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
[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.]
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 consciencefree in the intersecting nested form portrayed above. Thinkdivine interpellates ‘the bones’. Thinkgroup 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 thinkpro-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 thinkpro-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.]
[Come to think of it, sensible construction based on private or closely shared social constructions comes in handy for taking advantage of the ideological frameworks of others.
Hey, I can use widely held social constructions in order to cultivate my own wealth or status.
For example, consider the ambitions of state academics.
They pretend that their sensible constructions are not built on social constructions. They pretend that they are ‘not religious’, because that is the current opiate of the masses. Plus, their closely shared religious beliefs are unlikely to be challenged.
They can proselytize without risk.]
[Infrasovereign thinkpro-objects permeate this Age, interpellating adherents of the Zeitgeist and denigrating thinkdivine.
Adding to the confusion, we rely on the our ability to make sense of language. We fall back on our apparently sensical sensible constructions and ignore the apparently nonsensical social constructions underlying any contemporary ideology.
We treat the words of contemporary ideologies as if they referred to things (and they do, but those actualities are themselves social constructions).
Our innate ability to respond to ‘talk as if it made sense’ cannot confront ‘the underlying nonsense that, once presumed, supports sensible construction’.]
