[What is the triadic relation that law^essential differentiates into?

“My acceptance of the potential consequences (law^acceptance)” and “my denial of the consequences of action (in regards to self (option A), self and others (option B) or self and others and order itself (options C and C^-1); (law^denial))” relate to one another on the basis of impossibility.

This triadic relation is most slippery because one cannot assuredly place any element solely into one category.  Instead, the triadic relation writhes as a triadic system of differences with indeterminate normal context, actuality and possibility.

Does “impossibility₃^“ bring “denial of consequences₂” into relation with “the potential inherent in the consequences₁”?

Makes sense, since acceptance is “a potential of the consequences₁“.

Does “denial of the consequences₃^“ bring “impossibility₂” into relation with “the potential inherent in the consequences₁”?

Makes sense, since denial could be the normal context so that certain consequences are regarded as impossible.  Plus, acceptance is a potential consequence.

Does “acceptance of the consequences₃^“ bring “denial of the consequences₂” into relation with “the potential inherent in the image of impossibility₁”?

If acceptance is the normal context and the actions come out as denial, then something is making the normal context impossible.  That something could be many things, such as misinformation (I mean, anti-knowledge.).

And so on.  If you think about each permutation long enough, it becomes plausible.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 37, 38 and 39

[What is this business with law^essential, law^acceptance and law^denial?

It seems that I am dividing law^essential into to parallel horizontal nested forms (just like the parallel vertical nested forms).  The normal context termini of these nested forms parallel forms would be law^{acceptance_of_consequences} and law^{denial_of_consequences}.

This apparent duplication of the horizontal axis marks the occlusion of think^divine by think^pro-object.  It marks the moment when the mutual interpellation of think^divine and think^group is outlawed by (infra)sovereign power (the sovereign^infra religion).]

Summary of text [comment] pages 37, 38 and 39

[Since we are on the topic of “finality”, allow me to ask this:

Can one move along the love-hate axis, past the polar end that is “hate”, into a “final hate”, where one no longer feels the hate, instead one lives it, or perhaps, one dies to it?

Can one live and die in the lack of another’s love?

What does it mean to say, “She is beyond hating him.”?  Or, “He is beyond hating her.”?  Does it mean that each no longer obsesses over the other’s lack of love?

Or does that mean that each has grown to desire her or his, um, obsession?

Similarly, can one move along the guilt-responsibility axis, past the polar end that is “guilt”, into a “final guilt”, where one no longer feels guilt, instead one lives it, or perhaps, dies to its denial of responsibility?

What does it mean when someone says: She no longer feels guilt?

Does it mean that she has given up “denying responsibility”, as if, in the denial, there remained a shred of hope, a possibility for redemption?

Does it mean that she has forgotten how to be responsible?]

Summary of text [comment] pages 37, 38 and 39

[What about guilt?

Just as “hate” is the polar opposite of “love” (while remaining on the same axis), is “guilt” the polar opposite of “responsibility”?

Just as “hate” means that “you are always thinking about the other’s lack of love of you”, could “guilt” mean that “you are always denying your responsibility to others”?

Perhaps, that is why, in court, to be “found guilty” means “to be found responsible”.

What? You probably imagined that “guilt” meant “knowing that you are doing injustice to others, but not doing anything about it”.

Hmmm.  Is that not “denying your responsibility to others”?]

Summary of text [comment] pages 37, 38 and 39

[While the previous blog constitute a hypothesis (by way of scenarios), I sense that it resonates with Schoonenberg’s ideas, and may help explain why …]

Schoonenberg proceeds to the issue of finality.

The many decisions for good or evil are analogues of that global decision by which we decide our eternity in the act of dying … or … anticipations of that final option during this life …

[While many would laugh at the idea of a “final option” at the moment of death, we must remember that the ways of God are not the ways of humans.

The increase in intensity portrayed in the last blog resonates with the image of finality.

The increase of intensity is directly linked to “denial of the consequences, law^denial” that is “not taking responsibility for one’s actions”.

As the intensity increases, the sinner’s perceptions of the consequences become more and more impossible, until, of course, one arrives at Progressivism, Communism, Fascism, or any of the modern Public Cults founded on “an object that brings all of subjects into organization”.

All proclaimed that their object was historically inevitable.  “Inevitability” indicates “a total denial of the consequences of one’s actions”.

Oh, and it provides that unnerving excuse: I was just obeying orders.]

Summary of text [comment] page 37

[I am still on the question: Does “intensity” also pertain to the horizontal nested form?

In the last two blogs, I proposed several scenarios that would fit the natural philosophical horizontal nested form.

