Intellectus: one of the keys to Steve Jobs' Success

The lie of the Enlightenment was that "ratio" was the only component in intelligence. Walter Isaacson points to "intellectus" as an additional necessary part.

Was Steve Jobs Smart? Scientists on the Keys to Success

COLUMN by LEE DYE
Nov. 2, 2011

You don't have to be the brightest kid in the class to become the best scholar. Researchers are finding new clues about what it takes to succeed in school, and probably throughout life.

For centuries thinkers have argued about what intelligence is, and how much it takes to make a genius, whatever that means, and how important intelligence is in guaranteeing success. Today, most would agree that intelligence is the cornerstone of academic success.

But there's more to success than that, and there's plenty of examples, including Steve Jobs, the legendary innovator who changed the world.

No one would suggest that Jobs wasn't very, very smart. But he probably didn't have to walk far across the Apple campus to find a bunch of employees who were just as smart as he was, and maybe much smarter.

Biographer Walter Isaacson argued in the New York Times that Jobs was not overly smart in a traditional sense, in that he did not try to solve problems by rigorous analytical pursuit, common marks of intelligence, but relied more on "imaginative leaps" that "were instinctive, unexpected, and at times magical."

Jobs made his mark in the business world, not academia, and his success was due to many things, including personal charisma, and he was the kind of salesman who could peddle ice cream to Eskimos in the middle of the winter.

Bright, yes, but much more than that.

But what about us commoners, who shuffle through life without the gifts that enabled a man like Jobs to do so much? What does it take for us to succeed?

Although Jobs dropped out of college to launch his career, nearly all of us need a first rate education to compete in what has become a highly competitive world. And even in the realm of academics it takes more than intelligence to succeed, although only a fool would argue that intelligence is unimportant. It establishes the basic foundation.

Beyond that, however, educators agree on a second component – effort. No matter how bright you are, you've got to work.

And now, researchers have added a third component. You need intellectual curiosity, or as they put it, a "hungry mind."

In a huge study, scientists in England and Switzerland gathered data from 200 studies involving about 50,000 students to see what it took for them to excel in school. They published their findings in the current issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science.

Curiosity turned out to be a major player.

"Curiosity is basically a hunger for exploration," coauthor Sophie von Stumm of the University of Edinburgh said in releasing the study.

In brief, the study concludes that effort and curiosity together were as important as intelligence in achieving academic success.

"Our results highlight that 'a hungry mind' is a core determinant of individual differences in academic achievement," the study concludes. Curiosity, which they call the "third pillar of academic performance," has been largely overlooked by educators, according to the study

And that, they argue, is a huge failure in schools today.

"Schools and universities must early on encourage intellectual hunger and not exclusively reward the acquiescent application of intelligence and effort," the study says, adding this:

Academic success is likely to be achieved by "not only the diligent class winner who writes an excellent term paper but also the one who asks annoyingly challenging questions during the seminar, a habit that is, unfortunately, not appreciated by all teachers."

In other words, the kid who has all the answers deserves no more encouragement than the one who asks curious questions, clear evidence of a "hungry mind."

The study doesn't attempt to explain how to create that hunger. Encouraging those annoying questions may help, but it probably sends us back to that old debate over nature vs. nurture. Some kids are probably born with it, others learn it in a home that encourages curiosity.

Psychologist Dean Keith Simonton of the University of California, Davis, who has spent decades studying what it takes to be a genius, argues in a new book that it takes more than good genes. It also takes good surroundings.

Other factors also contribute, like good health, financial support, and a little luck.

Any genius needs that. Theirs is not an easy road to follow.

Stanford University researchers, for example, found a link between genius and mental illness, including manic depression. Most highly creative achievers, they concluded, are a little disturbed, which in turn gives them a broad emotional range that possibly contributes to their creative efforts.

And, by the way, over the years I've interviewed many brilliant scientists who easily rank as geniuses. They aren't all nuts.

The only person to receive two Nobel prizes in physics, John Bardeen of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was described in a biography by historian Lillian Hoddeson as "a humble, calm, soft-spoken Midwestener who had plenty of friends and who liked to play golf and have picnics with his family."

He was also very bright, worked very hard, and had a "hungry mind."

That leaves us with this question. How many Bardeens are there out there who will never get that spark that ignites their intellectual curiosity?

