(3) religious conversion in our orientation to God.
Concerning the cognitive process of intellectual conversion in our orientation to the intelligible, see the University of Chicago law professor Martha C. Nussbaum's article "Human Functioning and Social Justice: In Defense of Aristotelian Essentialism" in the journal Political Theory, volume 20, number 2 (May 1992): pages 202-246.
Now, in Lonergan's later publications, he also refers to affective conversion, a non-cognitive conversion process. I would suggest that affective conversion involves what Moore and Gillette refer to as the Lover archetype, mentioned above. For many people, including many Jesuits, affective conversion involves recovery work similar in spirit to the recovery work that Pete Walker delineates in his 2013 self-help book about complex PTSD. See my online essay "Pete Walker's Book on Complex PTSD is an Awesome Achievement":
http://hdl.handle.net/11299/192482
No doubt many academics and non-academics are not interested in undertaking affective recovery work and/or intellectual conversion and/or moral conversion and/or religious conversion. No doubt such people suffer from what certain medieval thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas referred to as acedia -- spiritual sloth (that is, sloth of the spirit that animates them -- not spiritual in the sense of some religious spirit). But can such people grasp Ong's insight about the aural versus visual cognitive processing? Your guess is as good as mine about that.
Now, in my controversial article "IQ and Standard English" in the professional journal College Composition and Communication, volume 34 (1983): pages 470-484, I myself pay homage to the spirit of experimental science that Peterson accentuates, by proposing a hypothesis that can be tested experimentally -- that is, with an experimental and a control group, using pre- and post-tests. Granted, it would not be easy to do a large-scale longitudinal study, but it could be done.
In conclusion, as noted, the climate changes in academia have occurred since Ong's death in 2003. But have academics changed enough that more of them can now grasp Ong's breakthrough insight in the early 1950s -- as McLuhan does in his controversial 1962 book and as I do in my controversial 1983 article (and as Havelock in effect does, independently of Ong, in his 1963 book)? And what about well-educated non-academics?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
