Summary of text [comment] page 24

[The other association may best be expressed through an example: marriage.

The (think^divine) norm of “what God has joined let no man sunder” is opposed by the modern norm of “no fault divorce” (think^group).  These two norms are exclusive yet interpellating.  A contest between them plays out in history.  A contest also occurs “outside of history”; that is, in the realm of primordial imagery.

The former associates with the unfolding of law^accept.

The latter associates with law^denial.

Inside of history, the unbinding of marriage by Progressives has had repercussions on every level of society, from the population (demographics) to the personal (the flourishing of resentment).  Think^group necessarily denies the consequences of its policies on human action.

In fact, their symbolic order cannot articulate any deformative impacts because the “words have changed” to accommodate their faultless policies.

The repercussions of no-fault divorce, plus the denial of those repercussions (law^denial), constitute the Real of History (law^essential).

Or rather, more technically, there is a relation of impossibility between law^accept and law^denial. ]