extinction and survival: common sense and sciecne in relation to a philosophical hope

Hugh Williams

unread,

Jan 2, 2026, 8:28:15 AMJan 2

to loner...@googlegroups.com

Some may be interested in this draft note on 'extinction and survival'
which arises from intense conversations

with the good Lonerganian Michael Shute (now deceased) from Memorial
University in NFLD.

https://www.academia.edu/145723683/Extinction_and_Survival_Common_Sense_and_Science_in_Relation_to_a_Philosophical_Hope_1_by

(also see attached)

Hugh

Lonergan on Complexity and common sense.doc

John Raymaker

unread,

Jan 5, 2026, 3:17:37 AM (14 days ago) Jan 5

to loner...@googlegroups.com

F or decades, the thought of Bernard Lonergan has provided the methodological foundation that undergirds all the research of the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. Woodstock’s Research Fellows are unified in their commitment to carrying out “theological reflection on the human problems of today”; but they come from diverse backgrounds, and are exploring topics as varied as economic globalization, immigration, business ethics, science & religion, education and urban issues, ecclesiology, interreligious dialogue, and the role of faith in the public sphere. Where can scholars from such diverse fields find a common language that allows them to see their disciplines not as isolated silos of information, but simply as different facets of a larger, unfolding truth that encompasses all our knowledge of God, Creation, and humankind? We have found the theological methodology of Bernard Lonergan invaluable, in providing just that sort of conceptual ‘common ground’ for all of Woodstock’s projects. In fact, we have made the exploration of Lonergan’s methodology (and adaptation of it for Woodstock’s purposes) an ongoing, long-term initiative in which all the Center’s Research Fellows participate, through our regular theological reflection seminar. In 2007, the fruit of years’ worth of seminar conversations appeared in the form of our book, The Dynamism of Desire: Bernard J. F. Lonergan on the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius of Loyola. Our seminar conversations during the following years have now yielded the new text that we are delighted to present here, in partnership with Marquette University and its groundbreaking efforts to make Lonergan’s thought accessible online. This work represents a collaborative effort of Woodstock’s Research Fellows, whose thoughts and reflections appear throughout the text, and so greatly enrich it. Those of us who played a role in producing and refining the text found the process immensely meaningful; and we hope that in reading the text, you and scholars all around the world will find it equally valuable. We are happy to be able to share it with you

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lonergan_L" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lonergan_l+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/ac0709ae-f2c4-4673-941f-00e9e479fd46%40nbnet.nb.ca.

John Raymaker

unread,

Jan 5, 2026, 3:22:08 AM (14 days ago) Jan 5

to loner...@googlegroups.com

Hugh's message prompted me to look up the 2969 Woodstock festival. I found the following link helpful.

F or decades, the thought of Bernard Lonergan has provided the methodological foundation that undergirds all the research of the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. Woodstock’s Research Fellows are unified in their commitment to carrying out “theological reflection on the human problems of today”; but they come from diverse backgrounds, and are exploring topics as varied as economic globalization, immigration, business ethics, science & religion, education and urban issues, ecclesiology, interreligious dialogue, and the role of faith in the public sphere. Where can scholars from such diverse fields find a common language that allows them to see their disciplines not as isolated silos of information, but simply as different facets of a larger, unfolding truth that encompasses all our knowledge of God, Creation, and humankind? We have found the theological methodology of Bernard Lonergan invaluable, in providing just that sort of conceptual ‘common ground’ for all of Woodstock’s projects. In fact, we have made the exploration of Lonergan’s methodology (and adaptation of it for Woodstock’s purposes) an ongoing, long-term initiative in which all the Center’s Research Fellows participate, through our regular theological reflection seminar. In 2007, the fruit of years’ worth of seminar conversations appeared in the form of our book, The Dynamism of Desire: Bernard J. F. Lonergan on the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius of Loyola. Our seminar conversations during the following years have now yielded the new text that we are delighted to present here, in partnership with Marquette University and its groundbreaking efforts to make Lonergan’s thought accessible online. This work represents a collaborative effort of Woodstock’s Research Fellows, whose thoughts and reflections appear throughout the text, and so greatly enrich it. Those of us who played a role in producing and refining the text found the process immensely meaningful; and we hope that in reading the text, you and scholars all around the world will find it equally valuable. We are happy to be able to share it with you

On Friday, January 2, 2026 at 02:28:16 PM GMT+1, Hugh Williams <hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

Hugh Williams

unread,

Jan 5, 2026, 6:07:52 AM (14 days ago) Jan 5

to loner...@googlegroups.com

John et al,

I feel there is a very complicating and challenging development

with what I take to be both the recent clarification of US National Security Strategy

and the recent US (State Terrorist) actions in Venezuela.

See this very recent exchange below -

I wonder where the US Jesuits, and the US Catholic hierarchy, for that matter, stand on this .... ?

One can only speculate on where Lonergan might stand on this .....

where do US Lonerganians stand?

Hugh

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	Re: Trump distracts put attention on the US National Defense Strategy
Date:	Sun, 4 Jan 2026 11:53:14 -0400
From:	Hugh Williams <hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca>
To:	Jim Morin <jmor...@gmail.com>

Jim,

This is invaluable analysis. As a geopolitical concern, it warrants immediate discussion.

My first impression-interpretation is that this is an outline of programmatic tyranny that develops or erupts out of an empire (the US empire) in crisis (and fearful), especially in its underlying economy based upon the accumulation of surplus and extraction of wealth/resources, i.e., its capitalist economy.

