Summary of text [comment] page 66

[Spontaneous order?

What is that?

A spontaneous order is an anti-entropic process (occurring within an entropic flow of energy). Some spontaneous orders are destructive (example: tornadoes). Some are constructive (example: a living cell).

Every creature cannot help but realize itself.

At the same time, every creature is created and kept in being by God, through a spontaneous order.

God lifts actuality out of the realm of possibility through spontaneous orders.

It appears that spontaneous order generates itself by itself. However, no accounting in the realm of actuality can answer this question:

Why this spontaneous order and not another?

A spontaneous order cannot explain itself. It cannot account for its own uniqueness or its amazing unity.

This question marks the horizon of scientific inquiry.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 65 and 66

[Dispositions and conscience exist in the realm of possibility.

Dispositions are directly situated by human action. They are contextualized by consequences, which I call, law^essential.   Law^essential may be accepted or denied. I label habitual acceptance or denial as law^acceptance and law^denial.

These labels refer to “the actual and perceived consequences of the single actuality of virtue and sin”. This same actuality is contextualized by think^divine and think^group.

The conscience is directly situated by human thoughts. The conscience is contextualized by two exclusive yet interpellating normal contexts, think^group and think^divine. These contexts cause the conscience to be more and more distinct as the creature realizes ‘himself’. That is why conscience is specified. The specifications that I use are “lacking” (as in “without freedom”) and “free” (as in, open to responsibility and freedom).

In time, I suspect that better terms than “lacking” and “free” will be found.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 65 and 66

[What happens when someone abandons a think^group?

The others view ‘him’ as selling out.

To what?

A more lucrative think^group?

Consider David Horowitz’s book Bad Faith (2009).]

Summary of text [comment] pages 65 and 66

[What happens when I make myself into “a slave to my attitude of moral superiority and to my spiritual and material pleasures”?

Freedom turns into “the very opposite of freedom”.

“The very opposite of freedom” is “to enslave oneself to a think^group in order to indulge oneself”.]

[In both these cases, Person A sees ‘himself’ as ‘his’ own possession.

Person A is free. Person A is free to sell out ‘his’ own freedom. Person A is willing to become a slave (or perhaps, a master) of a think^group in order to be “holier than thou” with respect to Person B (and others). ‘

And that comes with a bonus: It turns ‘him’ on.

Conscience^lacking indirectly unmoors the dispositions.

Conscience^lacking indirectly turns responsibility and freedom into words and bondage.

Does this not call to mind the term “self destruction”?

The elegant sophistries and the addicting perversities of sin testify to the fact that each person realizes ‘his’ freedom in individual ways.

Unearned moral superiority carries the pleasures of high status.]

[Let me take this one step further.

If Person A were disposed to other, more kinky options, ‘he’ could see Person B as “a perverted instrument of a higher power”.

In this case, Person B may be portrayed as “a bad one”. This carries the implication is that B’s (apparent) haughtiness is driven by pleasure, in particular, the pleasure of victimizing others.

Is Person A addicted to ‘his’ habituated emotions concerning ‘his’ rightfulness?

Does Person A project ‘his’ own addiction onto Person B?

If so, Person A accuses Person B of precisely “what Person A longs to do” but cannot publicize it. Person A wants to take pleasure in hurting a bad one.

By making an innocent suggestion, Person B has targeted ‘himself’.

Person A has identified Person B as a bad one.]

[Consider this scenario:

Person A privately tells you that Person B acts “holier than thou”.

What should you think?

Obviously, if you did not witness the event that A claims to have occurred, then the answer must be a guess.

What if Person B said something judgmental, but in the humble way of suggestion?

What does A’s comment imply?

Well, Person A may be projecting ‘his’ own attitude of moral superiority onto Person B, interpreting B’s humility as haughtiness.   Person A feels anger and imagines it to be an expression of B.

To A, B has acted how A would act, if given the opportunity.

In this case, A projects ‘his’ own character onto B.]

[Consider the surface appeal of think^group.

Think^group indirectly appeals to certain dispositions, as much as conscience. The “holier than thou” attitude, which marks a true believer in a think^group, habituates ‘his’ dispositions and reveals a conscience lacking in freedom.

This “holier than thou” attitude may belong to the conscience, but it rewards the dispositions. The “holier than thou” attitude stimulates anger, resentment, loathing, fear, and camaraderie. It resonates with a “moral equivalent of war” feeling. Some people revel in these emotions.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 65 and 66

Schoonenberg next took up a traditional theological argument.

Sin strives towards self-destruction.

Perhaps, that statement is not sufficient. Sin renders its denial of God in positive action. Sin expresses a self-affirmation. Sin posits one’s own freedom to destroy oneself.