Category Archives: Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in

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.

07/5/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 DE

Summary of text [comment] page 82

[Today, certain semiotic scholastics may be labeled post-modern.

In the same way, I call certain enlightenment and modern thinkers post-religionist.

Schoonenberg is not a post-religionist (enlightenment) thinker.

He is a modern who witnessed the horrors of modernism.

He tries to find a way out of the interpellation of the post-religionist (enlightenment) godheads.

Unfortunately, he writes right at the time when a new set of enlightenment gods enter into conflict.

In 1960, the conflict rages between two ideologies of materialism: Soviet Communism and Big Government Liberalism.]

06/7/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 CL

[Today, in the third and fourth generation after Schoonenberg wrote, ‘the symbolic order of big government liberalism’ is … unzipping.

Schoonenberg aimed to show that another Scriptural contrast, ‘the whole person against God’s law’, could support the actuality of the term ‘concupiscence’.

Today, his work stands in testimony to fully zipped Modernism.]

05/23/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 CB

[These scenarios dramatically increase the weirdness of New Testament.

God’s Incarnation occurred precisely at the juncture when oppositions within the Jewish and Roman societies were … um … unzipping.

Their languages were coming undone.

Their political systems were fundamentally transforming.

Jesus preached to third generation.

His resurrection was preached to the fourth.]

05/22/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 CA

[In the early 7760s, Schoonenberg wrote on the cusp.

During and after the second battle of the enlightenment gods (The Hot Battle of the Fraternalist Ideologies: 7738-7745 U0’). A Progressive religion attained sovereign power in the USA. It had not consolidated power. It was the first generation of a new idolatry.

Schoonenberg was unaware that a change in the symbolic order constitutes an opening of the mythos.

In the USA, big government liberalism changed the meaning of the words of classical liberalism. Big government liberalism won the third battle of the enlightenment gods (The Cold Battle of the Materialist Ideologies 7745-7789 U0’). The American people lost that battle. Classical liberalism was eclipsed.

It does not matter what causes the change of a symbolic order, whether a discrepancy between lawdenial and lawacceptance, bureaucratic veiling of original meanings, apparent contradictions within the symbolic order itself, God punishing the iniquity of the parents in later generations, two civilizations making contact, the trauma of plague or war, migrations, and so on. The change in the symbolic order is mythic.

The system of differences changes.

Language changes.

Confusion deepens.

Novel meanings, presences and messages are revealed.]

05/19/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BZ-2

[I now interweave the complementary strands. My sociological theory matches the second commandment in the following scenario:

The first generation synthesizes the symbolic order. Certain oppositions become real for them. They discover the idols.

The second generation assumes the actuality of this language (symbolic order). They sense the idols. They sensibly serve the idols. Benefits outweigh the costs. The second generation builds the temple.

The third generation tries to gain the benefits and avoid the costs of the system that their parents believe in. They see the system as inevitable. Most try to fit in. Some try to manipulate the idols. Some try to game the system. In doing so, they alter portions of the symbolic order of language in order to advance their organizational goals. Some oppositions are stressed, more than others.

Great idolatrous temples are difficult to maintain. Most realize that the temple is way too expensive. The costs are oppressive. Plus, the temple elites never are satisfied. But the temple is nice, really nice, even when it leaks when it rains.

The fourth generation confronts the costs. They break apart into those who insist that the system continue to expand (thinkpro-temple) and those who are ground into the dust (accused of thinkanti-object).

Society breaks. Many go insane. Many abandon the temple. The original opposition that founded the symbolic order comes undone. The idols are no longer are effective.]

05/17/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BY

[Then, something goes wrong. Constructed society is flawed. The reigning symbolic order cannot tell why.

The symbolic order adjusts to discrepancies between what people have built (and invested in) and its consequences due to violations of lawessential. The elites always have explanations for unintended consequences. As golden calves, they also have the scapegoats to blame.

However, these expressions of lawdenial alter the language. The elites transform the meaning of words in order to suit their personal and institutional needs.

The zipper is transformed piecemeal. Some sections remain original. Other sections are adapted to interlace with new or altered material.

As the discrepancies multiply within the symbolic order, they pressure all the other oppositions (that had originally fell into line). Words that seemed to be distinct suddenly develop similarities. Some oppositions appear to no longer hold.

When the grounding opposition fails, a crisis of legitimation ensues.]

05/16/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BX

Summary of text [comment] page 82

[Why do the elites destroy themselves from their own iniquity in the third and fourth generations?

I now add a complementary insight.

Language is a system of differences.

How do these differences form?

Consider the metaphor of a zipper. A symbolic order initially forms on the basis of one opposition. This opposition serves as a focus, so that other oppositions fall into line.

Once the symbolic order zips, people assume that what they are saying is referential (rather than socially constructed). The symbolic order becomes the basis of practical knowledge. People sensibly build society on the basis of the meanings, presences and messages of the symbolic order.]