The implications for the rest of us, other nations and their so-called sovereignty such as Canada, are very serious and warrant the committed work of (attentive, intelligent, realistic-reasonable, and responsible) resistance.

The implications for life on the planet are in my view exactly what I believe the eco-socialists (Marxist) have theorized.

One does have to choose sides now, it seems to me, and of course this needs much further discussion.

To be continued …

Hugh

---------------------------------------------------------------

On 2026-01-04 1:26 a.m., Jim Morin wrote:

Donald Trump’s behavior functions as a distraction from a larger problem: the disintegration and decline of the U.S. empire. To understand its logic, one must analyze its National Defense Strategy, published recently in November. This document explains cases such as Venezuela and what lies ahead for Latin America. Operation Condor during the Nixon and Ford years was an expression of this paradigm, coordinating regional dictatorships under an anti-communist doctrine promoted by Washington.

Below I present an analytical summary of the following article, which examines the new U.S. national security doctrine: "La Fortaleza Americana: Anatomía del Nuevo Paradigma de Seguridad Nacional y el 'Corolario Trump'", written by José Francisco Bertacchini Ugarteche. https://web.facebook.com/share/p/14ZE2zuPPng/

Central Thesis

The document argues that the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS 2025) marks the definitive end of the postwar liberal international order. The United States abandons its role as a “benevolent hegemon” and “global policeman” to adopt a posture of “nationalist realism.” This new doctrine prioritizes strict national interest, the physical and economic protection of its own territory (“Fortress America”), and reconfigures international relations under a purely transactional logic, replacing values-based diplomacy with military deterrence and economic coercion (“Peace through Strength”).

Main Analytical Axes

1. Philosophical Break: From Internationalism to “Taxpayer Audit”
The text identifies a break with past administrations (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden). It rejects the premise that U.S. security depends on the global expansion of democracy.

New Logic: Foreign policy is subjected to a strict Return on Investment (ROI) equation. Every military or diplomatic deployment must deliver a tangible and immediate benefit to the U.S. citizen.

Consequence: The end of “nation-building” and withdrawal from peripheral areas where no existential interests exist.

2. The “Trump Corollary”: The Militarized Monroe Doctrine
Latin America is redefined not as a “backyard,” but as the central defensive perimeter of national security.

Hemispheric Exclusivity: Zero-tolerance and “strategic denial” toward Chinese influence (infrastructure, 5G, ports). Countries in the region face a binary choice: the U.S. market or Chinese capital.

Hybrid Security: Cartels are reclassified as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). Drug trafficking and mass migration are considered acts of hybrid warfare.

Conditional Sovereignty: The U.S. reserves the right to conduct unilateral kinetic intervention in nations deemed “Narco-States” or “failed states” unable to control their territory.

3. Fusion of the Domestic and the Military
The distinction between external defense and internal security disappears. Internal vulnerability is considered the greatest threat.

Borders: The southern border becomes a national defense theater; illegal immigration is treated as a violation of territorial integrity.

Economic Autarky: Return to mercantilism (“Hamiltonian”). Economic security is national security, promoting the reshoring of critical industries.

Energy Dominance: Rejection of an accelerated green transition in favor of fossil fuels and nuclear energy to achieve independence and competitive advantage.

4. Transactional Alliances and the End of Automatic Solidarity
Alliances are no longer based on shared values, but on profitability.

NATO: Article 5 (mutual defense) becomes conditional on allies’ military spending. The U.S. rejects the role of subsidizing European security.

Ukraine/Russia: Pursuit of a rapid disengagement from the European theater through pragmatic negotiations, shifting containment responsibility to European powers.

Indo-Pacific: “Offshore balancer” strategy. The U.S. provides naval/nuclear power, while allies (Japan, Australia, Taiwan) must supply infantry and aggressively rearm (“porcupine strategy”).

5. The Cultural Dimension of Defense
The document introduces institutional culture as critical infrastructure.

Ideological Purge: DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies and “woke” ideology are seen as having eroded military lethality and cohesion.

Objective: A return to strict meritocracy and a traditional warrior ethos to compete with the hard nationalism of rivals such as China and Russia.

Analytical Conclusion: Strategic Focus

The author concludes that NSS 2025 is not a return to 1930s isolationism, but a strategic consolidation (geopolitical triage). The United States withdraws from global management to concentrate power on its existential priorities: competition with China and the fortification of the Western Hemisphere.

The result is a more volatile international system, where U.S. security ceases to be a free public good and becomes a premium service subject to hard negotiation. The final message is that Washington now answers only to its own citizens, forcing the rest of the world to adapt to a superpower that operates without guilt and under a logic of autarkic invulnerability.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/746452751.3485750.1767601320238%40mail.yahoo.com.

Doug Mounce

unread,

Jan 5, 2026, 4:11:11 PM (13 days ago) Jan 5

to loner...@googlegroups.com

I liked the section where Hugh says, " how these insights can be used by us to take the initiative in bringing about the material and social conditions that make these schemes concretely possible, probable, and actual. In this way we as a species become for ourselves the executor of the emergent probability for human aﬀairs. There is then this profound change that occurs from where our species is being more passively developed by its environment to where we are more actively transforming our environment in the course of our own self-development."

I think the possibility of controlled feedback could be usefully developed in Lonergan studies. Sean Carroll is a popular physicist who promotes the physicalist feature of emergence in how we classify a difference between, say, algae and elephants, but that is our perception (however much such a difference recommends itself). And, of course, no one really understands what probability means.

~/

https://staff.washington.edu/mounce/