What about “sins of envy, greed, avarice and affluence”?

Menninger threw a Progressive word into this set.  Let us initially consider the first three items from a classic Christian perspective.

“The psychology of covetousness” makes “sins of envy, greed and avarice” possible.  This psychology includes a “rodent”-like fixation on the trappings of elite status; good looks, money, big homes, luxurious cars, important political positions, fancy clothes, an entourage, and so on.

“Covetousness” is more than about “possessions”.

The “sins of envy, greed and avarice” range from shoplifting to the machinations of crony capitalism.

The law^essential for these sins typically includes disturbingly large jail time for petty crimes and equally disturbing minimal fines for major crimes.  The iniquities inherent in the state administration of law^essential play out in unspoken and unseen manners that may be even more punishing for the community than for the criminals.

The law^essential for the sins of envy, greed and avarice include the consequences of the sin itself.  These sins degrade the person who commits them as well as everyone who empowers that person.  This degradation does not come from God.  They come from the sins themselves.

What is the vertical axis for “sins of envy, greed and avarice”?

Menninger took care to point out that “sins of envy” are also “sins of self-aggrandizement”.  A loss of conscience accompanies self-aggrandizement.  A loss of conscience also goes with a single-minded lust for possessions, a pre-occupation with possessions, not being able to say “enough”, and a fascination with status and the excitement of “getting away with it”.

In short, greed, envy and avarice are not about “fairness”.

The think^group that puts “sins of envy, greed and avarice” into context is the opposite of “the divine consolations of the simple life”.  Perhaps, we should call this think^group the “the ungodly consolations of the anything-but-simple life” – or – maybe we can call it “the idolatry of money”.

At first, it seems that “caring” belongs to think^divine.  But, in this instance, I wonder.  I bet it means “caring for the environment” and belongs to Progressive think^group.

To the Progressive, the “politically incorrect act of littering” emerges from an “acedia” (conscience^lacking) that could be called “conscience^incorrect”.   You are not just lazy.  You actively could not care less about the environment.

This “conscience^incorrect” must be supported by a think^incorrect even though that think^group may not – and most likely does not – exist.  I will call this deduced but non-existent think^incorrect “desires to exploit and ruin the environment”.

The litterer no longer “simply does not care”; the believer “adheres to a think^incorrect that actively hates the environment”.  The believer is a bad person.  The bad person thinks incorrectly.

Surveillance and heavy fines for littering are designed to force the litterer to abandon the politically charged think^incorrect that is being attributed to her.  She cannot recant, however, because she does not hold the think^incorrect that is being attributed to her.  She is just lazy.

This sounds like a witch hunt to me.

The “story of littering” makes a wonderful example of how the Progressives have taken the word “care” from the Christian Lebenswelt and re-assigned it to a new Progressive system of differences.

Christians care for “souls”.  Progressives care for “the environment”.

“Caring for the soul” is theological.  “Caring for the environment” is cryptotheological.

Progressive cryptotheology replaces think^divine with think^correct.

What about the vertical axis of think^group(sin(conscience^lacking)) in regards to one exemplar sin of sloth: littering?

Menninger was fond of the word “acedia”, which literally translates into “not caring”.  Menninger considers “acedia” a “refusal to grow”.  That sure sounds like conscience^lacking.

Menninger, as in previous sets of sins, only mentioned the alternative to think^group when it comes to “sins of sloth”.  That alternative is “caring”.

What about the sins of sloth?

A classic “sin of sloth” is littering.

Let us use it as an example.

The disposition that makes littering possible includes a “psychology of inconvenience”.

The law^essential that puts littering into context ranges from “the cost of someone else cleaning up after you” and continues to “invitations for property crime”.  The consequences of the sin extend far beyond the sinner.

“Littering” is a good example for Menninger’s perspective that the deterrents of “sin” and “personal responsibility” are superior to any imposed deterrents.

When “sin” is replaced by “political incorrectness”, then “littering may be construed as a crime against the environment” and punished with heavy fines and the like.  This implies that the symptom underlying “littering” may be “cured” in a field of imposed rewards and punishments.

How to establish such a field?  A surveillance state is required to monitor the populace in regards to this crime.

The Progressive horizontal axis becomes “police state surveillance and heavy fines(the political incorrectness of littering(the psychology of inconvenience)).

Let me put that into a picture.

Note that in this picture I retained the clinical axis of crime(politically incorrect action(symptom)) because Menninger’s terms seem to fit better.

Compare this to the more general (and more Judeo-Christian) horizontal axis of law^essential(sin(disposition)).

For the sins of sensuality and gluttony, Progressive think^group was “on the side of the sinner” in that it largely told the sinner what she wanted to hear.

This began to change in the section on anger.

Progressive cryptotheological think^group justifies rudeness, violence and aggression by the politically correct person.

However, at the same time, Progressive think^group repudiates rudeness against the politically incorrect person.

Progressive think^group projects a think^incorrect and conscience^incorrect onto the person who commits an act of rudeness, aggression or violence.  That is, Progressives presume that the politically incorrect actor adheres to an incorrect ideology and has a false conscience.  Thus, the politically incorrect actor should be “scapegoated”.

In contrast, the politically correct actor should be “golden calfed”.

In this instance, think^group does not stand in opposition to think^divine.  Rather, it casts itself as think^divine (or as think^correct) against the empty-set (straw man) think^incorrect. Think^incorrect would (theoretically) have to exist if the action were to be politically incorrect.

Let me put that into a picture.

Intersecting nested forms for blog 8P

Menninger went on to the “sins of anger, violence and aggression”.

On the horizontal axis of law^essential(sin(disposition)), the dispositions are “the psychologies of rage and resentment”.   The sin itself is often manifested as rudeness.  The law^essential includes both a judicial system of plea-bargaining & mandatory prison time as well as a community of damaged opportunistic individuals.

When “sin” is replaced by “political incorrectness”, then law^essential condones acts of rudeness, violence and aggression against individuals deemed “incorrect”.

On the vertical axis of think^group(sin(conscience^lacking)), Menninger mentioned that rudeness, violence and aggression are made possible by attitudes of ingratitude, inconsiderateness, and lack of self-control.  He also noted the alternate to think^group was the think^divine of gratefulness and good manners.

Since Menninger was unaware that he stood for both Progressives and Christians, he was not in a position to see how Progressive think^group contrasted with Christian think^divine.  Consistent with prior blogs, Progressive think^group tells the believer what she wants to hear: Rudeness, violence and aggression express righteous anger, not bad manners.

Cryptotheological formulae explain the righteousness.