10/25/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 QB

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[I want to examine the perversity of the imposer

An imposer is a person who joins the sovereigninfra in order to impose ‘the object that brings subjects into organization onto the subjects of the realm’.

What is ‘the something2a’ that this person chooses?

Let’s say, with the tobacco example, ‘something2a’ is ‘really expensive cigarettes that are hard to get’. So this person lobbies for increased transaction costs (taxes, restrictions on use, and so on).]

10/18/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 PW

[In the specific case of the use of tobacco products, the imposer’s stance makes sense. Clinical observations support the imposer’s narrow focus.

However, the narrow focus fails to take into account the point of view of the subject.

The imposer cannot appreciate the motive for smoking in the first place.

Because of this, “she” bans the development of less harmful substitutes. The so-called “electronic cigarette” was not developed in the USA.

Why?

Regulators. Imposers.

How stupid is that?]

10/16/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 PU

[What must the imposer do in order to grasp sovereign power for “his” designs?

The imposer must sell “his” heart to the sovereigninfra, the (infra)sovereign religion.

The religionsov looks down upon and situates, not the person, but the subject.

So, the imposer becomes an instrument of the religionsov.

The imposer serves an object that brings subjects into organization (whether they want to or not). “He” can only thinkpro-object. “He” must deny unintended consequences.]

10/12/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 PS

[If an objectorganization is validated by each unforced conversion, then why not appeal to sovereign power in order to force conversion?

For example, why not ban smoking?

Would that not further validate the objectorganization?

The answer must be ‘no’.

Sovereign imposition of an objectorg reduces the subject’s responsibility and freedom. This is the opposite of building character.]