Human psychology evolved under in the social milieu of constrained complexity. Currently, humans live in unconstrained complexity. What has this done to our minds? These topics are addressed in various parts of An Archaeology of the Fall, particularly in chapters 8C and 11B.
[Similarly, the vast nothingness that we see in contemporary American television is supported by the dynamics of ‘I recognize myself according to some … nothingness’.
This ‘nothingness’ consists of characters, such as ‘a helpless victim terrorized by a bad one’. The televised helpless victim inspires sympathy, because the viewer is also a victim (a disempowered person who cannot talk back to the television producers).]
[This, of course, raises the specter of another topic.
If ‘nothing’ is accomplished without Christ, then what are we to make of all our constructions in our non-Christocentric world?
What is the nature of ‘this social nothing that we done without Christ’?]
[My comedic and rhetorical question is:
Has some Council explicitly condemned ‘a mutual love (agape)’ defined as two parties despising a third (who happens to be a creation of their own projections)? Or is that simply too ridiculous?]
Summary of text [comment] pages 72 and 73
Schoonenberg wrote about ‘the inability to love’.
[The term, ‘love’, has been redefined (by Progressives) as ‘something that does not require conversion and does not proceed from grace’.
How convenient.]
[Televisionaries transformed ‘love (agape)’ into ‘something that does not proceed from grace and that requires no conversion’. They have transformed ‘freedom’ into ‘celebrity and slavery’.
The real victims are the unsuspecting folk who do not watch Progressive television.
They have no idea what is going on, especially when they are suddenly branded as ‘bad ones’.]
[Progressive television – ideological broadcasting – redefines ‘freedom’ as ‘without obligations’.
Yet, when the hero saves the victim (standing in for the disempowered viewer), the victim is emotionally obligated to the hero (standing in for the television producers and their Progressive religions).
These redefinitions produce an idol of unreal love (where television elites and disempowered viewers are united in hatred against a foe).
These redefinitions produce differential freedoms (the television elites are not obligated to the viewer victims, but the viewer victims are emotionally obligated to the elites).]
[Progressive television redefines ‘love (agape)’ as the hero and the victim uniting against an exploitive foe.
It does not matter that this exploiter is a literary creation (that does not exist in actuality).
The foe is portrayed in television reality.
We all know: Reality is not Real.]
[Clearly, the televisionaries redefine the term ‘love (agape)’ so that ‘it no longer proceeds from grace and no longer requires conversion’.
Such a redefinition allows a person to use the word ‘love (agape)’ along with the word ‘free’, where ‘free’ means ‘without obligation’. The movie ‘hero’ is ‘free’ to ‘love the victim’. But this is not a love of equal standing. The victims can never repay their obligations.
Again, this expresses the attitude of royalty.
The hero obligates the victims by rescuing them. Plus, the hero reduces the victim’s freedom, or, should I say ‘self-esteem’.
Even stranger, the rescued victims are less obligated to defend themselves. The hero will take care of them.
Ah, royal patronage.]
[Schoonenberg’s translator used the word ‘love’ to indicate, foremost ‘agape’.
Yet, “he” did not rule out ‘eros’.
To me, this implies that ‘love’ is rooted in the realm of possibility. Contradictions are allowed. Real love, in contrast, is actual. It emerges from and situates agape and eros. Real love cannot be reduced to ‘brotherly affections’ or ‘feelings of attraction’.]
Summary of text [comment] page 72
Real love proceeds from grace. Conversion is crucial to love. The inability to love is an immediate sequel to sin.
[However, as noted in the previous blog, televisionaries and their fellow travelers repackaged ‘the inability to love’ into ‘television broadcast love’.
Of course, the word ‘love’ has been redefined in two ways.
Television viewers now associate the word ‘love’ solely with ‘eros’ (love between male and female, in the broadest sense of the term).
Television producers usurp the other word for love, ‘agape’ (love of friends, kin and fellow believers, in the broadest sense of the term). They substitute the union of the hero and victim against the (imaginary) victimizer. Here is ‘a union in hatred of another’.
Are either of these ‘real love’?]
