Summary of text [comment] page 35

[What are we to conclude from the radically different manifestations of Knowledge and Will that accompany one type of situation (where think^group and think^divine both exist) as opposed to another type of situation (where a think^group achieves sovereign power and transubstantiates into an (infra)sovereign religion, a think^pro-object and a think^anti-object)?

The latter type of situation appears beyond the subject matter that Schoonenberg addresses, even though he witnessed the latter type with his own eyes.  In fact, the latter type should be of greatest concern to scholars.  Nearly every nation in the West has fallen, in Modern Times, under the sway of a Public Cult.

Perhaps, one reason is that theology takes time.  Even now, a century after the First World War, we still do not comprehend what happened.  We are still wrestling with the great thinkers of that era, such as Pierce and Saussure.

Schoonenberg, writing 50 years after the death of Peirce, clearly had no access to the categorical tools that I currently use.

Still, Schoonenberg labors to develop a new perspective.

The historic occurrences of sovereign^{infrareligion} rule are becoming more and more frequent.  They no longer appear to be historical anomalies.  I suspect that their increasing occurrence is conditioned by the adoption of “mass media” ways of talking.

The framework of venial and mortal sin seems to both rejected an usurped whenever Anti-knowledge, Denial of Consequences, Perversion and Servitude reign.]

[What happens when an infrasovereign religion achieves sovereign power?

On the natural philosophical axis:

Knowledge₃₍₂₎ becomes Anti-knowledge₃₍₂₎, “the denial of the consequences of pro-object human actions₃₍₂₎”

Law^denial₃₍₂₎: Explanations₃ for objective failure of situation₂

Will₂₍₁₎ becomes perversion₂₍₁₎ or servitude₂₍₁₎

Perversion₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerging from the trained dispositions₁

This coupling matches the common perception of the word “perversion” as “kinky”.  “Kinky” pleases “the dispositions”.  What is missing in this naïve view is the other facet of the will: conscience.

Perversion₂₍₁₎ is human action emerging from both conscience^{instrument_of_pro-object}₁ and dispositions^kinky₁.

Servitude₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerging from the trained dispositions₁

This coupling matches the common perception of “the slave” as “the one who is unable to run away”. The slave cannot run away because of exhaustion and compromized feelings (disposition^servitude).

The “slave” is defined as “the person who acts, with insubstantial resistance, according to the directives of the instruments of higher power, not because ‘he’ agrees, but because ‘he’ fears to be caught disagreeing”.

When subjects are brought into relation according to some organizational goal, the “pervert” becomes a “master” and the “subject” becomes a “slave”.]

[What happens when an infrasovereign religion achieves sovereign power?

On the moral religious axis:

Knowledge₃₍₂₎ becomes Anti-knowledge₃₍₂₎, that is, “knowledge enclosed within the (infra)sovereign religion as it emerges from the situation₂”.  No other knowledge is permitted.  Anti-knowledge includes explanations for why sovereign efforts fail (law^denial), in addition to one-sided justifications (think^pro-object as well as think^anti-object).

Anti-knowledge₃₍₂₎: think^pro-object₃ emerging from and assessing the situation₂

Why situation₂ and not human action₂?

Organizational objectives dictate human action in addition to the person’s will.  “Situation₂” is “human action₂ under the conditions of the organizational directive₁”.

Will₂₍₁₎ becomes perversion₂₍₁₎ and servitude₂₍₁₎

Perversion₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerging from a conscience^pro-object₁

Zizek defines “perversion” as “a person who acts as an instrument of a higher power”.

Servitude₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerging from conscience^{fear_of_being_anti-object}₁

This coupling matches the common perception of “the slave” as “the one who is unwilling to run away”. The slave will not run away because of anxiety (conscience^{fear_of_being_anti-object}₁).]

Summary of text [comment] page 35

[Given the ideas in blogs 1.5W1 and 2, let met pose this question:

What happens when an infrasovereign religion achieves sovereign power?

When a think^group achieves sovereign power, it divides into think^pro-object and a projection of think^anti-object on the basis of “an object that brings all subjects into organization”.  I depict this situation (infra)sovereign religion, sovereign^{infra-religion} or Public Cult.]

Summary of text [comment] page 35

[This echoes a sentiment that I feel about religion^{suprasovereign} and religion^{infrasovereign}.  The first feels like knowledge₃₍₂₍₎₎.  The latter feels like will₂₍₁₎.]

