Thank you for your patient response to my somewhat curt comment.

“Waffle” was not a good word to use, since it implies that a person does not know what they are talking about and my impression was that you do. What I was reacting against was the style of paragraphs like:

“It stems from the awareness of an undercurrent of existential turbulence in the lives of anonymous individuals, an unseen convulsive force that can easily be provoked to wreak havoc. More than anything, the unmasked secret of Columbine is a preconscious, anxious-ridden, apprehension of the growing willingness of alienated individuals to rage against others and to visit upon them emotional trauma, injury, and even death.” That is very “un-crisp” your reply to me, on the other hand, was “to the point”.

I would have expected more of the latter and less of the former in an article aimed at a lay audience. Or did I wander into a corner of cyberspace where I have no business ..?

The problem is that people often simple answers, because then they can easily find something to take apart. “Be short and simple, and get to the point” usually means “get to something I can easily refute.” And if they don’t get that, they still tend to latch on to one or two words, out of context, universalize something which was meant to be holistic, and label you a heretic, when the problem is not the writer, but the unholistic approach to their words.

Thanks. I realize, as Brian has said, this is very difficult sledding. Part of the reason is because what I say is totally counterintuitive. We have a penchant for social science in the U.S. This is part of our strength but it is also our weakness.

I’m trying to break away, not only from Cartesian dualism, but the materialism of David Hume. Social science methodology flows out of the Humean tradition.

Somehow we must return spirituality to our secular society. But we must do so without subtracting the gains that the scientific tradition have given us. To reconcile this split is, at least to me, the central challenge faced by Catholics in America.

Spirituality must become embedded in our “age,” or culture. When addressing issues, It is no longer sufficient to speak as though we were engaged in a mere contest of ideas. Those days are long gone. Today, we have the additional need to impact the culture and enrich it with new forms. Until we can succeed here, we will have no hope of addressing threats to health status that come from behavior. These threats, including homelessness, gangs, substance abuse, youth violence, teen pregnancy, divorce, and abortion, are spiritual at the core. Yet, the methodology we use to address them flows out of a tradition that reduces everything to matter in motion. Thus the need for reconciliation which is the underlying theme of my presentation.

I have tried to make this as simple and succinct as possible, hoping it will lead to careful input from others.

I’m sorry for the difficulty you are having.

First let me set aside two things: 1) spirituality cannot be “crisp;” and 2) I am not waffling.

Quite the contrary. I am developing the argument that we fail to understand and reduce the incidence of dysfunctional behavior precisely because the root cause of those behaviors stands outside the methodology we are using to develop our strategies. For more than four decades, we have failed in our effort to control behavior in America. I’m trying to explain at the deepest philosophical level why we have failed.

So this essay is a philosophical critique of the prevailing understanding of youth violence — and by implication, other forms of dysfunctional behavior –insofar as it is rooted in the social science tradition. There are many conflicting ideas at work here, representing such diverse thinkers as Thomas Aquinas and David Hume. To get a sense of immediacy, I have used imagery to encapsulate the logic, emotions, and fears that surround the issue. There is much here and it is simply presented, given the scope and depth of the subject matter. Part of the difficulty is that it is so simple.

What specifically don’t you understand? Perhaps I can help a bit. I am willing to do so.

Excellent introductory remarks and early groundwork!