0035 A mystery resolves into a heresy.  An intersection unravels into a two-level interscope.  One nested form goes into the content level.  The other nested form enters the situation level.  Two configurations are possible.  Typically, one predominates.

What is a heresy?

You tell me.  The answer appears before you.

0036  In the heresy of technocratic progressivism₃, leviathan_1b virtually situates democracy_1a.

What is leviathan_1b?

Leviathan_1b is the potential of a state that will protect us (from one another)_1b.  Another way to describe this term is the potential of feelings of security_1b, in a world filled with sociopaths_2a.

0037 The implication is that human nature_3a coheres with purely calculated judgments_2cA, dispassionate perceptions_2bAand stoically accepted sensations and decodings_2aA.

Such dedication to reason means that humans are basically sociopaths, unable to register the emotional reactions of others.  There is no way that these sociopaths can govern themselves.  Therefore, democracy_1a, the potential of self-governance_1a or the potential of a state arising from people being reasonable or sensible_1a, must be virtually situated by a leviathan_1b, underlying a state of nature_3b. 

Human nature_3a is sociopathic_3a.

The state of nature_3b is a state of fear_3b.

0038 Yes, the state of fear_3b, which describes what the leviathan_1b apparently aims to prevent, becomes the normal context favored by technocratic progressivism₃, as it₃ brings the actuality of the unraveled individual₂ into relation with the potential of ‘remaking humans’₁.

0039 Surely, this does not makes sense.  Yet, it is precisely what Crawford witnesses during the lockdowns.

Human nature_2a is ruthlessly_3b suppressed by sovereign acts and decrees from a department of the leviathan_1b aiming to protect vulnerable people_2b, on the basis of a threat to health from the state of nature_3b.  Lockdowns and mask requirements violate commonsense_2a, yet anyone questioning the sovereign acts and decrees is regarded as a sociopath_1a, who does not care about the health of vulnerable people_2b.

I suppose that Crawford’s witness implies that the state of nature_3b is a state of fear_3b that, contrary to rational calculation_3a, arises from the potential of a state that aims to promote feelings of security_1b and to provide both material and psychological safe harbor for vulnerable people_2b.

Does that sound like lockdowns and stimulus checks?