Creativity's letter to Christianity, and a response from a forgotten lover

The following is A letter to Christianity from Creativity" found at Matthew Paul Turner's blog, "Jesus needs new PR."

Hi Christianity,

It’s me, Creativity. Listen, I got your text message last week. I also heard from Social Media that you really wanted to talk to me. And according to Statistics, you need me. I’d like to see you again, but honestly, I’m torn about whether or not I want to work with you again.

Now, I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t miss you sometimes. You’re sort of like Tom Cruise–completely nuts, yet intriguing enough to still want to watch you on Oprah.

Now, regarding your text message, of course I remember the good times working together.

We had lots of fun back then. I remember fondly the day I hooked you up with Michelangelo. Gosh, you absolutely loved what Mitch dabbed on the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel. And you just about walked on water when you saw his painting of The Last Judgment. Sure, we had a mishap or two. Yes, David’s penis should have been circumcised; still, that sculpture is one of the most magnificent erections the world has ever seen.

Oh, and your God loved what I was able to whip up through Bach, Mozart, and Handel. But honestly, back then, finding good musical talent among God’s people was easy, like looking for homely Jehovah’s Witnesses. Still, I helped you discover the cream of God’s musical crop.

And then there was Rembrandt who often made you look brilliant. And of course, Da Vinci! He was a pain in the ass to work with, but when we were able to get him to stop wasting his time on science, the art was usually well worth the wait.

Heck, Christianity, in our heyday, you and I were unstoppable. People called us the Abraham and Sarah of the Modern Times! Yes, you were angrier back then. And I didn’t like the fact that you killed people. But ironically, you were much easier to work with. Fighting wars, governing nations, and roasting heathens over an open fire kept you preoccupied and out of my hair. And back then, I knew what you wanted from me. Even though I didn’t always agree with your politics and theologies, and yes, you were sexist and racist and utterly hypocritical, but I did what you asked me to do: I looked for new ways to tell the stories of God. And I did it well.

Let’s face it; the art I helped you create is pretty much one of the very few redeeming qualities of your reign across Europe. And much of it is still appreciated today.

But then the Puritans happened. And while they loved you, they also wanted Freedom. And as much as you promote Freedom, let’s be honest, you don’t like her all that much. Surprisingly, Freedom has done wonders for me. She’s pretty, talented, mostly fantastic, really. And flexible, which is very hot. I think she might have a drug problem, but she doesn’t interfere with my work, so I love her. But it seems that, ever since Freedom and I became friends, my relationship with you has been a bumpy mess. You basically walked out on me during the late 19th century. Do you remember why?! Because I wouldn’t help you sell your “rapture” idea. I don’t create sensationalized fear, Christianity-well, I don’t unless it’s a horror flick or science fiction or something produced by JJ Abrams. Besides, we’d already spent centuries–long, dark, and ugly ones–promoting your whole “God/fear” thing. I’m over it, and so is everybody else.

At best, our relationship has been bumpy since the late 1950s. And we’ve gone our separate ways a few times. You spent years revitalizing fundamentalism. And I spent time in London discovering the Beatles. Both of us have made our mistakes: You started whoring around with the Republican Party and you told Michael W. Smith he could sing. But to be fair, I made the mistake of loving heroin and thinking that Elizabeth Shue had talent.

Now, that’s not to say we haven’t experienced a couple moments of Pentecostal glory. We wrote a few decent songs together. Switchfoot was fun. But I take no responsibility for Chris Tomlin. And I’ve enjoyed working on a few books with you. In my mind, Joel Osteen is one of the best fiction writers out there. If only he knew it!

But if the rumors are true, that you are indeed interested in working with me again, I’m interested. But I must be blunt, things will need to be different. So before you write back, please consider the following list of ideals.

1) Building a healthy and productive relationship with me begins with this: Give me a good story to tell, preferably a true one, and one that doesn’t conclude with a sales pitch. I’m not Capitalism; I don’t do sales, at least, not the kind that come with eternal damnation. I tell stories. I present truth. I entertain.

2) If you want me to be brilliant and imaginative and to do it on a ministry budget, then trust me. Give me the freedom to tell the stories that you want told. I don’t work well when I’m stressed, paranoid, and fear-filled.

