The first task or group concerns the semiotics of speech-alone talk. One of these would be about unveiling the hidden history of a word. This topic is addressed in chapters 2 and 12.
[The New Testament co-opposition of responsibilities3(2()) and freedom2(1) captures a moment of redefinition.
The bondage to the words of the Judaic law ended.
By choosing3b the way of Jesus2b, a converted Jew was more free1a to pursue “his” preferences in selecting responsibilities3a.
Ironically, the less political people of Christ’s way produced more wealth than the very political and wealth-devouring Jewish or Roman elites of the time.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The average first century Jew could not live up to the multitudinous and litigious obligations of ritual purity.
Religious, tribal and family obligations depleted individuals of resources and inspiration.
Something2a would eventually give.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Paul served his own delusion in words and bondage.
In the mirror of his world3a, Paul desired1a to be recognized as morally superior to his inadequate peers2a.
When Paul spoke to himself, he addressed his mirror of the world3a.]
[Plus, there are three types of desire: the desire to approach, the desire to avoid, and the desire to not be bothered.
I cannot approach my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.
I cannot avoid my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.
But, I can desire not to be bothered by it.
Weirdly, this supports the modern notion of “freedoms” as negative rights. The original American constitution establishes the freedom not to be constrained by the state (religion).]
[What does this mean?
‘Something2a’ was my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.
What does that have to do with desire1a?
Desire1a is a possibility inherent in me1a, but it is not the only possibility.]
[Obligations went from responsibilities to words.
The words of the Law put the majority in bondage.
Common folk (the so-called “deplorables”) were required to meet traditional family and tribal obligations.
They were never adequate when it came to ritual purity. They were good people, but they were cast as losers
All they could hope for was to avoid accusations of thinkanti-object, that is, rumors that would ruin one’s life and relations.
Does that sound vaguely familiar for today’s (2017) America?]
[Also, the obligations of tribe and family are particular.
My particular tribe and family may have a tendency to micromanage. Petty demands add to time-honored expectations.
Plus, there will always be a slacker in the house.
Plus, the family and tribe may have a debilitating tendency to blame all their woes on one person. Everyone wants to be blameless, so nothing gets done.
The Law of Moses mitigated that.
The Law of Moses held out the possibility of reward (or, at least, not punishment) for the individual with initiative, despite family and tribal obligations.]
[In contrast, tribe and family may been trapped in their own word-games.
For example, the tribe is always at war with the rest of the world.
The 10 commandments do not encourage the universal thought experiments.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Here is an easy example.
A parent says to a child:
“You are free as long as you do your homework.”
Then the child does not fulfill “his” responsibility.
As soon as “he” turns on the TV, sitting and watching2a becomes the something2a that enslaves “him”.]
