hack it. Stuck on the surface, much like a useless medidation. "Life just is", "my DNA made me". lol. Talk about living in a box, man. Dig deeper. Rationalize the ultimate Cause.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds I'm the one in a box when I admit to knowing nothing about the big questions? And you claim to know answers because an old book tells you? Which one of us is in a box? I am in a box the size of the universe, and know a tiny sliver of it's area. You are the one who isn't digging, not me.
Nemesis000000 1 year ago
@Nemesis000000 No, you're in a box for not asking the big questions. What, you think you need some scietific evidence to logically conclude a Creator? Or consequently, you think I need a "book" to reason shit out? So you're digging, huh, what have you come across so far?
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SmokiSounds I ask the big questions, you do not because you think you already have the answers.
Nemesis000000 1 year ago