0019 At this juncture, I stand at the threshold of the section titled, “Progressive Depersonalization”.

Michaud claims that the progressive agenda depersonalizes the individual.  He starts with the ironic, progressive slogan: The personal is the political.

0020 In order to appreciate this slogan, I start with the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality.  A virtual nested form is a feature of a three-level interscope.  It consists of a column in one of the three elements.  

Here is a picture of the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality for the progressive interscope.

0021 This virtual nested form may be spoken as follows.

The normal context of permanent revolution_2c virtually brings the dyadic actuality, economics [transforms] morals & culture_2b, into the potential of group [subsumes] individual_2a.

This nested form operates as a demiurge.  A demiurge is a gnostic divinity that is forever building its world.  It is typically opposed to another demiurge that is forever building an opposite world.  So, it is always one demiurge against another.

0022 Of course, I can easily guess the identity of the opposing demiurge.

The opposing demiurge is the one that victimizes individuals who do not conform to morality or culture, thereby inspiring them to identify with a victim group.

Here is a comparison of the actuality₂ of the traditional slogan and the actuality_2b of the situation-level of the progressive agenda.

0023 Clearly, economic intervention_2b is a tool for the permanent revolution_2c to use, in order to transform the ways that traditional morality sustains culture_2b.

Also, of all the groups that subsume the individual_2a, none can involve traditional morality and culture₂.

0024 Why?

In Christian morality, the individual is called into mystical union with Jesus Christ, one of the three Persons of the Triune Godhead.  So, the “group_2a” is actually the divine oikos, or the economy of God.  This is discussed in the second interlude in How To Define the Word “Religion”.

The individual_2a does not adopt an identity_1a.  The individual_2a becomes an identity_1a.

0025 What is identity_1a?

Ah, in the Christian schema, identity_1a is the person that I call “me”.  It_1a is not a group_2a affiliation_3a.

In Jungian terminology, the assumption of the individual into the divine oikos is called, “individuation”.  It is not called, “subsumption”.

0026 So, Michaud is on target in claiming that the progressive agenda depersonalizes the individual.

It does so by re-defining the word, “identity”.

In the progressive ideation, identity_1a is the potential underlying group affiliation_3a and supports the subsumption of the individual into a political group_2a.

The personal_2a is subsumed into the political_2a.

0027 The personal is the political.

In the progressive agenda, the content-level actuality_2a is a dyad, group [subsumes] individual_2a.

The word, “individual”, no longer means a person who stands before God.   The individual reduces to someone carrying a group identification tag.

Similarly, identity_1a potentiates group affiliation_3a, not the person that I call “me”.

0028 Michaud calls this, “depersonalization”.

With this in mind, I consider the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility for the progressive interscope.

0029 The normal context of social justice_1c virtually brings the actualities of ideological apparatuses (such as state education, justice system and corporate media, to name a few)_1b into relation with the possibilities inherent in identity_1a.

If “justice” is a virtue for traditional folk, then “social justice_1c” is a hegemonic, demiurgic alternative.  Social justice_1ccontextualizes the actuality of economics [transforming] morals [&] culture_2b and answers the question, “When is justice (in the traditional frame) injustice (in the progressive frame)?” 

0030 Here is one of the resulting twists.

The category-based nested form for the traditional view appears below.

The arrows, however, depict trans-categorical flows from the progressive point of view.

0031 Is this a misperception?  Or, is this an accusation?

To the progressive, there is one deterministic flow to the traditional schema.  Religion₃ flows through morality and culture₂ and pours into alienating political systems and exploitative economic arrangements₁.

To the traditionalist, there are two transcategorical flows.  Religion₃ flows into morality₂. Politics and economics₁ enliven culture₂, through cooperative and laborious human action.

0032 According to progressive doctrine, traditional morals and culture₂ yield economic and political structures₁ that inherently victimize groups that do not adhere to the morals and the cultural expectations of the dominant tradition.  That is, religion₃ promulgates a morality₂, that sustains a culture₂, bent on victimizing those who are “not religious”.  The victimization occurs through political and economic means₁.

0033 In response, progressives encourage the sovereign state to expand in every fashion.  According to How To Define The Word “Religion”, progressive institutions are infrasovereign religions calling on sovereign power in order to implement their objectives.  They call on the sovereign to regulate the organization tier, through economic interventions.  They also call on the sovereign to fund ideological apparatuses_1b that promote the doctrine of social justice_1c and popularize the necessity of possessing an identity_1a (as a badge of group subsumption_2a).

0034 Consequently, the progressive (situation-level) category-based nested form has the same flows as the original, traditional category-based nested form.

In the original, religion₃ flows into morality₂, morality₂ sustains culture₂, and the potential of ‘politics and economics’₁underlies the dynamism of culture₂.  In terms of Adam Smith’s model, the first transcategorical flow corresponds to “moral sentiments” and the second transcategorical flow associates to the so-called “invisible hand”.  So, the arrows go from normal context₃ and potential₁ towards actuality₂.

In the progressive, politics₃ flows into economic interventions₂, economics₂ transforms (traditional) morals [&] culture₂.  At the same time, the potential of ‘ideological apparatuses’₁ undermines (traditional) morals [&] culture₂ and reinforces (progressive) morals [&] culture₂.

0035 Here is a picture.

0036 In sum, the progressive misrepresents the transcategorical flows for the traditional schema, while practicing the identical transcategorical flows as the traditional schema.

0037 Michaud concludes that the progressive revolution hinges on redefining the human person.

Can “subsumption_2a” be the sine qua non of the permanent revolution_2c?

Does “subsumption_2a” characterize infrasovereign religions?

Michaud writes, “The progressive revolution aims to change the way people understand themselves, understand their very humanity as collective beings.”

These category-based re-articulations picture the relational dynamics of Michaud’s argument.

There is much more to ponder in these diagrams.

But, these considerations are left to the readers.

0038 I conclude with the virtual nested form in the realm of normal context.

0039 A “not religious” normal context_3c virtually brings the actuality of politics_3b into relation with the possibility of group affiliation_3a.

Surely, this “not religious” normal context_3c fits the definition of the term, “religion”.

Plus, this normal context_3c grasps for sovereign power in order to implement its objectives.

0040 I thank Thomas Michaud for his excellent essay.

Perhaps, this brief examination will lead to a more profound understanding of the nature of our current Lebenswelt.