3) When the morality police come to you and complain about my work, I expect you to grow a pair and support me once in a while. I will not create my best work if you continually fall prey to the one person who throws a fit about what I do. No, I don’t want you to cut off their heads. I want you to stop letting them cut off mine.

4) I don’t do Amish fiction, bald eagles, or Michelle Bachmann.

5) The truth is sometimes ugly. When you leave out the ugly parts of a story, it ceases to be the truth. Let me tell the truth.

6) Most importantly, you must learn to say no to Kirk Cameron.

Here’s the thing, Christianity: Putting roadblocks up in front of me doesn’t simply prevent me from being my best at presenting you, it actually leaves me empty. Offering me guidelines and hints and direction is fine, but mandating how I tell a story or paint a picture has never been your gift and it only stifles mine.

Look forward to hearing back,

Creativity

This is the response from Creativity's forgotten lover:

Dear Creativity…

You seem to have amnesia…that was no one night stand we had together! We went together for nearly 1500 YEARS! Have you forgotten us?!!!??? We know that modernism and nominalism split right brain from left, head from heart, faith from reason, earth from heaven, fact from value, and all other sorts of nasty either/ors. But we never were part of that scene. Please, please, don’t ignore us. We loved you, and we continue to love you. Let us together inspire Christianity once again.

–Love,

Hagia Sophia,Sant’Appolinare Nuovo, San Vitale, the Byzantine mosaics and icons, the Romanesque Cathedrals, the Gothic cathedrals, innumerable illuminated manuscripts, Utrecht Psalter, the Dagulf Psalter, Gregorian Chant, Stained Glass artists of Chartres,etc., Dante, Cimabue, Duccio, Giotto, the Wilton Diptych,The Limbourg brothers, Gillaume de Machaut, Francesco Landini (and other Christian artists of late antiquity and the Middle Ages)

Correcting an Increasingly Common Misconception

Here are my comments on Chad Estes' review of Rachel Held Evan's Evolving in Monkeytown:

Thanks for your review...but I'd like to address one part of it. I know it's popular nowadays to see postmodernism as the "synthesis" of premodern mysticism and modernist reason, but this reveals a shallow understanding of history and philosophy.

Chad, where did you get your information about the Middle Ages? Unless you take the Middle Ages to be a 300 year period from 500-800 AD, it wasn't "all mysticism, all the time." Among other scholars, Charlemagne brought Alcuin of York to start his Palace School and other schools (particularly in the Frankish empire), develop a standard curriculum, edit corrupt manuscripts, standardize Latin, introduce the Carolingian miniscule (that later inspired Renaissance Italic). These folks weren't just praying and doing Gregorian chants all day!

Scholasticism was huge throughout the Middle Ages,and it was a LEFT brain enterprise that focused on analysis, definition and verbal clarity. Every educated person had to study dialectic as part of the Trivium. Only then could they move on to the Quadrivium, which included the hardly-mystical study of arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy.

We can thank the Middle Ages for the invention of the university, and the dialectic practiced in places like the Universities of Paris, Bologna and Oxford was a method of thinking that proceeded as follows:

1. The Question to be determined
2. The principal objections to the question
3. An argument in favor of the Question, traditionally a single argument ("On the contrary..")
4. The determination of the Question after weighing the evidence. ("I answer that...")
5. The replies to each objection

This is exactly how the greatest philosopher/theologian of the Middle Ages-- Thomas Aquinas-- structured his magisterial Summa Theologiae. And I haven't even begun to discuss science...for that I refer you to Edward Grant's The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages.

I hope I've made a case that as well as being an age of faith, the middle ages were also an age of reason. In fact, it was the only time in Western Civilization when the two were in such equilibrium. Nothing would please me more than for Postmodernists to rediscover that equilibrium...and admit that they weren't the first to achieve it. ; )

QUOTES: "To generalize means to think"

In our current intellectual climate, where
nominalist thinking has triumphed and is
proudly celebrated by "deconstruction," the business of seeing similarities and relationships is regarded with suspicion. I remember one interchange with a librarian (!) who was perfectly happy to have his living depend on classifying books and other materials, but who resisted attempts to generalize about theological or historical matters. Why was that? Perhaps he thought that the only way to generalize was to impose arbitrary,  socially-constructed categories upon things, much the same way that he saw the Dewey Decimal mode of classification, or the Library of Congress mode of classification imposed upon the works around him.  

