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 (religion^sovs) are alliances of (infra)sovereign religions.]

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[Elitist (infra)sovereign conscience^lacking is more spiritual (thus, more dehumanizing) than the spineless conscience^lacking of a person whose flesh is in bondage to seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

Why?

In the former, interpellation of think^divine has been rendered impossible.

Religion^sovereign marks the contextualizing of concupiscence by cruelty. Concupiscence requires self-justification. Cruelty requires blasphemy.

Think^pro-object promotes self-justification.

Hatred of the anti-object produces blasphemy.]

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[Ironically, later in the Old Testament, ‘the bones’ became ‘the symbol of the sovereign and the religious leaders’.

The metaphor was hijacked by the elites. They veiled the original meaning of the words with new interpretations. The ruling elites contextualized themselves. They justified their sovereign power. They were not building the character of the people. They were usurping it.

They called themselves ‘the blood and bones’ of Israel.

The bones were ‘the objects that bring all subjects into organization’.

This blood defined the elite’s will to power.]

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[The early Old Testament image of ‘the flesh sold into the bondage of sin’ calls the person. It calls the person’s bones. It is not a metaphor for society.

The bones long to be free. They long to be righteous before the Lord. Here, ‘bones’ call to mind conscience^free in the intersecting nested form portrayed above. Think^divine interpellates ‘the bones’. Think^group calls the ‘flesh’.]

[In considering these two applications, I capture a key difference between an infrasovereign and a suprasovereign religion.

The metaphor of blood and bones, applied to the person, builds character.

The same metaphor, applied to society, interpellates the person into an (infra)sovereign religion.

One tells the person to breathe, because the flesh, blood and bones belongs to the person.

The other paralyzes. The blood and bonds belongs to the sovereign. The people are weak and fleshy. Also, the sovereign serves as artificial lungs.

This raises the question:

When I hear the metaphor of ‘flesh versus bones’ how am I to tell the difference between the two options?]

[May I apply that metaphor to human society?

I can imagine a think^pro-object that tells the person that powerful figures of the sovereign religion are the bones. The sovereign scaffolds a weak and fleshy people. The bones are the sovereign support of society.

I can imagine a think^pro-object that tells the person that powerful figures of the sovereign religion are the blood. The sovereign balances the passions (heat) and fears (coolness) of the subjects. The blood is the sovereign working in society.]