Welcome, everyone.
My name is doctor Steven Grundmann.
I teach integrative studies in our doctorate in psychology program, and I'll be your emcee tonight.
And now I invite our president, father Charles Sikorsky, to open us in prayer.
Well, thank you, doctor Grundmann.
This I'd also just like to quickly welcome doctor Eric Johnson to Divine Mercy University.
We're very excited to have you with us this evening.
You'll be speaking to our faculty, students, staff, friends, and, co travelers on this great mission that we have.
And, I had the the grace and blessing to meet doctor Johnson last year down in Houston at Houston Baptist University where he where he works in doing great things down there in in bringing an integrative approach to counseling and psychology, and we're just very blessed and honored to have him with us, this evening.
So let's begin with a prayer in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy spirit.
Amen.
Heavenly father, who's created all things with great love, with great wisdom, created the earth, the universe, and at the center, the human person.
And at the center as well, each and every one of us, who are made in your image and your likeness, body, mind, soul.
We thank you for the great gift of life, of existence, and the great gift of the mission and the purpose that you give to each of our lives.
Wanna pray that your holy spirit will guide us this evening, stimulate our minds and our hearts, and help it help this evening to be a a way to help us to commit more deeply to follow you each and every day of our lives.
We pray for our speaker that you strengthen him, with the grace and wisdom, to communicate your intelligence and your love.
And, also, we pray that, all those who are committed to spreading and building your kingdom in this field of psychology mental health, that we work together to really strengthen our culture to make to help people to understand who they truly are, what their true good is, and what their eternal destiny is.
So we ask and thank you for this opportunity.
Pray in a special way for all those who are suffering from mental illness, emotional problems, difficult interpersonal situations.
We pray for them, for their healing, for the grace and strength for them to overcome the obstacles that they're they're battling with, that they're struggling with right now.
We ask all these things in the name in the name of your son, our lord Jesus Christ.
In the name of the father, and the son, and the holy spirit.
Amen.
Thank you so much, father Charles.
Tonight's presentation is part of the Newman lecture series, which features speakers who are widely recognized, series, which features speakers who are widely recognized for their contributions to the fields of psychology, moral and political philosophy, theology, and law.
This lecture series is held under the sponsorship of Divine Mercy University and seeks to promote an international conversation among various disciplines that treat the human person.
Each lecture series is published with an eye toward building a body of learned discussion that is Catholic both in its breadth of research and its dialogue with contemporary Catholic Christian thought.
And I'd like to announce tonight our speaker.
Eric l Johnson is professor of Christian psychology at the Gideon Institute of Christian psychology and counseling at Houston Baptist University.
Prior to this position, he taught psychology, worldview studies, and Christian counseling for twenty eight years.
Eric is currently working on the third edition of psychology and Christianity, five views, and he co edited evidence based practices for Christian counseling and psychotherapy and marriage, its foundation, theology, and mission in a changing world.
In addition, he has written over 60 peer reviewed journal articles or chapters, as well as foundations for soul care, a Christian psychology proposal, and God and Soul Care, the Therapeutic Resources of the Christian Faith.
And he was a coauthor of Christian Psychotherapy in Context.
His wife is Rebecca.
They have two children and three grandchildren, and they love traveling to Europe.
Please join me in welcoming doctor Eric Johnson.
Thank you.
Doctor Johnson.
Thank you, doctor Grudman.
It's such a pleasure to be here.
I I can't tell you on how many levels I'm, just just very happy, very filled with happiness.
I've had such a great esteem for your institution and, particularly, delighted to be in a series that is celebrating the career of Paul Vitz, who has been a a a hero.
I I you know, I'd like to call him a mentor from afar, because I've I've been so encouraged by his work over the years.
So, yeah, I'm just I'm just thrilled to be here.
And part of the, the delight has to do with the the fact that this past, year, I, with some friends actually, went had a a reading group, and we and we read through the meta model for of the person.
And, you know, I I, I I had good reason to think it was gonna be great having read a lot of the literature that that, you folks have been producing at DMU.
But, I I I think we were all knocked off our feet in to just to see the thoroughness with which, and understanding of the person was being articulated by, by psychologists and, taking seriously philosophy and theology.
So, yeah, I've I, I'm just just deeply thankful to be here and to to be to be participating.
So, might just mention that if you're interested in, in in questions, there will be some time for, questions and comments.
I I love dialogue, and I'd love to get some feedback on some of the things that we're gonna be talking about.
So so please, keep this in mind.
My focus today is gonna be on what I'm calling form psychology.
And I, modified the title a little bit, after I I first sent it out, that, I I'm I'm calling this now a a meta model for becoming a whole person, not to take anything away from from, this wonderful book that I've already mentioned, but rather to build on on that, because I when I when I read this, I I saw so many linkages with with work that I've been doing, myself, though though so much more well developed in so many ways.
But I what I wanted to do is to focus particularly on, one of the the themes of the meta model.
But, before I do that, I I I let me just say again, how much I've appreciated this man, going back to psychology of self worship, which was, you know, maybe one of your first books, doctor Bitz, but but was really a lightning rod for so many of us who who who sensed the things that you were saying there.
And, yet, this was the first book that I was aware of that articulated them, with from a psychological standpoint that was just so helpful.
And and, I I also wanna rave just for a moment about Sigmund Freud's Christian unconscious, which, you know, I can't I I can't speak highly enough of that work doing original research, but but also, if I can put it this way, psychoanalyzing Freud from a Christian worldview standpoint.
And, I I I, there there, you know, there are many other things that we could, that I I could talk about, but these two works in particular, have been just deeply encouraging to me throughout my much of my career.
And, and then and then to to to read the meta model this year and to see that as a culmination of of your work as as well as the work of other folks at DMU, just god bless you.
Thank you, god.
Thank I I'm thankful to god for for for all that you've done for us, for me and for so many of us that are here and around the world that aren't that aren't here.
So as I as I suggested, the the theme that that is particularly I'm gonna be sort of resonating with this evening is this, the notion that's very important.
It's so so important it warrants a chapter in the book that the person is a personal unity.
I'm just gonna read an a a number of the quotes, that are related to this from the from the Meta Model book.
Each person is a personal unity and individual substance with unique human, moral, and spiritual goals or ends.
A person's unity or wholeness comprises the physical body and the spiritual soul as a physical philosophical source for understanding the gift of human life, personal identity, meaningfulness, and dignity.
And then the last quote I'm gonna read is this model recognizes the development over time of the organic whole and unique identity of each person who also is culturally, historically, and ecologically situated.
