Summary of text [comment] pages 61-62

[In our current Lebenswelt, only (actual or potential) elites accuse others of think^anti-object.

Who else benefits when golden calves sacrifice scapegoats? Who else has motivation?

Remember, John the Baptist was beheaded when Herod had to keep his promise to his dinner guests. Jesus was crucified when Pilate would not stand up to a crowd. Both preserved their positions as golden calves by sacrificing a scapegoat.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 61-62

[How relevant are Rene Girard’s theories?

On the other hand, I can wonder:

Was the dehumanization and the scapegoating of others (within the group) a feature of pre-singularity band and village cultures? Was it a characteristic of the world of constrained complexity? Was it typical of “the Lebenswelt that we evolved in”?

Or is it a unique characteristic of unconstrained complexity?

Here, the hypothesis in An Archaeology of the Fall proves valuable.

I think that scapegoating is a feature of unconstrained complexity, not constrained complexity. It is a feature of our current Lebenswelt, not “the Lebenswelt that we evolved in”.

Or, it may be a feature of “the Lebenswelt that we evolved in” that became deranged with the change of representation from innocent reference to projected reference.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 61-62

[Rene Girard’s scenario of “the scapegoat mechanism yielding (through reversal) sovereign power” is echoed in chapter 14 of a totally unrelated book: Zero to One: Notes on Start Ups, or How To Build the Future by Peter A. Theil with Blake Masters (2014).

The chapter is titled, The Founders.

It sounds just like Rene Girard.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 61-62

[Why Enlil?

Why not Enlil?

What attributes did Enlil have that fundamentally transformed “a growing town-chiefdom” into “the city-state of Nippur”? Was Enlil a trap? How was Enlil so beautiful, sublime and monstrous as to dignify the dehumanization and the scapegoating of others? Was Enlil sated by human sacrifice?

Maybe, a ruler arose from among those who were fated to be accused. The first king was already dehumanized, slated for sacrifice. But then, the tables turned, and the intended sacrifice rose in stature, accusing his accusers, and turning them into the scapegoats. This is what Rene Girard imagines.

The first king was a scapegoat who avoided his fate.

The wind god had found it’s voice.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 61-62

[Now, some speculation.

One of the first think^groups to successfully gain sovereign power promoted the wind God, Enlil, as the object organizing the ancient city of Nippur.

The party of Enlil promoted think^pro-Enlil. They began to rule. Sovereign power magically appeared beneath their feet.

According to An Archaeology of the Fall, Enlil’s Public Cult ruled the city-state of Nippur by 3000 B.C. or 2800 U0′, 2800 years after the adoption of speech alone talk in southern Mesopotamia (0 Ubaid 0′).

[The question boils down to this:

How does one escape the trap sprung when a think^group successfully gains sovereign power?]

[When a think^group gains sovereign power, all must serve its idols in one way or another. All roads lead to perdition. Accusation, resistance and resentment meet at the same gate.

What gate?

You know, the one that proclaims in iron letters: “Our organizational object will make you free”.

This is the trap that the American Founders were trying to avoid in the first amendment. Today, their words stand as a prophecy. Progressive think^groups have already established their religions through sovereign power.

Who knows?

IF the federal government has established a religion,

THEN When will the little folk realize this?

When the federal government accuses them of anti-object pursuits at every turn?

When the federal government says, “Believe in think^pro-object and you will be saved.”?]

Summary of text [comment] page 61-62

[“To resent” is “to enter into a world of conspiracies, where the idolatry of the (infra)sovereign religion plays havoc with one’s mind”.

According to Rene Girard, both resistance and resentment become sites for competitive mimesis, where “the one resenting” and “the one who is resented” become less and less distinguishable. “Getting even” becomes the sole organizational goal.

The accused accuses the accuser. The accused imitates the desire of the accuser.

Each party strives to grasp sovereign power in order to fundamentally transform society according to their resentments.

Satan casts out Satan.]

Summary of text [comment] page 61-62

[Are resistance and resentment the only paths?

“To resist” is “to carry the label of the anti-object and to feel the burden of iniquity projected upon you”.

Pro-object accusers want to presume that their idolatry is true. Resistance validates their object.

Most scapegoats do not even know this. They validate “the accusation as sensical” (even though the accusation is technically misleading or false) by expressing anger and protesting their innocence.

Christine O’Donnell in 2010 makes a good case study.

Her response to false accusations inadvertently assisted the true believers in her persecution.]

[Please, do not accuse me of think^anti-object.

Think^pro-object accuses “those who are not in the organization” of false ideologies (think^anti-object) and bad conscience (conscience^anti-object).

These accusations ruin innocent lives.

These accusations bankrupt the accused.

How can the accused respond to these projections of power?]