The “evolution of talk” covers the evolution of the human capacity for language as well as the modes in which that capacity is expressed. Aspects are discussed in chapters 1,2 and 7 of An Archaeology of the Fall.
[What did I find?
Two actualities were evident: the event of the choice2 and the actuality of something2.
Two actualities implied two nested forms: I choose something and a thought experiment where something forms in my mind. The former goes with the event. The latter goes with the actuality of something.
Thus, the idea of ‘I choose something’ became the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 87 and 88
[So what are survey questions actually measuring?
Something2a is the actuality that gains the subject’s attention. Yet, even this actuality is one element in a dyad.
The other element is the researcher and the conditions.
These are very difficult to assess. Consequently, the thought experiment3a treats these as constants.]
[In the gnostic paradigm, secret knowledge may alter the fate of a person. Secret incantations permit the soul to perform the proper actions in order to return to the source.
Can I, seat of choice3V, compare to someone who holds secret knowledge?
Or does the acquisition of secret knowledge compare to a thought experiment3H?]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Obligations tend to be unavoidable.
Responsibilities tend to be character building.
Words tend to be deceptive.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[True conversion occurs when a feature in the mirror of the world offers the truth. The something2H that appeals to a potential in me1H does not contain value1V.
Value1V conflicts with desire1H.
This discrepancy calls for a choice2V.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[What happens to the tobacco smoker?
The mirror of the world (including the progressive regulatory zeitgeist)3a no longer allows value1b to coincide with desire1a.
The following diagram shows the interscope restricted to sensible construction (a two-level interscope.
The next diagram shows the intersection, occurring under the influence of the thinkpro-object of citizen health.]
[The technical term is ‘reciprocity’
Each of us intuitively knows that nothing is truly free. To accept a gift is to accept the responsibilities of reciprocity.
This raises a fascinating sociological question:
How does one engage in reciprocity with an institution?]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
Schoonenberg wrote that we exercise freedom in serving either God or Satan.
[The claim, “I am not responsible.”, touches base with the modern definition of the word “freedom” as lack of obligations, especially impositions by family, tribe and religious cultural institutions.
The irony is that this assertion, rather than achieving a lack of obligations, merely transfers one’s obligations to institutions that declare themselves to be responsible.
How clever the Progressives can be.]
