Summary of text [comment] page 22

[I now want to consider these “objects” that “bring individual in to relation” or “bring individuals into organization”.

All objects follow the logic of Lacan’s point de caption.  I suppose that point de caption is very similar to the shoelace analogy.  Like shoelaces, point de captions can become either knotted or undone.  In the former case, the garment has no give.  In the latter case, the garment comes apart.

I prefer to use a similar analogy: buttoning.  The advantage is that objects may constitute either the buttonhole or the button.

For suprasovereign religions, the object exists in the realms of normal context₃ and possibility₁. The object is thus inspirational; that is, inspiring creativity₃ and desire₁.  The object is relational.   Creativity and desire support relations.  One can think of the “buttonhole₃ (say, a think^divine₃)” as bringing “an actuality₂ (say, a virtuous act₂)” into relation with “the possibilities inherent in the button₁ (say, an exercise in conscience^free₁)”.  This actuality is “an act of buttoning₂” that does far more than meet some organizational goal.  It builds character and relations.

For infrasovereign religions, the object exists in the realm of actuality₂.  The object is thus dictatorial.  It dictates a result.

So let me go backwards and consider “the buttoning₂” as “an organizational goal₂” and “the actions required to accomplish the goal₂“.  The buttonhole no longer reflects a context.  It is merely an actuality.  The button no longer reflects a possibility.  It is merely an actuality.

Technical creativity and occasionally hard work are required.  But these feel like “conformity”.

Conformity?

The think^group established what the buttonhole and button are.  One is not brought into relation.  One is brought into organization.]