And and this model challenges the individualist the individualist, reductionist, relativist, and dualist approaches to the person often found in certain strains of philosophy and psychology.
Well, I I I I wanna gee, I that that I just so resonate with that and and have wondered since what is it about the Christian worldview that draws us to to want to emphasize personal unity.
Yeah, because this just when I as I read this this, these these sentences and the and the chapter in particular, I just thought, you know, I I don't see this emphasis so much in modern psychology.
And, I, you know, I think there are reasons for that.
I think there are limitations, to modern psychology.
They're they're, some of their underlying assumptions.
Again, not everyone, of course, in in the field, but but speaking generally about modern psychology, there is a individualist and reductionist, relativist, dualist approach.
I I wanna add a degree of positivism that still is very, very strong that sees the natural science methods as really the key to understanding human beings.
And I wanna suggest I'm not gonna defend this, this evening, but I wanna suggest that that a commitment, a kind of exclusivist commitment to natural science methods that you find in modern psychology, I think, makes it difficult to comprehend the whole person.
And and and I think because a Christian worldview doesn't have some of the same constraints, it it has tended to, draw Christians to want to emphasize more the whole person because we realize that's a really important characteristic of human beings.
So, I wanna ask this question.
What if psychology were shaped more by its object, human beings, rather than natural science methods?
And, I would like to suggest that if if that were the the case, that then human science methods, which, of course, many people are open to, but it's just not given the, there's not an openness to human science methods as much as there is to natural science methods, as well as other legitimate sources of relevant knowledge that could be critically synthesized with the contributions of modern psychology.
Or we might say the contributions available to us through natural science methods, including the work of other disciplines like literature, philosophy, and theology, human experience, values, and ethical and spiritual experience, common sense, and natural law perspectives, as well as everyday discourse, including things like testimony, the value of testimony, and the value of sacred texts.
I think were such, an openness to occur in contemporary psychology, cultural psychology would also become a more influential subdiscipline than it currently is.
Although, of course, some people do do take it seriously.
I think it would grow in importance.
And implicit contextual influences would be recognized as foundational to human life as well as to psychological science, factors like embodiment, worldview beliefs that are extremely important in the human sciences, like psychology, but are largely ignored, in contemporary psychology.
The social imaginary and narrative.
Again, it's not to say that nobody's paying attention to these features.
It's just that it's a minority approach, It's a minority view that is open to these as well as, more traditional, natural science empirical research.
And I think this would lead to a synthesis that that would contribute to a a more comprehensive, richer, and more pluralistic psychology than the contemporary version that we're all committed to participating in.
And here, I'm gonna make a rather bold statement.
I wonder what what, those of you participating think of this.
Perhaps we can talk about it at the end.
I think this would allow for a very for for very different kinds of psychology.
Psychologies that are based on different world views than the world view of naturalism or materialism, which really is the dominant worldview in our day, including, can I say, a Catholic Christian psychology?
Now I'm not suggesting that that's what is is being, proposed in in the meta model of the person.
Maybe this is a little bit more my own, desire, to to work on a Christian psychology, but I had to I had to say it the way it was said, because I'm so appreciative of, of of a Catholic Christian agenda, honestly.
We could talk about what Catholic means, you know, maybe in the question and answer time too, but I but I certainly, am deeply appreciative of the Catholic tradition, in the great tradition, and, consider myself a a student, eager to learn more.
So what what is a form psychology?
Well, we have to begin with what is a form.
This concept is, as I suspect you know very well, has a rich heritage in Western thought.
Aristotle, wasn't the first to use it, but he distinguished between form and matters.
You probably all know, arguing that form is the particular organization of the matter of a natural being, which it shares in common with other similar beings.
He believed that a human soul was the form of the body of a particular individual, and I I think I'm I'm far from knowledgeable in these matters, but I think Aquinas basically accepted Aristotle's understanding in this area.
But I'm happy to to learn more today.
In in our day, form can mean a visible shape or configuration as well as the essential nature of a species of a thing, and its synonyms are whole, structure, scheme, pattern, system, and gestalt.
I will be using form in a very specific way to refer to a pattern or a configuration of the features of the whole human person.
And I think that there may be a number of forms of the human person.
I think there are multiple forms of the human person.
So I'm obviously stretching what Aristotle and Aquinas was getting at, though I think you'll see that I'm actually agreeing with them and maybe I hope I'm expanding and elaborating on, the notion of the soul as form.
But I I think there are many forms of the form, if I can if I can put it that way, including the body, personality, the self, and and some other ones that we're gonna look at briefly, communion, narrative, character, and the Imago Dei.
And I think I didn't finish that sentence, so we'll move on.
So now I'm gonna go through a list of the forms that I that that, inform a form psychology.
And I think we're gonna look at maybe seven or eight of them today.
The first, we we're we're gonna start with the body.
The the living body is a material form.
It is a person's location in space, their physical presence, and we might say one's sight of engagement with the world and others in in this life.
One's living body, however, is an object among other objects.
And so I wanna distinguish something that some phenomenologists have been talking about, the flesh.
The flesh, by contrast, is an invisible form, like all of the other forms that we're gonna look at.
The flesh is the experience of one's living body, the living body from within, we might say, an ongoing unity of impressions, affections, and initiatives in the course of life.
Can I say the the embodied soul with nothing else added when we when we refer to the form of the flesh?
I wanna suggest that the the most important part of the flesh is the heart.
I'm speaking of the heart psychological heart, which is, we might say, the depth and center of the soul out of which precedes our emotions, our values, and as we develop our loves, our virtues, and, yes, our worship.
And because the Holy Spirit comes to live in in the heart, in the flesh, in the body, when we are regenerated, all of that is changed, I think.
I I think all of that is affected by the holy spirit who dwells in in our innermost being, in the heart.
The living body and the flesh, therefore, are corollary forms, material holes of the human person, originary and basic and inextricably united in their materiality.
Excuse me.
Alright.
Well, let's keep going to, another form.
Personality architecture.
I borrow this term from Servone, a social cognitive personality theorist, but just the term to to label Myers Mayer's model of personality.
John Mayer is a wonderful personality psychologist in our day.
And from his viewpoint, he would define personality psychology as the study of how psychological systems are organized into a whole.
What is that whole?
Well, I wanna suggest that whole could be labeled with Servone's term personality architecture.
That architecture includes all the psychological components of the soul, including sensory, motor, cognitive, linguistic, affective, volitional, relational, artistic, ethical.
We could go on and on.
