My wife and I wish you a very beautiful Spring.

We are going to the Urbaniana.

When are you coming to Asia?
I have lots of interesting things to talk with you on Lonergan.

Sincerely,
Shigekazu-Ignatius & Reiko-Marie-Immaculee YANAGIMACHI

Joe Ferrara, M.D.

Natural selection hasn’t taken place on the embryonic stem cells yet. That must take the physiological equivalent of prolonged periods of geologic time. Adult stem cells on the other hand may be viewed as having been selected for the purpose of being adult stem cells. They perhaps have been, paradoxically enough, differentiated into stem cells. In other words the potentiation to perform a variety of tasks may have been programmed into it by means of natural selection and is actually of a much more highly complex nature than that of the embryonic stem cell. What if adult stem cells are not just embryonic stem cells hanging around with their hands in their pockets but actually have been produced from the more differentiated forms.You have really hit upon something.Thanks for the intriguing approach.

Joe Ferrara M.D.

If I understand your questions correctly, I agree, part of the “logic” of the argument, was developed in earlier questions. The basic assumption is the psychological analogy (the intellectual emantions, etc.). However, one can ask, why this assumption. To answer this, I would say he had to have the creed in mind, because using this particular analogy arises from the search for an explanatory analogical understanding of the Trinity. Without the Creedal basis, one would not be on the search (a search which is clear in St. Augustine’s De Trinitate). One would not be one such a search otherwise, simply because one cannot argue to the existence or even probability of the Trinity via analogies alone. Beyond the search however, the creed also provides the grounds for affirming the validity of the analogy, because the analogy comes to explain, or conclude to the point being explored in the Creed. So, in a way, one can say, if there are the intellectual and volitional emantions in God, then there is a Trinity. However, there would not be any conditions by which one could affirm these emanations without the creed.

I would argue that some analogies may not need to break down, as happens with metaphors. However, all analogies are limited, and knowing the limits is key — I suppose you could call this a breakdown, but it does not mean it is false. For example, one says analogically that God is unrestricted Being, or Goodness. The meaning of these terms is analogical, however there is nothing in them that is false either (though the person could, I suppose think that these are not just analogies, but the complete comprehension of God, in which case that is false). So, in saying God is a Trinity of three persons, we are understanding these terms analogically, however these have come to possess a revelatory certitude with them. The intellectual emanation is also an analogy, but it does not, at least yet, have a revelatory certitude (or a clear creedal correlate).

Perhaps by breakdown, you mean “the limits of the explanatory power of the analogy,” and this I am not sure has been fully exhausted yet with this analogy. St. Thomas will show how this analogy can go on and not only explain why there are three persons, but also some of the general features of these persons as well, which then is validated by creed/scriptural/revelatory knowledge of these three Persons. In turn, this gives even more weight to the validity of the original assumptions (namely the intellectual and volitional emanations).

Or, what exactly does he assume without question? We want to be sure he didn’t have the creed in-mind, and then work his way back to the assumptions.

Finally, as with all analogy, where does it break down?

1. I would argue that whenever a self-mediating developing entity begins to exist that has an orientation to unfolding as a human being does–toward self-transcendence–then the human being begins to exist.

2. Thus, a zygote and the first number of cell divisions are a human being because he/she is a being that has a finality toward self-transcendence.

2. However, a zygote and its first cellular divisions are not differentiated to a point that prevents twinning. [Substantial cellular differentiation in which the cells and cell tissues differentiate and loose the original undifferentiated plasticity hinders the possibility of twinning.]

3. Twinning results from spliting of cells into two distinct developing entities, each with their own developmental tragectories, oriented toward becoming two self-transcending beings.

4. Thus, I would argue that prior to twinning, you had one human being, then after you have two (or three, or four).

There would not be a philosophical problem as far as I can tell with a multiplication of “unity-identity-wholes.” This is a substantial change. (or to use Lonergan’s language from Insight, a central change). When a person dies, of course, there is a great deal of multiplication of “unity-idenity-wholes” — each molecule, etc., becomes its own unity-identity-whole. However, these obviously are different kinds of unity-identity-wholes that arise–and these are no longer human beings. In the case of twinning, the cells that compose the original human being had been on one developmental tragectory, then because of some non-systematic and non-developmental event, (since twinning is neither a scheme of recurrence nor is it built into the developmental operators) these cells are separated in a manner that allows for two developing entities to come into existence and to begin their own developmental journeys. Both have their own individual developmental capacities that are oriented, if all goes well, toward a self-transcending being, just as the pre-twinning human being was likewise oriented. One interesting question to raise, I suppose, is whether this was a “substantial” change (an annihilation of one central form, and the creation of two others) or not. Did the original human being cease to exist in this? If not, which of the two is the original? One cannot really base the answer on which one had received the most cells when the split took place — that seems arbitrary. So, if one cannot determine which of the two was the original, then perhaps neither was the original — and two unity-identity-wholes have come from one, and the one no longer exists. It is true that if the original had not split, it would have developed in a slightly different manner, with different finger prints, perhaps different size organs, some difference in brain layout and formation, etc., etc., etc..– all because of the manner in which cell differentiation unfolds.