Summary of text [comment] page 81
Schoonenberg then made an interesting comment: The works of the flesh that Paul enumerated were, in a more psychological analysis, better characterized as spiritual sins.
[Schoonenberg could not explain why.
He presented this as an observation.
Evidently, Paul did not know about the psychological sciences.
Does that count against him?]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[To me, Paul’s term ‘flesh’ encompasses both ‘flesh’ and ‘bones’. The latter terms had already been twisted by the wordsmiths of power, in order to justify social constructions that organized society according to ‘the objects that bring every subject into organization’.
What were these objects?
Ironically, they included the ritual demands of the Mosaic Law.
The ‘bones of the elite’ supported ‘the ritual demands of the Second Temple Period’s interpretation of the Mosaic Law’.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
Schoonenberg quoted St. Paul (Galatians 5:17) in discussing the opposition between flesh and spirit.
[My suggestion is this: Paul struggles against a metaphor that has been repurposed by an (infra)sovereign religion.]
The desires of the flesh [and, now, the bones] are against the spirit.
The desires of the spirit are against the flesh [and the elite ‘bones that support society’].
These statements differ, even though they sound the same.
[Does Paul’s term ‘flesh’ veil a change of meaning of the Old Testament opposition between ‘flesh and bones’ that occurred when the metaphor was usurped by an (infra)sovereign religion?
What a wonderful question.]
[Oh, speaking of terminology, I want to suggest the following:
‘An infrasovereign religion’ is one that has not grasped sovereign power and may or may not be in pursuit of sovereign power.
‘An (infra)sovereign religion’ has gained power and has instituted itself as an allied member of a Public Cult.
Most Public Cults (religionsovs) are alliances of (infra)sovereign religions.]
[Beware of Progressive declarations using the term ‘social’.
The term has been redefined.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[A similar change in the American language occurs today. The (infra)sovereign religions of Progressivism usurp and tailor the specialized language of Christianity to suit their pursuit of sovereign power.
In particular, the word ‘social’, like the ancient word ‘bones’, has been drained of personal meaning and repurposed for organizational manipulation and control.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[Allow me to summarize:
The Old Testament metaphor of ‘flesh and bones’ (designating the essential person) was usurped (from the suprasovereign perspective) and tailored to fit an (infra)sovereign point of view.
The terms went from popular usage to propaganda.
This precisely follows Schoonenberg’s scenario of refusal and usurpation.
A change of the language, the symbolic order of society, became inevitable.
Schoonenberg did not have the analytical tools to explain why Paul opposed the ‘flesh’ against the ‘spirit’ (and not ‘flesh and bones’ against the ‘spirit’). He only noted that the Old Testament opposition applies to one situation and the New Testament opposition applies to another.
In addition, he limited his discussion to warning that the term ‘spirit’ does not simply replace the term ‘bones’.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[As the second Temple moved deeper into the Axial Age, the entire language of Israel shifted in response to this re-application of the flesh and bones metaphor to Society (as well as other usurpations of character-building metaphors).
The Party of the Sovereign changed the meaning of the words.
The Party of the Sovereign destroyed the language.
Paul’s opposition between ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ is evidence of a shift in the symbolic order of language.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[Elitist (infra)sovereign consciencelacking is more spiritual (thus, more dehumanizing) than the spineless consciencelacking of a person whose flesh is in bondage to seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.
Why?
In the former, interpellation of thinkdivine has been rendered impossible.
Religionsovereign marks the contextualizing of concupiscence by cruelty. Concupiscence requires self-justification. Cruelty requires blasphemy.
Thinkpro-object promotes self-justification.
Hatred of the anti-object produces blasphemy.]
[What happens when the metaphorical ‘bones of a person’ are usurped by elites into an ideology where ‘the elites are the metaphorical bones of society’.
Here, I tip my hat … er … electronic tablet to Slavoj Zizek.
‘The bones (that are the elite)’ embody ‘a higher power’.
Even though the elites become the scaffolding for ‘the flesh of society’, they are persons. They are composed of flesh and bones.
So they have two sets of bones.
The first set justifies sovereign power.
‘The bones that are the elite’ scaffold ‘a flesh that are the subjects’. These bones operate as cruel and perverse instruments of a higher power. Manipulation and thuggery are the right things to do when ‘the bones are the sovereign elites’. What else can the elites do to achieve their organizational objectives?
The elite bones support – no, they command – the flesh of the unworthy and lazy subjects. The flesh must be anchored by the organized goals attributed to a higher power (available only to the elites).
The second set belongs to the person who is ‘an instrument of the higher power’. There is a person behind ‘the bones that hold up society’. The bones of that person are complaint. They bend with the political winds.]