      But are all generalizations "useful fictions?"  Are some generalizations actually products of a process of abstraction from forms which are not imposed by us, but which exist independently of our minds, in things themselves? Is there no way to compare our generalizations, and judge which of them captures more of what is real, making that generalization closer to the truth?



"...when we apply categories and classifications to the progression of history, we are challenged to remember that classification and categorisation always relies, to some extent, on generalisation; and generalisation is a dangerous game. When William Blake wrote that 'to generalise is to be an idiot', he was perhaps too harsh. George Bernard Shaw shared his pessimism, though in less alacritous terms: 'Crude classifications and false generalisations are the curse of organised life'. But life mandates, at times, precisely this curse. So Georg Hegel: 'An idea is always a generalisation, and generalisation is a property of thinking. To generalise means to think'. " --M.C. Steenberg,

To put it in premodern language, a generalization can refer either to a universal, or to propositions we make involving universals. We are created in such a way that our minds soak up universals, or "forms" from the world around us. These universals become the concepts which fill our minds, as we grasp what kind of thing we are in relationship with. For example, we  might entertain the concepts "Chair," "Table," "legs" and "four."

We then combine those concepts to form propositions, uniting or dividing them. Thus, we might  combine concepts and make the following statements, or propositions:

        “The chair has four legs.”  or “The table has four legs.”

Or we might "divide" the concepts, and make the following propositions: 
 
          "The table does not have four legs.”   or  “A chair is not a table.”

Finally, we can use propositions  to make arguments, linking them together according to the rules of logic. Depending upon how we do it, and how well we do it, our arguments will be sound or not; or cogent or not. For example,

                    The chair has four legs.
                    The table has four legs.
                    Therefore the chair is a table.
or
                    If this is a chair,  I can use it to sit on.
                    This is a chair.
                    Therefore I can use it to sit on.

God has given us a great gift: "ratio," our ability to abstract concepts, to relate them in propositions, and to create arguments. I don't often find myself in agreement with Hegel, but on this he is correct:  'An idea is always a generalisation, and generalisation is a property of thinking. To generalise means to think.' Of course, the  activities of discursive reason do not exhaust all the intellectual gifts that he has given us. Intuition (or "intellectus,") --that immediate, personal, non-discursive apprehension of what is real and therefore true, good, and beautiful--is another incredible gift.  Let us not fear or neglect either way of thinking.

A Premodern "We Told You So"

via Brad's highlights: more support for intellectus. I get such a kick out of these "breakthroughs." ; )

Swede Cracks the Code of Intuition

After having researched the body of neurological literature, Björklund was able to solve the riddle of intuition in that human beings have two systems for receiving and analyzing sensory impressions - a conscious and an unconscious.

Contained within the unconscious we have an album of pictures, images and sensory signals that we use to compare against new information received and analyzed by the systems of the brain. We store up both images and memories of previous experiences and this helps us to predict the outcome of similar, new situations that we face.

"It can be smells, gestures, a complex combination of impressions which prompts that which we call intuition, to tell us something specific," according to Björklund.

An actual engagement with the task in hand is required to stimulate these impressions and contribute to the image bank in our brains and thereby build up a store of unconscious sensory impressions.

"We can never attain this knowledge and capabilities that we need in our working lives by reading or counting. Practical experience is indispensable and needs to be revalued."

"We need to see, feel, smell, hear, taste and experience with our senses. This data collection can not be replaced with, for example, the study of literature," Björklund argued in the conclusion to his thesis.

Which Side Do You Use?

More on right brain (intellectus) left brain (ratio)

Take the test: Which Side Do You Use?

Here I am:

Type of Cognitive Processing

Holistic: Processing information from whole to part; sees the big picture first, not the details.

Random: Processing information with out priority, jumps form one task to another.

Concrete: Processes things that can be seen , or touched - real objects.

Intuitive: Processes information based on whether or not it feels right know answer but not sure how it was derived.

Nonverbal: Processes thought as illustrations.

Fantasy-Oriented: Processes information with creativity; less focus on rules and regulations

The Importance of Godly Analysis: making distinctions to preserve real unity

Scot McKnight has a post discussing whether "emerging" should be distinguished from "emergent." In it, he refers to an article in the June, 2008 issue of Missional Journal, by David Dunbar of Biblical Seminary.

