Category Archives: The Evolution of Talk

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.

06/25/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 MT

[… that obligations3H(2 for the intersecting nested forms, corresponds to:

Mirror of the world3H(my heart2

In the intersection, my heart2 is the single actuality of my choice2V and ‘something’ contextualized by the mirror of the world2H.

Words3H(2H, excuses3H(2H and resentments3H(2H correspond to the latter actuality.

They still cry out, “I am not responsible.”

But how irresponsible is that?

In my heart, I know that the values that I have been choosing1V no longer represent the desires inherent in me1H.

In our heart, I know the truth that I cannot accept:

My resentments are co-opposed to bondage.]

06/5/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 MF

[In the above examples, what do I desire?

I want to get along.

Therefore, the elites must never be satisfied with me.

They will always be morally superior in order to force me to pretend to desire things that I would never would desire on my own.

I desire to be left alone.

What I do to accomplish that desire validates the values that valorize elite moral superiority.]

06/4/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 ME

[How did we get this way?

It started with the first singularity.

Humans adopted a new way of talking, speech alone talk, leaving behind the referential world of hand speech talk.

Speech alone talk allows us to create purely symbolic orders3a, specialized languages3a, thought experiments3a and mirrors of the world3a, whose unintended consequences (lawessential) can be ignored, and therefore must be ignored, by the elites who benefit from the ‘something2a’ that emerges and situates the possibilities inherent in me1a.]

05/30/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 MB

[The Cult of American Progressivism spews a deluge of words in order to maintain bondage to our particular victimhoods.

Pneumo-pathological mechanisms establish of a sovereign religion.

Those grasping for power have objects that bring subjects into organization.

Thinkpro-object enslaves the subjects who, like all those who went to Jesus and heard only parables, simply do not know any better.]

05/29/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 MA

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Just as the regular first-century Jews selected the ‘something2a’ that empowered the Pharisees, many twentieth century Americans vote for ‘something2a’ that denies other people’s rights and properties.

By pretending to be a victim, we get free stuff.

We vote for Progressive representatives to scam easily intimidated common folk (who strive to build wealth).

The very rich folk, however, have different options.

They hire lobbyists.

How character building is that?]

05/23/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 LX

[Progressive elites buy votes with various pro-objects.

These pro-objects nominally protect the victims.

In fact, these purported victims depend on largess from the Central Government. Indulgences validate the recipient’s victimhood. The recipient’s victimhood validates Progressive organizational objects.

The common word for “indulgence” is “entitlement”.]

05/21/18

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 LV

[How is this possible?

Americans are ‘free’. However, voters have consistently chosen ‘somethings2a’ that have empowered the Central Government (State and City governments no longer rule independent of the Center).

Or have they?

Their votes against the aggressive (infra)sovereign party go to the the other party.

This other party takes the passive common folk stance of meeting ritual demands in order to avoid accusations by the (infra)sovereign party.

Big Government Liberalism wins either way.

How crazy is that?]