0056 Kanzelberger lays out the moral theodrama.

The mystery of iniquity starts to unfold when I come up with ‘something’ objective_1b, without attention to the rules of reason and the divine law_1c.  At first, the objective_1b sets aside the suprasubjective_1c, by not admitting to the intersubjective_1b.  

I decide what makes sense_3c.

0057 Isn’t this the nature of concupiscence?  Why should I worry about right reason or Yahweh’s law?  I’m going to hang out with Cupid.  Cupid likes me.  Cupid agrees with me.

After a phantasm_2b of deliciously-worded_2a desire_2b becomes habitual, self-justification_3b strains towards the intersubjective_1b.  For self-deception_1b to become openly regarded, it must first become intersubjective.

So, I, a self-deceiver_3b, search out a team that will judge_2c my privation_2b as virtuous and true.  Let my intersubjective_2bhabit find an accommodating suprasubjectivity_1c.  Yes, I may join the club.  I may join the secret society that does not pay attention to some aspect of the rule of reason or the divine law_1c, then justifies the consequences_2a.

In fact, our common intersubjective privation_2b reflects a self-congratulating fullness of suprasubjective being_2c.  Our good is obvious to anyone who is “educated”.  We all love one another and despise the uneducated morons, don’t we?

0058 We blather_2a in production of our subjective agreement_1a.

Are we really free to choose_1b?

Or, am I forgetting something_1c?

0059 There are privations in things and events_2a, including speech-alone talk_2a.

There are privations in phantasms_2b, losing the balance between judgment_2c and speech_2a.

Here is a diagram for social construction.

What am I missing?