We need to include the spiritual systems and their subsystems common to all mature human beings.
I'm speaking about the adult, you know, mature formation.
Of course, human development studies how all of these, systems and subsystems develop over time.
And and personality architecture, of course, also has to consider their grounding in neurological structures and in the living body.
Perhaps we could liken the study of personality architecture and psychology to human anatomy and biology and medicine.
However, it's the lowest level of at least the, invisible forms.
I I have to qualify that given the fact that I I talked about the flesh.
But, but I but I'm saying that in comparison to the other forms that we're gonna look at for it's almost entirely an abstraction far removed from most of human life.
We could talk about it conceptually, but it's hard to get a handle on that in in everyday life.
And I just I think that's a very important feature of a of a human science like psychology that we need to attend to.
Well, next, let's consider personality signature.
This term is borrowed from Daniel McAdams and, particularly one article where he highlights, the concept, with with pals.
Can't remember her first name.
But to refer to an individual's relatively unique configuration of cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and relational dispositions that are relatively stable across situations and over time, and that tend to distinguish one individual from others.
This is what most of us think of when we think of the word personality.
And, of course, this is so fascinating and interesting and has captured a lot a fair amount of attention over the, last hundred and fifty years in modern psychology that, interest has ebbed and flowed.
And I think we're in a time where it's still fairly, less of interest than I'd say was in the fifties and sixties.
But, we're all aware, I'm sure, of the most well supported model of personality signature, which is the five factor model.
I won't go into that, but I I just want you to know that those are the kinds of things that would be considered in in a discussion of personality signature.
Wanna move, next to the self as a form, but, actually, as two forms.
There's I think two forms of the self have been identified in the history of of human thought.
Mature humans have the capacity to be aware of and reflect upon themselves.
Many psychologists, therefore, over the centuries, have distinguished between the I self, the knowing agentic self, the self as subject, and the me self.
All that one knows and feels about oneself, especially what's one is conscious of, sometimes called one's self representation, sometimes termed the self as object.
A distinction has been recognized to this day by some of the leading modern self psychologists.
So the self as object or as self representation.
One's self representation consists of the sum of one's knowledge and one's self knowledge and one's self evaluations, including various domains of oneself representation, like one's appearance self.
The the the the knowledge and evaluation I have of how I appear to to my to myself in the mirror and to and to others, my physical self in that sense.
But also my athletic self is different from my appearance self.
So I might not be very attractive physically, but I might be very, given to sports, very good basketball player, for example.
So my athletic self could be I could feel really happy about that and not so happy about my appearance.
So, we also have a social self, an intellectual self.
Susan Harder has identified, I think, in adulthood over 20 of these domains of self representation.
And so all of that would go into how we view ourselves as an object, as well as one's future selves.
And I think parts of oneself that we become aware of, in in adulthood, like one's false self, All of that would be included in one's self as object, one's self representation.
All of this is a form I'm suggesting.
It's a whole of the person that has been, I kind of identified, separated out, recognized as, having certain unique features.
And it differs from, in some respects, from the self as subject or what I like to term personal agent.
The self as subject refers to the sense that mature humans have of being an alive, conscious, embodied, self aware, unique, rational, volitional, moral, and relatively free source of their own actions, a center of being as it were for which I'm I'm sorry.
I should have finished the sentence.
A free source of their own actions for which they are responsible, but but also the sense that that mature humans have of being the center of their, of who they are.
Many terms are used for this form, but the one I've settled on is personal agent.
Well, some contemporary psychologists began to investigate this form.
Most, I think, mainstream modern psychologists would say it belongs in philosophy because of of the the quality of subjectivity that many of its features entail.
Well, let's move to character.
I think another striking contribution of the meta model of the person is the work that's been done in that book on character.
And I don't have to tell you, how how special that work is, but I I just wanna let you know I'm I see it, and I appreciate it.
And, it's it's a major contribution.
And and character is a form too.
It's a it's a it's a a perspective on the whole person.
I would say an aspect of the whole person.
Character is a form in two related but distinct ways.
First, as the tapestry of one's virtues and vices, one's morally significant dispositions at a given point in time.
And second, I would say we you we often use the term in a very different way, but also an important way as the tell us of one's moral development.
And we may have may have that more or less well articulated.
We may be more or less self aware of what that is, but it operates at some conscious, semiconscious, unconscious level guiding human life, I think.
Personal agency, we should add, the form of personal agency determines to some extent the shape of one's character.
And that's an interesting, distinction, I think, to that we could tease out.
You know?
I'm suggesting that two forms are I think they're all interrelated, of course.
But in a very special way, person the form of personal agency, is extremely influential on the shape, the form of character.
Like personal agency, this this form has been more the focus of philosophy over the centuries than the work of modern psychology.
That's certainly been the case until this century, this particular century, in in in the advent of positive psychology when, in year 2000, that that movement, that discipline, we maybe could say call it, began investigating the virtues.
And, gee, it was very clear that, folks at DMU are really appreciative and really contributing to the field of positive psychology as as I as I have and and and do, very much.
But I also wanna mention here that positive psychology has given very little consideration to character as a whole.
As we think about the many, you know, hundreds of studies now that have been done in positive psychology, they primarily are focusing on virtues, which, of course, is really important and sent foundational to our understanding of character, constitutive of our understanding of character.
Yes.
That's true.
But it's it's hard to find actual treatments of the subject of character, at least, that I'm aware of.
And I'd really be very happy to find exceptions to that.
But, that's my understanding thus far.
Moreover, the fact that every moral tradition and commute or or community has its own telos suggests a need for greater pluralism within this discipline of positive psychology, perhaps leading to a change in the label someday, positive psychologies.
I I think someday that that ought to become more present in the literature.
It's there, and there are some people who are more, aware of it than others.
But I think contemporary positive psychology still is has a modern bias towards a kind of tradition neutral approach, a tradition kind of gen development of a kind of generic approach to human beings that ignores moral traditions and communities.
And and and while there are exceptions to that, I think this will be a significant advance that I'm I I suggest or that I I suspect, that the folks listening today, would agree, needs to grow and develop, into a a more pluralistic appreciation for how important community is in the formation of character.
Communion, I think, is another form.
Let me explain.
It's a it's a form different than all the others in that it's essentially social, consisting of any significant relationship between at least two humans.
Now I've I've jumped into an another dimension here, in in this way, and I I I need more time to really unpack what this means because I've kind of violated the maybe we could say the the rules that have guided the previous, definitions of form, so much.
