Summary of text [comment] page 22
[From the prior blogs, 1.4D through J, I have proposed a way to identify (perhaps, define) “religion” on the basis of two criteria:
A religion views the individual according to the model of the intersecting nested forms where the horizontal axis is natural philosophical and the vertical axis is moral religious.
The vertical axis is divided (in our current Lebenswelt of unconstrained complexity) into parallel exclusive yet interpellating nested forms.
All religions have a nested relation to sovereign power. Suprasovereign religions put the sovereign into context by expressing an object that brings individuals into relation. Infrasovereign religions are called into being as individuals establish an organizational object (or the object that brings the individuals into organization). Infrasovereign religions are then situated by sovereign power.
Occasionally, infrasovereign religions seek sovereign power. Occasionally, they have sovereign power thrust upon them. When religioninfrasovereign gains sovereign power, the sovereigninfra will substitute its organizational object into the position of “divine” (of thinkdivine) and project an anti-object into the position of “group” (of thinkgroup).