Summary of text [comment] pages 72 and 73
Schoonenberg wrote about ‘the inability to love’.
[The term, ‘love’, has been redefined (by Progressives) as ‘something that does not require conversion and does not proceed from grace’.
How convenient.]
[Televisionaries transformed ‘love (agape)’ into ‘something that does not proceed from grace and that requires no conversion’. They have transformed ‘freedom’ into ‘celebrity and slavery’.
The real victims are the unsuspecting folk who do not watch Progressive television.
They have no idea what is going on, especially when they are suddenly branded as ‘bad ones’.]
[Progressive television – ideological broadcasting – redefines ‘freedom’ as ‘without obligations’.
Yet, when the hero saves the victim (standing in for the disempowered viewer), the victim is emotionally obligated to the hero (standing in for the television producers and their Progressive religions).
These redefinitions produce an idol of unreal love (where television elites and disempowered viewers are united in hatred against a foe).
These redefinitions produce differential freedoms (the television elites are not obligated to the viewer victims, but the viewer victims are emotionally obligated to the elites).]
[Progressive television redefines ‘love (agape)’ as the hero and the victim uniting against an exploitive foe.
It does not matter that this exploiter is a literary creation (that does not exist in actuality).
The foe is portrayed in television reality.
We all know: Reality is not Real.]
[Clearly, the televisionaries redefine the term ‘love (agape)’ so that ‘it no longer proceeds from grace and no longer requires conversion’.
Such a redefinition allows a person to use the word ‘love (agape)’ along with the word ‘free’, where ‘free’ means ‘without obligation’. The movie ‘hero’ is ‘free’ to ‘love the victim’. But this is not a love of equal standing. The victims can never repay their obligations.
Again, this expresses the attitude of royalty.
The hero obligates the victims by rescuing them. Plus, the hero reduces the victim’s freedom, or, should I say ‘self-esteem’.
Even stranger, the rescued victims are less obligated to defend themselves. The hero will take care of them.
Ah, royal patronage.]
[The unreal agape between ‘the television hero (who stands in for the elite producing the show)’ and ‘the movie victim (who stands in for the viewer, who cannot talk back to the screen, thus participates in the discourse as a victim)’ corresponds to mutual hatred of the person who is portrayed as the bad guy (a screen for projecting thinkanti-group).
The ‘heroes’ save the ‘victims’.
Why?
They are filled with unreal agape, a scripted and conditional love of one’s fellow human.
Is that not a character of royalty? ]
[Schoonenberg’s translator used the word ‘real’ to indicate the actions and emotions that emerge from and situate ‘the possibility of love’. Both ‘real’, for the translator, and ‘unreal’, for me, point to the realm of actuality, where contradictions focus attention.
The contrast that Schoonenberg explores is between ‘real love’ and ‘unreal love’. Both are actual. The laws of non-contradiction apply.]
[Schoonenberg’s translator used the word ‘love’ to indicate, foremost ‘agape’.
Yet, “he” did not rule out ‘eros’.
To me, this implies that ‘love’ is rooted in the realm of possibility. Contradictions are allowed. Real love, in contrast, is actual. It emerges from and situates agape and eros. Real love cannot be reduced to ‘brotherly affections’ or ‘feelings of attraction’.]
Summary of text [comment] page 72
Real love proceeds from grace. Conversion is crucial to love. The inability to love is an immediate sequel to sin.
[However, as noted in the previous blog, televisionaries and their fellow travelers repackaged ‘the inability to love’ into ‘television broadcast love’.
Of course, the word ‘love’ has been redefined in two ways.
Television viewers now associate the word ‘love’ solely with ‘eros’ (love between male and female, in the broadest sense of the term).
Television producers usurp the other word for love, ‘agape’ (love of friends, kin and fellow believers, in the broadest sense of the term). They substitute the union of the hero and victim against the (imaginary) victimizer. Here is ‘a union in hatred of another’.
Are either of these ‘real love’?]
[Today, delusion and idolatry are pop.
Turn on the TV.
So many people on the screen are victims.
Of whom?
They are victims of malicious, obsessed, thinkanti-objects, who exist only on the screens of mainstream television.]
