[Why is think^pro-object attractive to those who are not elites?

The object may somehow remind the individual of “the Lebenswelt that ‘he’ evolved in”.

The object promises to resolve the tensions between wonder and terror, fullness and hunger, love and hate, collectivism and individualism, as well as any other dichotomy that you can speak of.

How could this be?

Well, these tensions could never be articulated in “the Lebenswelt that we evolved in”. Our ancestors could not abstract these differences. They could sense them, feel them through their intuition, but they could never render them as either-or propositions. Our primordial innocence was full of poverty, drama, revelations and bliss. Before the first singularity, our ancestors lived life to the full. This is the way we evolved to be.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 61-62

[Here is one guess concerning the hidden attraction of all think^pro-objects.

“The luminous object that brings individuals into organization” unconsciously lures the subject into “imagining that ‘he’ will return the Lebenswelt before civilization”.

“The Lebenswelt that we evolved in” serves (unconsciously) as an attractor or an object^rel. The object promises to create a world full of belonging, where creature comforts are heroically neglected, where matters of life and death are always before us, where our words have clear meanings, and where we do not know any better.]

[What about those who are not elites?

Why is think^pro-object attractive?]

Summary of text [comment] pages 61-62

[The elites will always be pro-object. Think^pro-object drove them to acquire sovereign power in the first place. Elites gain by accusing innocents of think^anti-object. The accused innocents are scapegoats.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 61-62

[What was the hidden attraction of think^pro-Enlil?

What mimetic rivalry swept Enlil into dominance?

What was the mimetic contagion?]

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′).