Dunbar writes,

In the previous Missional Journal I began sorting though some of the distinctions between the missional, emerging, and emergent groups. While these categories are not sharp-edged, they definitely have different flavors. In this article I will try to tease apart emerging and emergent.

Some would question whether this distinction is even appropriate. Tony Jones, national coordinator of Emergent Village, has recently blogged his objection:

“. . . people are making a huge mistake, methinks, because they are perpetuating the very modern mistake of separation and fragmentation. . . . Drawing lines and defending borders never ends well for the line-drawers because before you know it, someone has drawn a line right behind your heels and, guess what, you’re suddenly on the other side of the line with me.” Well, yes, but map-makers do draw lines and not always with sinister intent. The question is whether there are discernible differences; I believe there are.

I agree with Dunbar. Satan is always happy whenever we "miss the mark," that mean between extremes of excess or deficiency.
Elsewhere, I have written about those my friend Carrie has labeled "water samplers," people who stand on the edge of the Water of Life and refuse to drink it, or dive in, but instead are content merely to analyze it. That is one extreme. And yes, sadly it is all too often the case that analyzers tend to be pharasaical.

But it seems to me that Tony Jones represents another extreme: the refusal to engage in the authentically human activity of analysis, period. He perpetuates the very postmodern mistake of conflating discernment with judgementalism. There's a baby out there crying because she got thrown out with the bathwater. If modernism emphasized "distinguer," postmodernism emphasizes its opposite, "unir"

Dunbar does us a service to point out that not all distinctions are made out of sinister, ulterior motives. Wisdom, understanding, and life pleasing to the Lord depend upon our ability to analyze arguments and situations, in order to make distinctions. Otherwise, what do we do with the following scriptures? Conveniently ignore them? Sweep them under a postmodern rug of artificial unity? Consign them to a premodern worldview that is passe?

Leviticus 10:10

You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean

1 Kings 3:9

[Solomon's prayer] So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?"

Proverbs 3:20-22

My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight; they will be life for you, an ornament to grace your neck.

Proverbs 10:13

Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks judgment.

Judges 24:15

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

Ezekiel 22:26

Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

Philippians 1:9-11

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.

1 Cor. 2:11-13

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words

1 Cor. 12:9-11

...to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

Hebrews 5:13-14

Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Both-and thinking

It's finally happening. Protestants are beginning to acknowledge that the "either/or" thinking of the solas is insufficient for faithfully following Jesus Christ. I encountered it again today, reading Scot McKnight's review of Anthony Thisleton's The Hermeneutics of Doctrine:

This dense summary of Thiselton's argument implies that both Paul and James got it right, and that confessing a creed is an affirmation that we not only speak, but one we perform. Thus, belief in evangelical statements of faith today involves our entire being as we join others to look after not only what we confess, but also how we perform our confession. In fact, one of the more fascinating elements of seeing belief as disposition is that the one who believes is also one who defends a doctrine when denied. A disposition of belief involves defending one's beliefs. Some don't need to be told this today; many do. Belief involves "taking a stand" for someone and something and doing so with others as we, the people of God, take a stand for the gospel in a world that doesn't embrace that gospel. But our defense is not just words; it is dispositional in that it too is performed.

Louis Bouyer was affirming this over fifty years ago...and Thomas Aquinas was affirming it nearly a thousand years ago, and before them, Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Intellectual virtue without moral virtue is lame;
moral virtue without intellectual virtue is blind.

Today, "Emergents" are on to something big. If only they would realize that they don't have to reinvent the wheel! Intellectual virtue, the foundation for both-and thinking, depends on hitting the mean between the extremes of ratio and intellectus. As I have written before, modernists idolize ratio; postmodernists idolize intellectus. By claiming their intellectual and moral heritage, emergents have a chance to save time and energy, and display a disposition for authentic moral and intellectual humility. Will they do so? Or will they become so preoccupied with their journeys that they forget there is a Jerusalem?

Simone Weil put it succinctly:

"To always be relevant, you must say things that are eternal."

And not just say them. We must be and do them.

The Blogging Spectrum

Continuing this idea of diagrams: here is a blogger who offers a classification scheme for the blogosphere. Instead of asking what color is your parachute, this diagram suggests the question, "What color is your blog?" (I think I'm green.)

Note to self, and to those who hope to use the internet as a tool for deconstructing ratio: "The left brains ye shall have always with you!"