Because, really, I'm suggesting that that every relationship a person has could be seen as a form, could be seen as a kind of communion, and therefore, there would be multiple forms of communion.
And, gee, that that just that requires a lot more explanation than I have the time to give it today.
But, let me let me add that this form may seem counterintuitive to everything I've said up to this point.
I think particularly from an individualistic Western standpoint.
But the concept of form applies to any whole, historically, and then even in the word the way we use the word.
So all the holes that we know are compounds of some sort or other.
And while it might be a jump, I don't think it's a big jump.
It it I think it reflects what Brett Slife has called a strong relational view of humanity, where sociality is not an add on feature to the individual, but it's constitutive of human beings.
And I I know having read the meta model, of the person book that the folks at DMU feel at least similarly as I, if not identical to what I I'm not certainly suggesting that you would necessarily agree with this assertion I'm making here, but but I know that there that you resonate with this sense of a strong you have a strong relational view of humanity as well.
And and and I was delighted to see that theme throughout the the book.
Gee.
Why?
Because Christianity is a strongly relational worldview for many reasons, but perhaps, ultimately, we can say because the trinity is our transcendent archetype, if I can use that word in that way.
It it it but at at any rate, the the this form I'm calling communion, it encompasses gender and sexual dynamics, marital and family bonds, friendship, power and mutuality, interpersonal boundaries, obligations to the other degrees of intimacy and differentiation.
I could go on and on, of course.
And then maybe the last thing I could say is that the telos of communion is love.
Well, let's move on to another sort of controversial kind of form because this is also different than all the others, at least in the way that I've talked about them so far.
Narrative.
Narrative because it's a in intrinsically temporal form.
And let me just quote Daniel McAdams, one of the great narrative psychologists of our day.
Life stories organize disparate experience into integrated wholes, Centered in the present, anchored in the past, and anticipating the future, the form of narrative increases in complexity over the lifespan.
And and I wanna suggest this is a little tricky, but and I don't have time to unpack it, but it's derived from one's real life embodied existential drama.
I think there's a a an important distinction to be made between one's narrative and one's drama.
But, the narrative is what we kinda carry around with us.
The drama is what we're living.
But but the narrative is what we carry around with us, and it's a form that develops over time derived from our drama.
But that narrative should become increasingly well integrated over the course of our lives unless it's been hampered by trauma.
And, of course, there's been some wonderful work over the last twenty years in understanding how trauma inhibits the development of a healthy narrative because of it, research on attachment and its, unfolding effects throughout life and and and the impediments to, to, the to a healthy narrative, that are the result of a a insecure attachment early in life.
But, nonetheless, a narrative as a whole, and, I would argue a kind of form of the person.
The last one that we're gonna talk about today is Imago Dei.
Imago Dei has been understood in different ways over the centuries as as we all know, but I think we could boil them all down to two.
To human resemblance to god in many of its facets.
Of course, theologians and philosophers probably argue about about that, you know, what's most important in that resemblance.
We won't go there tonight today.
But, also, I think a very important, other way that the image of God has been understood that is very important for for so many reasons, because it's less static than than the first, discussion tends to be, is the intentional reflection of God.
I think it was maybe Irenaeus was the first one to identify that.
But this intentional reflection of God, the Imago Dei as a as a mirror of what we receive from God in worship in in that wonderful term that I've read from so many Catholics, active receptivity, in love, and it's in in accountability.
All of that is a part of this intentional reflection of God, I think.
And so, this too is a whole.
It's a form, I think.
The Imago Dei is a form.
It's the highest form, I think, from a Christian standpoint.
It's we might say it's the fulfillment of all the other forms.
In some sense, perhaps all the other forms feed into this highest form in some sense.
To love god supremely entails loving all creatures in relation to him, including oneself and living accordingly.
And so the Imago Dei is a, we might say, a master psychological concept for a Christian psychology.
This form then gives a sense of transcendent unity and meaningfulness to human life, the neglect of which we theist believe is disastrous for human beings in the long run.
And where shall I go next, but to talk about Jesus?
The son of God, we're told, exists in the form of God, but became flesh and now exists in human form, morphe.
As the image of God, Jesus Christ in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension is the archetype and telos of humanity in in a sense qualified properly, of course, after whom all human beings were patterned and according to which their lives are to be conformed.
Form psychology, I'll tell you, was inspired by the great twentieth century Catholic theologian, Hans von Balthazar, who referred to Jesus Christ in his one of his great works, the volume one of the glory of the Lord as the form of all forms.
The gift of God who united God and humanity for all eternity in in his own person, who is now reconciling humanity to God and offering transcendent meaning and purpose to all human beings.
A Christian form psychology sees Christ as its foundation, as its center, and as its end.
So we've covered a a lot of territory, in in our time together.
Let us summarize, the features of the form, which I hope will help clarify the definition because I didn't give much of a definition at the beginning.
The forms, I would suggest in maybe I don't know.
I don't know if I wanna stick to this.
I came up with this this week, and I might change my mind next week, or after our conversation, later.
The form but I'm this is what what I said, earlier this week when I was preparing this, slide.
The forms supervene on the soul.
Maybe maybe that's true.
Maybe that makes sense.
The forms supervene on the soul and the and forms in the soul.
Maybe the the the forms and the form of the soul supervene on the body.
I don't know.
Try that out.
Help me out if if if you don't think that that works.
But here's here's some other considerations of the fee of features of the form.
The forms share some features with each form, shares some features with other forms.
But but but each form is a unique configuration of the soul.
It's a unique configuration, I should say, of the of features of the soul.
The soul would would be that which encompasses all the features of our invisible immaterial nature.
But each form would be a particular configuration, so we might say a set of features of the soul.
And, yeah, and I and we should add, you know, maybe there's there's some that we haven't figured out yet.
Maybe someday we'll find another form.
I don't know.
But at least the ones that we've looked at have been identified as, what I'm calling forms that that that humans are capable of discerning.
God, of course, knows the soul better than any human being, and perhaps there are forms that he knows of that we don't see a a configuration of features that we're not capable of discerning, but I'll leave that up to more speculative types.
Some forms are not identifiable.
This is very important, feat a summary of features of of a form, I think.
That some forms are not identifiable without a sufficient degree of human maturity.
And and, boy, I'm I said a lot there because that's intrinsically critical of of some, versions of psychology.
I I you know, I'm saying human maturity, and and I know that's a that's loaded.
I'm speaking about that human maturity from a a Christian standpoint.
But on the other hand, I think it's it's true.