Summary of text [comment] page 35

[I now place another list to both nuance and contradict the associations provided in blog 1.5T (the summary of knowledge and will).

These portrayals combine two categorical levels.  The first instance describes a crossing of the categories.  The second instance presents a nested form (with the missing category left blank).

On the moral religious (vertical) axis of the intersecting nested forms:

Knowledge₃₍₂₎ : think^{group_or_divine}₃contextualizes human action₂, as sin or virtue

Knowledge₃₍₂₎: think^{group_or_divine}₃(human action₂(___₁))

Will₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerges from specified conscience₁

Will₂₍₁₎: __₃(human action₂(conscience^{lacking_or_free}₁))

On the natural philosophical (horizontal) axis of the intersecting nested forms:

Knowledge₃₍₂₎: consequences₃ contextualize human action₂

Knowledge₃₍₂₎: law^essential₃(human action₂(___₁))

Will₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerges from dispositions₁

Will₂₍₁₎: __₃(human action₂(dispositions₁))

These definitions feel more evocative than the previous formulations because knowledge and will are implicated when the higher category alters the circumstances of the adjacent lower category.]

Summary of text [comment] page 35

Perhaps, we can label the gradation for sin: “grades of disgrace”; and the gradation for virtue: “grades of grace”.

Such grades may serve as models for human relationships.

[For example, the grades of disgrace for the relationship of matrimony might be “acting cold or quarreling” (venial); “adultery or public humiliation of partner” (mortal); and “divorce” (irreversible, the relationship is damned, leaving an undead remainder of legal action).

For example, the grades of grace for the same relationship may be “patience and attention” (inspiration); “having children” (co-creation with God); and “growing old together” (irreversible, the two are one flesh, leaving a living remainder of family).]

Summary of text [comment] page 35

Just as there is a gradation of venial, mortal, and impenitent (irreversible) for sin, there appears to be a gradation for freely accepting the covenant of God.  Basic moral acts accept an increase in grace.  Grace triumphs in the act of love that resembles the final option, the entrance to a mystical and supernatural life.

[Note the word “earn” is not used for grace.  One does not “earn” a particular will, unless “habituation” is “earning”.   For virtue, one struggles and accepts whatever inspiration comes along.  Grace may inspire conscience^free and train the dispositions.  In order to do so, it seems like grace would be an action, or an actuality inherent in action.

At the same time, the intersecting nested forms show that grace is not an actuality like money. Grace is not a commodity that can be earned and spent.  Thus, it seems that grace operates within the realms of mediation and possibility.  Grace inspires us to judge our acts according to think^divine.  Grace calls conscience^free.  In this, grace increases the likelihood of acts of virtue.

So far, the term “grace” is perplexing.]

Summary of text [comment] page 33 and 34

[Allow me to summarize.

Knowledge and will are categorical but cross the boundaries of the intersecting nested form.

Knowledge₃ encompasses both think^{group_or_divine}₃and law^essential₃.

Will₁ covers both conscience^specified₁ and dispositions₁.

Knowledge₃ may train the will­₁ through sinful or virtuous actions₂.

Knowledge₃ contextualizes action₂.  Action₂ situates the will₁.

“Knowledge₃^“ brings “action₂” into relation with “the possibilities inherent in the will₁”.  Action₂ emerges from will₁.

Knowledge of what is proper to partial goods comes from “think^divine and law^{see_the_consequences}” or “think^group and law^{explain_away_the_consequences}”.

The will that aids the training of the dispositions answers to a conscience^specified.

Training requires human action.]

Schoonenberg wrote that during this life, we grow interiorly and live deeper within the direction of our decisions, whether toward “love unto life” or “sin unto death”.  Yet, the influences of circumstances and the body cannot be dismissed, even in old age, even in dying.

Summary of text [comment] page 33 and 34

Schoonenberg emphasized that both knowledge and will are involved in the grade from venial sin, to mortal sin, and to final impenitence.

[Knowledge is not limited to think^{group_or_divine}, because, it may also be found on the natural philosophical axis.  Knowledge includes law^essential.

However, the gradation is important.

The interpellation of think^divine is still heard when the person commits venial sins.

The interpellation of think^divine becomes either a shout or a whisper when the person commits mortal sins.

The interpellation of think^divine is either soul-crushing thunder or a tiny gnawing whisper at the final impenitence. ]