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.
[The technical term is ‘reciprocity’
Each of us intuitively knows that nothing is truly free. To accept a gift is to accept the responsibilities of reciprocity.
This raises a fascinating sociological question:
How does one engage in reciprocity with an institution?]
[Would anyone offer you anything for ‘free’ (without apparent cost or obligation) in the short run, unless they hoped that the exchange would ‘obligate you, in the long run’?
An alternate approach is to offer ‘free stuff’ means ‘ with strings attached.
These strings (words) are co-opposed to bondage.]
[Progressive values1b are supposed to underlie our choices2b.
There should be no contradictions, when values1b align with desire1a.
Our choices2b touch base with Schoonenberg’s use of the word “service3b”.
Some value1b must be worth serving3b.]
Schoonenberg wrote that we exercise freedom in serving either God or Satan.
[Progressive institutions insist on a litany of obligations, expressing what the citizen ought to be. Their demands backed by the sword of the sovereign.
Progressive institutions compete with the family, tribe and religion. They want to be responsible for you (not to you).
They work through words: legal codes, deceptive labels, surveillance, indoctrination, mandatory education, rewriting history, agenda setting, ridicule and ostracism.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
Schoonenberg wrote that we exercise freedom in serving either God or Satan.
[The claim, “I am not responsible.”, touches base with the modern definition of the word “freedom” as lack of obligations, especially impositions by family, tribe and religious cultural institutions.
The irony is that this assertion, rather than achieving a lack of obligations, merely transfers one’s obligations to institutions that declare themselves to be responsible.
How clever the Progressives can be.]
[How is the mirror of the world3H to blame?
It is filled with blame.
Blame within the mirror of the world3H offers an alternate to responsibility and freedom.
Blame within the mirror of the world3H offers words and bondage.
There is an element of truth to the blame game.
This may be why Schoonenberg hopes to conceive of Original Sin as the sinfulness of social structures.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
Schoonenberg wrote that we exercise freedom in serving either God or Satan.
[The previous figure complements Schoonenberg’s view.
How?
Well, it provides an excuse.
IF the thought experiment3H regulates the following:
I, seat of choice3V( my choice and something2 ( potentials of something of value1V))
AND IF I, seat of choice3V does not serve God,
THEN the mirror of the world3H is to blame.]
[How does this resonate with Schoonenberg’s claim that we have the freedom to serve God or Satan?
Freedom goes with both the potential of the person1a plus an actuality, the something contextualized by the thought experiment2a.
The thought experiment3a reflects illumination by social elites (or, in general, the Zeitgeist).]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Let me list the lower level co-opposition.
Responsibility3a(2a & freedom2a(1a)
Corresponds to:
Mirror of the world3a( something2a( me1a))]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Both the ancient Jewish and modern American infra(sovereign) religions possessed objects that bring all subjects into organization.
Both were and are committed to creating the thought experiement3a or a mirror of the world3a.]