This is certainly reflected in the virtues tradition that, that in order to to to see certain things, one has to have a certain kind of character.
And that's all I'm really saying.
But that I think that's one reason why modern psychology is thus far incapable at least most, you know, mainstream modern psychology is incapable of of seeing certain forms.
They they their their worldview prevents them a naturalistic worldview prevents them from being able to see, patterns of the soul that, folks who have a a a more elaborate, a fuller, more comprehensive worldview are unable to see.
And so I I don't speak out of I don't want to speak out of any pride or or suggest that Christians are somehow better than than than anyone else.
That's not my point, at all.
But but but there's a point to be made here that I think needs to be stated.
Each form is irreducible to the others, I think.
They can be ordered according to their respective meaningfulness and ontological and human value.
Now I'm not suggesting I did that this evening because I'm not suggesting that that the body and the flesh are necessarily the lowest forms.
I don't really believe they are, but so the order that I presented them in is not necessarily that order.
I'm just suggesting that I think there's some work to be done in in reflecting on that and and, seeking to discern their their respective meaningfulness and ontological and human value.
Some forms are more important to us to become the kind of person that that we are to become, that god is calling us to become.
They vary also in the degree to which they are knowable through a first person perspective, a second person perspective, and a third pers perspective.
And all of them are teleological in some sense.
And we all are aware that this is an area that, modern psychology has neglected, unfortunately, for the most part over the last hundred years or more.
Well, let me take another step into controversy, but but but I but I but I wanna I wanna do so, knowing the risk.
A potential but let me admit the reason why I wanna go here.
A potential problem for reform psychology is how do we understand the whole person?
Are we not left with a set of holes and and maybe made made our you know, if I if I complain about the fragmentation of modern thought and modern psychology, maybe I've just created my own fragmentation here, right, with this set of forms lacking a wholeness.
So I wanna disagree.
That's not that's it's actually the opposite conclusion that I hope people will draw from this conversation.
And let me suggest that this these would be my, some of my arguments.
Human life is constrained by an essential unity that is intrinsically greater than the sum of its forms, I you know, than the sum of its parts.
But but in this case, what I wanna suggest is that the essential unity of the person is greater than the sum of its forms.
Secondly, you and I experience a fundamental you oneness to our to our being.
And and I I'm not giving much evidence for it in this in this slide, but but we all know it to be the case.
And if we work in, study psychology, we know that much of psychology is is studying that sense of oneness, this integration, this this this power almost that the soul has been endowed with.
In fact, I think I call it that way.
Yeah.
Let let me let me move on.
So let me let me read that again.
Humans experience a fundamental oneness to our being beginning with their originary experience from birth that simply develops in complexity over their lifespan, span, disrupted only by sin and exposure to the insults of a fallen world that can disrupt that certainly and cause dissociation.
But that's not the way it's supposed to be.
Right?
That's not the way we naturally tend according to God's design plan.
And then the trinity presents the archetypal model of plurality and unity, after which we're patterned and to which we are to become conformed.
So I I don't think, I I think the same criticism, I suppose, of of form psychology could be labeled against the doctrine of the trinity, and I suspect few of us would wanna go there.
However, the soul let let me add that the soul's intrinsic power can continuous unification is a mystery.
I don't understand that.
But but it's there nonetheless operating in a in in in our unconscious certainly and and to some degree in our conscious awareness.
Recognizing, therefore, the the personal unity of human life is a feature of Christian psychology, which sees the whole person as inviolably sacred.
So how are we to think of the plural form?
I wanna just offer a a a simple concrete model.
I'm not sure how helpful it is, but I'll offer it, as a as a set of Russian dolls.
As you know, if you've seen them, each one is a whole doll nested within a larger doll.
Together, they somewhat crudely represent a hierarchy of forms with higher forms providing a richer holistic context within which the lower forms are rendered more meaningful.
Forms are not parts that together compose a plural form.
A plural form is not an aggregate.
It's not a composite or a compound of a set of forms as if each form was a piece of the whole pie.
That's not what I'm wanting to communicate here.
And help me if you can help me do a a better job of of this point.
Yet the concept of a plural form is abstract.
That's a problem with the term form for that matter.
Plural form I'm using the term plural form then as, a term of, the the unity of the forms.
But let me let me try and make connections to other aspects of what what we know and probably most of mostly agree upon upon.
So the concept of a plural form is abstract.
It needs to be personalized in order to be properly understood.
I'm not sure how to do that, but I it seems to me necessary somehow for us to move in that direction.
So let me let me put it this way.
A mature human soul is a plural.
I would I would say they're synonyms.
I'm I'm quite happy to call that a synonymous sentence.
You know?
There's a better way of putting that, but, a plural form is a fully developed human person.
And let me say it this way.
A person is the unity, integrity, and fulfillment of all the forms.
Put differently, the plural form is multifaceted and integral to being a mature person.
And let me add finally I think this is finally, in terms of explaining what what is a plural form.
And, each mature human person is ultimately ontologically one and absolutely, utterly unique.
Well, you can tell I'm trying this that whole paragraph is just talking about synonyms using different words to say the same thing in slightly different ways or at least with a different term.
The forms that will be most helpful however, I wanna I wanna say this.
The forms that would be most helpful in the realization of of the wholeness of of the person, of the wholeness of the plural form are the flesh, especially the heart, purse personal agent and the conscience, character and the will of my father in heaven, narrative because of the unifying power of one story, communion because of the power of human relationship, and, ultimately, the Imago Dei, and, therefore, times that we spend with our god in worship and in communion.
All of these would be ways in which our unity as personal beings, the unity of the person are are fed, are reinforced, grow.
And and and let me just add, all of these forms involve the heart, the the unifying organ of the soul.
So I think I just this might I think I just have two slides to go.
So I wanna suggest that a form psychology could be a subdiscipline of Christian psych of a Christian psychology in the same way that personality psychology is a subdiscipline of modern psychology.
Now that's that is, you know, saying a lot of controversial things there in a way.
I I I, I love personality psychology, and I, you know, it's it's contributed to this discussion, of course.
I think the study of personality is extremely valuable.
But I think when you study the history of the study of personality in mod in modern psychology, you'll find that the study of the whole person's been severely constrained by positivism and what natural science methods will let modern psychologists get away with.
And it's inadequate.
I I think I think it's okay to say that that there are aspects of modern psychology that are inadequate, because of their commitment to certain methods.
Form psychology is not psychology according to a modern definition of psychology.
If we're to define psychology as it's derived psychology is a science derived exclusively from objectivist empirical research.
