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.
[At this part of his text, Schoonenberg focuses on personal sins. He points to the bondage of sin for the individual.
Yet, in the hazy distance, the words of an (infra)sovereign religion linger.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
Schoonenberg writes that, when the Son of God invites us to the service of the Father, that service will have a liberating character. We are redeemed. We are free from that other servitude that may be called “bondage”.
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Welfare and other transfer payments are particularly deceptive.
When does getting something for free (one of the ways that the government attains its objectsorganization) sound like an “responsibility”?
Yet, it imposes the unavoidable: The recipient must vote for the Party of Larger Government.
In order to do that, the recipient justifies “himself” through state propaganda.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Laws are written in words. These words impose the unavoidable on others.
Why do legislatures exempt themselves from their own legislation?]
[Modern propaganda asserts that sovereign words (pro-object rhetoric and legislation) do not change incentives’
This assertion underlies the static economic analysis that always fails to predict the cost of central government impositions.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The rules of the camp depend on the capricious will of the sovereign director-dictator.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[What does Giorgio Agamben mean by the term “homo sacer” (Latin for “sacred man”).
In the camp, the sovereign holds the individual under the law as one to whom the law does not apply.
Why does the sovereign hold but the law not apply?
The subject is deemed a thinkanti-object, who has conscienceanti-object. So “his” very thoughts are crimes.]
[Let me return to the intersection.
At the extreme, the imposer objectifies and the subject is completely objectified.
I3b and me1a become, what Giorgio Agamben called, homo sacer.
The mirror of the world3a becomes the camp.]
[An (infra)sovereign religion cannot look at the character of the person. That would require seeing in terms of thinkdivine, a perspective that puts both sovereign and subject into context.
The (infra)sovereign religion can only look at people in terms of thinkpro-object and (its projection of) thinkanti-object.
The subject is reduced to the one accepting the object that brings the subject into organization.
Conformity to thinkpro-object becomes the common core.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Consider the sovereigninfra as a being that reduces the person’s heart in order to impose an organizational good.
What are some of the implications?
Here is one.
This religious being (the sovereigninfra religion) looks down upon the person.
It sees a person (modeled according to the intersecting nested forms) and attempts to directly manipulate features within that model.
The religioninfrasov nudges.
The religioninfrasov pushes.
The religioninfrasov bullies.
The religioninfrasov reduces subjects accused of thinkanti-object to the position of homo sacer (see Giorgio Agamben).]
