[Comments on Alexander Dugin’s (2012) The Fourth Political Theory notes the coincidence between the turn towards postmodern language games and the establishment of a postreligious sovereign religion.]
[How did this come to be?
In America, the symbolic order began turning in the 1950s. It attained temporary stability in the 1960s. The language (as system of differences) remained weirdly jelled until the 2000s.
Many circumstances contributed to this stasis.
A demographic condition played a role. The so-called boomers born in the late 1940s and all the 1950s dominated discourse for many years.
An institutional condition may have also played a role in the the temporary stability. State-subsidized university systems promoted conformity in language use.
The state universities then set the stage for the postmodern conversion of discourse into a language game during the decades since the 1960s.]
[In brief, Progressive ‘freedom’ reduces the human to less than an image of God.
‘Progressive freedom’ is ‘unreal freedom’, just as ‘Progressive agape’ is ‘unreal fraternity’ and ‘Progressive equality’ is ‘unreal equality’.
Progressives express the unreality of love.]
[Look how the word ‘free’ has turned on the wheel of a changing symbolic order.
What happened to the ‘free eros’ acclaimed in the 1960s?
The word ‘free’ no longer implies ‘independence, responsibility, personhood, and grace’. It suggests ‘without cost to the user’.
‘Free eros’ became sex without commitment.
‘Free agape’ fared no different. ‘Free healthcare’ exemplifies ‘free agape’.
The original meaning underlying the word ‘freedom’ gave the slogans ‘free love’ (eros) and ‘free healthcare’ (agape) a real (though diminishing) association to independence, responsibility, personhood and grace.
Now, 50 years later, Schoonenberg’s assertions ring true.
‘Free love’ sounds like ‘the procreative acts of animals, without the procreation, of course.’
‘Free healthcare’ sounds like ‘standing in line to redeem a government coupon’.]
[May I turn the previous blog around?
When ‘one’s conscience is not oriented towards God’, then ‘agape is unreal’.
Maybe, ‘free agape’ would be a better popular term for natural agape when one’s conscience is not oriented to independence, responsibility, personhood and grace.]
Summary of text [comment] page 72
Sin renders of us unable to love God and unable to love our fellow “man”.
If the person proclaims “his” love, it is not real.
One cannot appeal to the so-called fact, that some sinners (people who have lost grace) may nevertheless really love.
[Here, ‘love’ should be called agape as opposed to eros.
The above summary appears to confound the two.
Can a person incapable of agape fall into eros?
Here is a question that post-religious (enlightenment) rhetoricians would love to exploit. So let me pass it by.
According to Schoonenberg, natural agape cannot be real agape.
‘Agape is real’ when one’s conscience is oriented towards God.]
Summary of text [comment] page 72
[The second is the intersection showing the tension between ‘I recognize myself’ and ‘human nature is to participate in divine nature’.
Let me suppose that ‘love’ is ‘agape’.
Suppose the single actuality is ‘the state of brotherly love’. One would imagine this state to be a state of grace.
But, consider 1 John 4:20. If anyone says, ‘I love God’, yet hates his brother, he is a liar. He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
In this case, the axis of recognition is visible. The person proclaims “his” recognition of “his” love for God.
The axis of participation is more hidden. The person (secretly) hates “his” brother.
What is the theological twist in 1 John 4:20?
Observe. The divine object is a lie.]
[What has the person not seen?
Perhaps, “she” has not seen the situation-level nested form. “She” has not seen how “her” divine nature situates “her” feelings of attraction. “She” becomes smaller. In modern terms, “she” objectifies “herself”. “Her” carnal expectations situates “her” feelings of attraction.
“She” does not sense “her” self-destruction.]
Summary of text [comment] page 72
[The first is the interscoping nested form for ‘something called ‘love’.
Let me suppose that ‘love’ is ‘eros’.
The person sees the content-level, where “she” is attracted to “her” love. “She” loves being in love. “She” sees the erotic.]