I, recently floated a proposal for the a book on form psychology to one of the leading editors of the American Psychological Association printing press.
And and he was very kind.
We had a wonderful spirited conversation over the course of a couple weeks.
And he wrote back to say that APA wouldn't be interested in in in this, proposal because there are too many ways in which I'm doing philosophy and theology, which are not a part of psychology.
And, you know, I kinda felt like I had to send it first to APA, you know, just to kinda kinda see what would happen.
And, you know, I'm I I'm always open to surprises, but that wasn't you know, I ended up not being surprised.
It it doesn't fit the definition of modern psychology.
May maybe maybe some are thinking here today.
It doesn't.
It shouldn't.
That's okay.
Some forms belong to empirical psychology.
Others belong to philosophy.
At least one, Imago Dei, belongs to theology.
That's okay.
But what if what if academic disciplines are an inevitable consequence of our finitude?
Good as far as they go, but not necessary for the fullest understanding of which human beings are capable.
How does god view the complexity of his creation, particularly the creation of his creation of human beings?
Does god know his creation according to disciplines?
I suspect he does, but not that he would be constrained by that, not that he would be in any way limited to understanding human beings through chemistry, physics, biology, psychology, sociology, and so on and so forth.
Because we understand that knowledge is simple for god, and knowledge is one.
God knows all things at once.
God sees how everything is related to everything else in in the truest sense imaginable, truest sense possible.
God's omniscience makes disciplines irrelevant for him, ultimately.
So what if the goal of human life is to think and love like god does, ultimately?
Admittedly, we're finite beings.
But but if that's our goal, then maybe the intellectual process of analysis, a good process.
Yes.
For sure.
Absolutely.
Analysis is wonderful.
It's a great gift.
Analysis separates reality into disciplines and further into component parts.
In order to better understand it, we must do analysis.
But what if the intellectual process of analysis must be balanced?
It must be balanced by the intellectual process of synthesis.
Maybe it's actually a cycle of analysis and synthesis, analysis and synthesis, analysis and synthesis in which we seek to know reality and its unity under god like the human person.
But if we need both analysis or let me put it this way.
So if we need both analysis and synthesis to know and love well, then the pendulum of Western intellectual life needs to swing back considerably from our age of extreme analysis.
And maybe Christianity would help lead the way.
So, that's that's the end of of our conversation, and, I think we're gonna take a little bit a little break.
Maybe somebody's gonna explain what we're gonna do next.
What a kind invitation.
Thank you.
We will, in fact, do exactly that.
We're gonna take about three to five minutes at this point, precisely in order for doctor Johnson to be able to look a little bit at, the questions that have come in, maybe prioritize them a little bit, and then we will, we'll resume with a question and answer period.
So if you if you are, still have a a last minute question, you can try to sneak that in using the the chat box there at the base of the screen or the q and a box, which some people have already used.
But we'll take about, about three to five minutes.
And when doctor Johnson is ready, we will start our question and answer period.
We'll run till about probably pretty close to 07:00 this evening, maybe run over just a little bit.
So good good twenty minutes of, q and a.
So maybe refill your water if you need to as we're preparing for that, and we will we'll begin shortly.
Thank you.
I'm just gonna begin with what I have here.
Oh, my I'm just so happy.
I'm just so happy by these questions.
I can't tell you.
Anyway, it's beautiful.
What is the relationship of this meta model with Jungian and Adept psychology?
Or or perhaps what's the relationship between form psychology and Jungian and depth psychology?
And, you know, that, I have to think about that some.
I certainly believe in the unconscious.
And, and and so the question is but but I haven't I haven't I haven't thought deeply about where to put the unconscious in all of this.
You know, which form does it fit best?
It probably is in both in multiple forms.
But, it's it's obviously would be a part of and I did think of it in this years ago, in in, the personality architecture.
If you know, I mean, even Freud's early model of conscious, preconscious, and unconscious is a is a kind of architecture.
I think we can do a lot more than that, and and John Meyer has has done such, to some degree, from a secular standpoint.
So so at the very least, it's a part of the architecture of the soul.
But but I I I wanna say that it's it also has to be a part of a personal agent, because a personal agent is self aware aware of of, him or herself as a a center of consciousness.
And and as we grow in in development, and this is something that Soren Kierkegaard, one of the great Christian psychologists of all time, I have to say I have to plug him because he's he's been so important to me.
He talks a fair amount in his work about the the the, the the tell us of of human life in his understanding is to grow in transparency before god, which which would mean growing in greater awareness of our unconscious.
And he certainly talked about the unconscious a lot in his work.
So I think it also would be located in personal agency.
But see, I want wanna take more time to think about that.
Perhaps you you could help me with that and send me an email at e l johnson at, h b u dot e d u, by the way.
I'd love to have that written in the chat box.
Eljohnson@hbu.edu, because I would love to get more interaction on this.
This is gonna be some of the best conversation I've had on this model since it got published, in an article.
A lot of this thought, not all of it, but some of it.
So, I think, you know, like, for example, I'm thinking the Imago day.
Oh, I'd love to think more about that, and how the unconscious is related to that, but not tonight.
Alright.
In the book of Exodus, it's referenced multiple times that god has hardened the heart of pharaoh.
This may be an archetype of our inner potential to become tyrannical.
That's profound.
What does it mean in reference to the to this meta model, the hardening of the heart?
It just so happens that I've I've been doing some research on the heart as a psychological construct.
I I presented that at APA, couple of years ago and and and wanting to write, on that.
So I have I have given some thought, to to this.
But, admittedly, you know, what is the hardening of the heart?
You know, it's a psychological process, that's not explained.
But, you know, if the opposite of hardening is opening of the heart, a softness of the heart, then it seems that that that is possible that our awareness that I think of the heart is located in our chest.
And it it's it's our emotions and values and even virtues in some sense that that, get that certainly the processing much most of the processing is happening in our brain, but it shows up in our in our torso.
I I don't understand all of that, but it's it's it's about interoception.
It's about our sense of a lot of important things that are that are really important in in a Christian worldview, but I think are really important to all human beings that happen to show up when when I I get a pain in my heart, you know, that leads to the phrase I'm brokenhearted.
Anyway, we could go on and on.
But, gee, where did this come from?
The Bible has what is it?
At least eight or 900 uses of the word heart.
One old testament theologian said heart is the most important psychological term in the Bible, and then interesting.
And as your as this, questioner is pointing to, one of those really important phrases early in the Bible is about the hardening of the heart.