These scenarios show an increase in intensity.  The individual’s choices become more and more demonic.  Also, the individual is increasingly shielded from the consequences of ‘his’ actions, placing ‘his’ conscience at higher and higher risk.  Then, in a total flight from personal responsibility, the person has become an instrument of a think^pro-object.

Scenario A is spontaneous: “Oh, this ‘partial good’ will increase pleasure or reduce pain at no cost.”

Scenario B is more calculating, more remorseless: “Oh, this ‘partial good’ will increase pleasure and reduce pain at no cost to me and I don’t care if others suffer.”  Of course, the “no cost to me” is delusional and the lack of sympathy makes the sin appear criminal.

Scenario C is intensely sinful.

Scenario C^-1 is so intense that the sinner redefines “sin”.]

[Do these examples mean that Capitalism as a Symbolic Order of Individual Hedonism is sinful?  Not any more than any exchange involving immoral people, including those who run central governments.  Yes, lawyers will work for any Symbolic Order that Pays.

The central government starts with scenario C and promotes “plans to reduce pain” by eliminating wind surfing entirely.  If “safety” is the “object that brings all subjects into organization”, then wind surfing is an anti-object and must be banned.

In short, the central government enforces an inverse of the third option: C^-1.

C^-1: Think^pro-object₁(x₂(conscience^pro-object₁) favors “x₂” where “pro-object defines the consequences of my actions” (technically, “denial of law^essential”), basically claiming that “law^essential conforms to my Master’s intentions or to my Master’s interpretation of what law^essential should be, especially in regards to ‘the object that brings everyone into organization’.  In addition, anyone who disagrees is beholden to think^anti-object ideologies and has false conscience^anti-object”.]

Summary of text [comment] page 37

[However, I cannot stop there.  I can also wonder:

Does “intensity” also pertain to the horizontal nested form?

Consider these scenarios:

A: Think^group₃(x₂( conscience^lacking₁)) favors “x₂” that would be performed if “one denied the consequences of one’s actions” in regards to oneself, basically claiming that “law^essential does not apply to me”. The person ignores the consequences that may harm self (and possibly others).

Example, no one who windsurfs ever imagines drowning.

B: Think^group₃(x₂( conscience^lacking₁)) favors “x₂” that would be performed if “one denied the consequences of one’s actions in regards to others”, basically claiming that “law^essential does not apply to me”. The person ignores that others may suffer evil consequences.

Example, a vendor who rents a cracked windsurfing board to a novice.

C: Think^pro-object₁(x₂(conscience^pro-object₁) favors “x₂” where “one defines the consequences of one’s actions” (technically, law^denial), basically claiming that ‘law^essential conforms to my intentions or to my interpretation of what law^essential should be, especially when others imagine that they suffer consequences and complain’. In fact, the complaining person is beholden to think^anti-object ideologies and has false conscience^anti-object”.

Example, the lawyer defending the vendor who rented out a faulty board that led to the death of a novice windsurfer.]

Summary of text [comment] page 37

Venial and mortal sin are analogous.  They differ in intensity.

[One would think that, for mortal sin, the interpellation between the vertical nested forms of think^divine and think^group stops.

It does not.  It cannot.  Even when the occlusion of think^divine by a sovereign^infra think^pro-object appears complete, and the world seems to be swallowed in an inevitable doom, the guilt is palpable.

One would also think that, for saintly practices, the interpellation stops.

It does not.  It cannot.  The dispositions always are falling in love with some good, some partiality, that undermines impartiality.  Buddhism developed a symbolic order devoted to removing the veils of illusion.  But, as any devout Buddhist will tell you, few have ever removed the last partiality.

Then why do the Ideological Pervert and the Buddhist Saint both come across as totally intense?

To me, “the diminution of interpellation between the two primal vertical nested forms” resonates with the image of “intensity”.

Both venial and mortal sin diminish (or or exacerbate) the call of think^divine.  They are analogous in this way.  They differ in intensity.]

Summary of text [comment] page 37

Many theologians speak of an analogy between venial and mortal sin.

Venial and mortal differ in intensity.

[One would think that “gravity₂” and “intensity” would be synonyms.  They are not.  “Gravity” implies two realms.  “Intensity” implies one.

So I may ask: Is there an analogy or a commonality to venial and mortal sins?

Are mortal sin and venial sin different species of the same genus?

The idea of “kind” draws my imagination to the exclusive yet interpellating vertical nested forms in the intersecting nested forms.

Think^group₃( human action₂(conscience^lacking₁)) and think^divine₃( human action₂(conscience^free₁)) have the same structure, even though they are exclusive yet interpellating.

Does this make them of the same kind?]