To be or not to be: Linear or non-linear?

The blogging waters have recently been stirred by two very different topics which both share much the same methodology. It has been fascinating watching the responses.

First, there is Scot Knight's recent post, "Mapping Emerging" presenting Michael Patton's chart on orthodoxy and emergents. Brad at PIBC, Steve McKnight at Emergent Village and Earl Barnett have provided loci for discussion.

Then, James Choung presents the gospel in three minutes through a diagram on You Tube. (If you don't have time to watch the whole presentation, there's a write-up of this diagram on PDF.) Several blogs, including Kim's and Rick's give it high praise.

What is fascinating to me is that Patton's diagram has received lots of criticism for it's "linear" thinking (anticipating this, Scot wrote, "Yes, we all have our opinions about charts...") whereas Choung's diagram has not. Now, it is one thing to criticize the WAY Patton has drawn his chart (Brad rightly asks "how did Carson become the center of Orthodoxy?") but it is another thing to dismiss the whole endeavor of diagramming as "linear," and a completely other thing to criticize one diagram as linear while refraining from criticizing another diagram for the same "intellectual sin."

So I'm trying to figure this out. Can you help me? Is it the case that the folks who are down on the "linear" Patton diagram haven't yet seen the Choung diagram, and given the chance, will reject it as well? Or is it the case that the Choung diagram, being on YouTube, is perceived as more "relational" and "right brain" than the Patton diagram, which is not on YouTube? What is going on?

(Frankly, I like being able to work with both pictures/diagrams and ideas. It's even better when you can use them to lay out a position and then engage in a conversation/debate/dialogue. So, I have no problem with diagramming. The fun begins when you try to match the diagram to reality. Being Premodern, I'm thanking God for both sides of my brain and am praying that He will help me use it all for His glory. )

New Life: Victims and Water Sampling

I had a wonderful time with an old friend last night. We spoke about many things, but I especially want to remember these two:

1) VICTIMHOOD

It is part of our fallenness to presume that we are victims and so fixate on our own sacrifices. But salvation comes when we quit looking at ourselves, and focus on Christ, the Perfect Victim who gave the only sacrifice that really matters. This is the only way to escape the tomb of self, and receive His new life.

2) WATER SAMPLING

My friend has had it up to here with what she calls "water samplers," those who stand on the edge of the Water of Life and refuse to drink it, or dive in, but instead are content merely to analyze it.

She has a point. Following Christ is not just an act of ratio, of discursive reason; God has created us to be creatures with intellectus. Our intuition is a gift to be received and celebrated, and not supressed. The Christian life is not meant to be lived in the third person, but first person. And first person plural.

But Satan is pleased whenever we miss the Mark, and fasten to the extremes. Just like we need to actually take the plunge, so we need to be doing regular checks to make sure the lake we are jumping into isn't a pool of toxic waste. So it is just as dangerous to be a daredevil as to be a water sampler.

In our fallenness we are fascinated with these extremes, and the Enemy delights in tricking us into mistaking them for faithfulness. Lord, as we rebel against the deficiencies of modernism, let us not overshoot your Mark and land in the excesses of postmodernism.

Chronos and Kairos

Yesterday an exhange with Donn Johnson on his blog started me wondering about the venerable distinction between "chronos" and "kairos."

The lie of modernism is that chronos is a god worthy of worship.

The lie of postmodernism is that we can each create our own kairos.

The truth of premodernism is that chronos is of lesser importance than kairos, and that kairos is always a gift, not something we are able to produce of ourselves. Rather, it is something which we can only receive from God.

( "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." -- James 1:17)

Fr. Patrick Reardon in his article, "Chronos and Kairos" explains the distinction between these two ways of understanding time in terms of "quantity" and "quality." See http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/ReardonChronos.php.

I see them as related to two ways of knowing: ratio (discursive reason) and intellectus (intuitive, non-discursive reason). Ratio can only take place in chronos time, because it moves step by step, from premises to conclusion. Intellectus transcends chronos time, thus the seeming "timelessness" and "fullness" of that sort of knowledge.

We live in a world that operates according to twisted notions of time; either idolizing it or idolizing ourselves through it. Josef Pieper gives the ratio-intellectus distinction in his Leisure the Basis of Culture; I wonder if he ever made the connection to these two ways of understanding time?