So I'm not really answering your question because I don't really know the answer.
But but that you know, what I said would be sort of my off the cuff understanding of that process.
Is it something directed to the strengthening of conviction?
I think that's a beautiful connection to make.
Is this a clue on how agency comes, out of a a theological perspective?
Yes.
I'm just gonna agree with you.
I think you're doing some great work.
Keep going.
You know?
Does the hardening of pharaoh's heart, tie anything to the gravitas of one's will?
Yes.
I I'd love to meet you.
Whoever wrote that, I'd love to meet you because we could have a lot of fun over a coffee or or or something else.
In your lecture, you mentioned the possibility so this is the next question.
You mentioned the possibility of having multiple psychologies based on different world views, for example, a Catholic Christian psychology.
And you notice that much of psychology today is based almost exclusively on a materialistic, worldview or net and the natural sciences.
There's a few other people that ask this question, and I think it's, the way that I phrased everything tonight, I think makes it liable that I could be interpreted as a relativist.
So let me let me read a little bit more on that, some some other questions that were asked.
You mentioned that there are or should be multiple psychologies, one for each moral community tradition.
This seems to imply that there exists no set of psychological first principles that cuts across all cultures.
But shouldn't we seek that one single correct set of psychological principles that could be applied to all human beings rather than trying to define a separate one for each culture?
Your view seems to contain more relativism.
Maybe that's that's enough for now.
I I think a few other people might have alluded to that.
But, so let let me assure you that, that I sharply disagree with moral relativism.
One, you know, one evidence of that would be, I suppose, you know, I didn't address this directly.
I did allude to cultural psychology in an early slide.
I I think cultural psychology is absolutely essential for for for for the field of psychology.
And, cultural psychology and, I think, anthropology are disciplines that had made a really important distinction between an etic approach.
So let me just put it this way.
An etic approach to psychology, that's ETIC, and an emic approach to psychology, EMIC.
And an ethic approach focuses primarily on what cultures have in common.
So so these are two forms of cultural psychology.
An ethic approach to cultural psychology is looking for what are the what what are these three cultures I'm studying share?
What what do they have in common in terms of their emotional, phenomena, let's say?
And an ethic approach is going to be looking more at what does this culture have to say about this particular psychological phenomena?
What what's the set of emotions that this culture has?
Both are intrinsic to the science of psychology.
And if I had more time, I would have wanted to make that clearer than I did.
In in my world, almost everybody has is a is a can I say it this way?
Has been let me put it this way.
Has been strongly influenced by modernism.
And modernism historically is, is univocal.
It it has one approach to reality, the right one that's that's supposed to be sort of worldview neutral.
Now, of course, there's good exceptions to that in in mainstream psychology, but that's minority view.
I I tend to go to division 24, which is the theoretical philosophical folks, and they're all over that stuff.
You know?
And the humanistic group is also all over that.
They have a group a a subgroup called indigenous what's it called?
About an indigenous psychology.
So they they have they very much emphasized that, and I'm I'm a I'm a big fan of of, their work.
So so I I sort of wrote this not thinking anything negatively about anybody present today or DMU on the contrary.
I love it.
I love I love everything I know about you folks.
But just because this is this is how I how I marshal my argument to the the, sort of monolithic building edifice of modern psychology, which has a hard time recognizing that there are worldview differences that are of such a substantive level that that I think we need to think in terms of, yes, there is a a body of universal, psychological phenomenon that's common to all human beings across cultures and across time.
And, of course, the Catholic tradition has always been a champion of that.
But but, you know, Alasdair MacIntyre has also been a champion of recognizing the very important distinctions there are between traditions, both within, the Christian tradition as well as across other traditions.
And somehow, I would argue that that we have to figure out that a comprehensive psychology, a comprehensive psychological science has to end up saying all of the above.
And and how would that change an intro to psych textbook?
Someday, you know, an intro to psych textbook is gonna look very different than the ones that are currently common, and because of these considerations that we're bringing to.
But, you know, one of the things I I talk about with my students, we we have a mind we our campus and and Houston in general is a a minority majority region.
So 60% of the people in Houston and 60% on our campus are technically minorities.
And, you know, there's a beautiful irony there.
Right?
And and we talk about minorities see things that majorities can't see.
And Christianity is obviously an intellectual worldview minority right now.
So so so is Judaism and Islam and, you know, a lot of other, worldviews for that matter.
But but that gives us eyes to see things that that are that are lost on the majority, that are lost on us when we're in our majority worlds.
You know?
And and therefore, this this encourages me.
You know, this is why why doctor Vitz is such an important person because he's spearheaded ways of viewing psychology that are unique to a Christian worldview.
And, it's gotten published in mainstream journals by mainstream publishers.
And and and and I think we have a lot to contribute.
A lot more in the in the twenty first century will be contributed by by folks at DMU and others that that I that I hope and and and pray will continue to to shape the field of mainstream psychology in directions that will be more holistic and more comprehensive than we've seen so far.
So, thanks for the opportunity to explain myself better.
Somebody towards the end brought up Duns Scotus, I think.
Where was that?
Yeah.
Coming from a philosophy background, Eric Johnson's description of man as multiform seems similar to Scotus' understanding of human nature.
I just wanna read this out because I find this very interesting.
He posited the existence of many distinct contents, which were formerly distinct from each other within the one form of the soul.
Have you talked to any Franciscan philosophers about your ideas of man's multiform?
There's a difference of terminology, but I suspect you would agree with each other.
And, I have to say, no.
I haven't.
I've I've never read a thing by Don Scottis, so no guilt by association.
But the the, the irony is, I'm I'm a fan of something oh, I'm blanking on on the term.
John Milbank was a founder of a model of, theology, Anglican theology.
But I'm blanking on what it's called.
Can anybody help me?
Anyway, their telling of the story, they're very Anglo Catholic, you know, and and big fans of the Catholic tradition.
But, anyway, they're they're telling of the story.
They're they're also highly critical of modernism.
You know?
But but they're telling of the story of West of the western tradition.
They love Aquinas, and they they despise Duns Scotus.
And all the evils of modernity are laid at the feet of Dunscotis.
And that's one of the few things I know about him.
So this is just very interesting, to to read this, and now I'm I feel convicted about something I I know nothing of.
But, like, I need to find out more about about this matter.
And, you know, I love Francis, of course.
Everybody does and and and bought a venture.
But, beyond that, I don't know so much.
So I need to become more well informed about this controversy.
