Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 RB
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The rules of the camp depend on the capricious will of the sovereign director-dictator.]
12/3/18
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.
11/30/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 RA
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.]
11/28/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 QY
[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.]
10/3/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 PL
[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.]
10/1/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 PJ
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).]
09/28/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 PI
[Summary of text [comment] page 83
With regulation, I, seat of choice3V, is reduced to a subject to the sovereigninfra.
The mirror of the world3V forcibly aligns my choice2V with the thinkpro-object of the sovereign religion.
The words3H(2H of the sovereign place me in bondage2H(IH)).]
09/25/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 PF
[Should harmful practices and behaviors be regulated?
The question is, of course, rhetorical.
It is the question posed by the Big Government Liberal in the mirror of the world3a.]
09/20/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 PC
[Health-minded institutions not try to regulate human behavior by demanding sovereign power.
They should try to influence human behavior by presenting facts that induce dread.
This is the opposite view from Big Government Liberalism.]
09/18/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 PA
[Progressives prefer forced over unforced conversion.
The material outcomes appear identical.
But the immaterial outcomes are not.]
09/17/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 OZ
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Progressives cannot account for the immaterial world.
They cannot see it.
Categorical associations open the opportunity to envision how Progressives immaterially (or spiritually) gain from imposing their organizational objects.]