A thesis of The Shape of Joy, as I put it in the book, is that "transcendence is good for you." And by transcendence I don't mean a therapeutic fiction or emotional uplift. By transcendence I mean an ontological encounter with Reality. And if this is so, then our well-being is contingent upon living in a proper relationship with the Real.
This should make sense. Our reality presents us with a particular ontological arrangement. This reality rather than some other. Consequently, our particular posture or stance within this ontological arrangement could be more or less attuned or in harmony. We can walk with the Tao or against it. In harmony with the Logos or not. Many metaphors can be deployed here. Reality is a flow, a melody, a path, a garden, a dance, a tapestry, a story. To live well is to inhabit its order with attunement, to move in synchrony with the deep grammar of things rather than against it. Incongruence creates ontological friction which compromises flourishing. Wisdom consists in discerning the pattern and learning to move with it.
The point is that congruence with reality is integral to mental health. If so, then the pressing question becomes: What is the nature of the Real? Answer this question wrong and mental health becomes a difficult, if not impossible, prospect. Our search for well-being is premised upon an accurate ontology.
One could, though, reverse-engineer the situation. We could observe locations of well-being and flourishing and ask what sorts of ontology are being presumed in those contexts. That's the approach of The Shape of Joy. Observe where flourishing is experienced and note how transcendence shows up at that location. Follow the bread crumbs of joy out of the cave of the mind into the daylight of self-transcendence. This, as I argue in The Shape of Joy, is the story positive psychology has converged upon over the last thirty years. Flourishing is pointing toward ontology.
Now, the question to ponder here is the role of confession and doxological recognition. We observe well-being and flourishing among people who don't recognize Jesus Christ as their ontological ground. Wouldn't these people, therefore, be mistaken about reality? If so, then how to account for their flourishing?
We'll pursue that question in the posts to come.