It sounds to me like there's a controversy there that's been going on in in the in the Catholic tradition that I need to find out more about and make sure I avoid the errors as much as as a a Protestant like myself can.
So, yeah.
Okay.
So let me just, keep reading.
Shall I?
There's a question about the self that I don't quite understand, so I'm just gonna move on.
In Carl Jung's experience, most clients who come to him who came to him came for existential related reasons.
I'm sorry.
Existential related questions of meaning rather than to treat specific neuroses.
Perhaps this prompted him to respond with his teaching on archetypes.
In this respect, could one see addiction as a maladaptive way of seeking the transcendent?
Should logotherapy play a greater role in the treatment of addiction?
Could this provide a justifiable link between spirituality and empirical psychology?
Wow.
See, that's what I said.
What you know, when I said when I opened up and I said, I love these questions, I just, you know, I I, you you know, you're you're you're a group of conversation partners that I know I would enjoy.
And, that's a question that could take a few hours.
You know?
It's so good.
I I just, yeah.
I I just started reading the unconscious where is it?
Oh, I can't even find it.
But I just came across a book by Frankl called The Unconscious God, and I started I was I'm I'm just entranced by he's you know, he doesn't seem to be a a true theist in the sense that he doesn't posit a god.
He seems to be agnostic about what's there much like Jung, at least my understanding of Jung.
But, but, boy, is he open.
He's really open.
He really feels that belief in God is is a compelling requirement of human nature, it seems to me.
And so now I'm newly attracted to logotherapy, and I feel like I gotta go back and read those books that I you know, I only read Man's Search for Meaning, and I didn't read I didn't go into it as much as I I think.
So so all that to say that I think you're very much onto something.
This would be a bridge.
Logotherapy ought to be a bridge.
I don't see as many people referring to it, of course, now as they were, you know, forty, fifty years ago when it was still around.
But this, there there are some that refer to it, and and, I think it's a bridge builder for conversation with folks in mainstream psychology.
So I very much appreciate that.
And the idea of addiction being a search for meaning, all Augustinians must agree and, you know, and and and bible loving Christians everywhere would agree that, so man so much of our disorderedness as human beings, so many things in the DSM are can be can be more fruitfully more fully, fruitfully understood with a more elaborate anthropology like like you folks are working with the DM TMU, that would help us to see all of the disorders having, an ethical dimension that's completely left out of every disorder that I'm aware of in the DSM, including antisocial personality disorder.
And and what is it?
Sadist or sadistic personality disorder?
Anyway, I I might be getting my categories confused, but you you get the point.
And and and, certainly, spirituality is left out.
So can I pose this?
Can I can I ask a counter question almost in response to this question and and really to you as a community?
Is there not a okay.
You're probably all familiar with, the PDM, the psychodiagnostic die I'm sorry.
Psychodynamic diagnostic manual that the psychodynamic folks put together, you know, maybe fifteen years ago, and now there's a second edition up.
If you're not, you'll love it.
And, if you are, you know what I'm talking about here that that it is so valuable.
And in in in in a number of really important ways, more valuable than the DSM.
And I love the DSM for its purposes, but it only goes so far because it's so reductionistic.
And the psychodynamic folks go into a richer realm of meaningfulness.
They're still and but they even deal with a little bit with with the ethical and spiritual realms.
So so this is my question that I've that I've thought about for years.
Is there are there enough resources within the Christian tradition alive today working in the area of psychology and psychiatry to come up with a third diagnostic manual?
Because we we're not you know, we're psycho a a Christian, it has it has to be psychodynamic, I think, to some degree.
There's a Christian psychodynamic theory out there somewhere.
Maybe some of you are familiar with it or you've written on it.
I I I think Paul has, somewhere.
But, but but we have enough resources that we could do something that would be fuller and richer, that would encompass in some way the DSM wisdom and and the PDM wisdom, but would be different altogether in in other respects.
And I think the meta model that you folks have put together points us in that direction in my in in my estimation.
So that would be my only response to, to that question.
I I'm I'm, I I really need glasses, to see the time on my, on my screen.
I I realized we just have a few minutes left.
Yeah.
So probably have time for one or two more questions.
Okay.
And that that would probably be the outer the outer edge of what we could do as as you prefer.
Okay.
Let me let me just go to this last question then because it it touches on effective maturity, which is a really important, theme.
Can you explain affective maturity, which is mainly used in John Paul the second's apostolic exhortation?
Forgive my pronunciation.
I have a doubt.
Is it emotional maturity or emotional, social, and sexual maturity based in the Imago de Jesus Christ, a form of god in humanity?
Wow.
So I I don't even know there if I if I have a response except to say, I gotta check that that apostolic exhortation out.
I've not I've never heard of it before, but it sounds like it fits in.
I mean, obviously, John Paul the second was a psychologist in his own right besides for being so many other great things.
But affective maturity is is what I think you're about at at DMU and and and those of you that are listening.
Yeah.
We're we're all interested in affective maturity as a part of of what it means to be a healthy, mature human being.
There are certainly psychologists that are also, mainstream I I should say mainstream secular psychologists that are also interested in that.
There's an overlap.
There's there's commonalities of interest there.
But I think Christian approach is gonna have a a unique take on emotion affect of maturity.
And here, I wanna leave with, just a reference to one of, one of my favorite little books.
Oh, I'm not sure I can remember it, but by by Hildebrand.
What is it called?
Just the heart?
Might be just called the heart.
Just a a skim little book, a 100 pages, but what a treasure of reflection on affective maturity, that I think probably you all and and I cherish, as a gem of of of philosophical psychology for for for us in our in in the twentieth century.
Well, I think that probably should be it.
Thank you so much, all of you, and and to DMU and to father Sikorsky.
Thank you, Paul, Vince, for doing all that you've done for all of us.
And, it's been a pleasure to share all of this with you.
Feel free to write me an email if you if you want.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, doctor Eric Johnson.
This does conclude our Newman lecture for the evening.
Thank you all for coming, and, please, tell your friends about the Newman lectures.
I know we'll be posting a recording on our YouTube channel later, so you'll be able to watch it again and, certainly too to share it, with those others who would appreciate it as well.
Thank you all.
Good night.
And we do have, we do have our upcoming lecture, On February 16, doctor Bitz will be lecturing on the analog and digital psychology and the challenge of transhumanism.
I I would neglect my duties as emcee if I did not point you to the next, installment of the Newman lectures.
So, again, please, please do, join us again at that time, and, bring a few friends with you and, make a watch party if you like.
This is we do these things now that we've been through COVID.
Thank you all again, and good evening.