[Now, I have another terminological challenge:

What should one call the “sovereign power” that exists within each institution?

To me, the word “discipline” comes to mind.

Each institution operates as a little society.

Disciplinary powers reify organizational activities. They turn these activities into observables. Disciplinary power establishes diagrams of accountability, assigns office spaces and other trappings of power, and generates influence, status, wealth, charisma, celebrity, intellectual acclaim, scientific expertise, ecclesial authority, and so on. Disciplinary power also tries to put other institutions, both allies and competitors, into context.

In sum, disciplinary power operates within an institution.

An institution contextualizes its own organization and attempts to contextualize other organizations.]

Summary of text [comment] page 61-62

[Spontaneous orders naturally self-organize according to the character of the individuals in community. These organizations are devoted to achieving goals.

These goals, plus the efforts required to achieve these goals, are contextualized.

Who contextualizes?

What does one call “that part of an organization that puts the organization into context”?

The word ‘”institution” comes to mind.

“Institutions justify organizational activities” according to “objects that bring people into organization”.]

[The object of a suprasovereign religion is, technically, “the object that brings all into relation”.

This object puts the sovereign into context.

This object interpellates all individuals (ultimately, as a universal interpellation).

This object calls individuals to adopt particular ideas, attitudes and frames of mind (beliefs and habits) that build character.

Religion^suprasovs build individual character.

“Character” is “the capacity to exercise both responsibilities and freedoms”.

Here, “freedom” represents “an openness to create and maintain responsibilities”, rather than the misleading “avoidance of obligations”.]

Summary of text [comment] page 61-62

[The closure of the Lebenswelt into think^pro-object and think^anti-object has been a regular feature of civilized history.

This closure defines “the establishment of religion” warned against in the first amendment of the American Constitution of the United States.]

[Progressive ideology relies on Marx.

When Marx declared that “religion (specifically Christianity and Judaism)” was “the opiate of the masses”, he projected the dark side of “his object that would bring everyone into organization” onto two intriguing, yet inappropriate, victims; that is, Jesus and Moses.

For Marxist think^pro-object, Jesus and Moses are think^anti-object.

Jesus was born into a world officially closed to think^divine, a world full of iniquity, a world full of misguided suffering, a world filled with the toxic brews of resistance and resentment. Here was a world waiting for parables, hints of good news.

Moses was born into a world officially closed to think^divine, a world full of iniquity, a world full of misguided suffering, a world filled with the toxic brews of resistance and resentment. People were waiting for someone to say, “Let us go as a people into the desert to worship our God.”

Against this think^divine, Marx offers a delusion: the perfectability of humans.]

[Materialist ideologies do not recognize immaterial gains. They just attain them.

Progressive materialist idolatry itself serves as a basis for spiritual exploitation.]

Summary of text [comment] page 61-62

[Think^pro-object accuses others of think^anti-object.

Innocents are disfigured by accusations of think^anti-object.

Ironically, immaterial disfiguration does not fit any Marxist schema of material exploitation. But that does not mitigate its effectiveness.

Some will say: If the accuser does not gain from the accusation, then the accusation must be true.

Indeed, the accuser may not materially gain.

But the accuser may immaterially gain, by asserting power, sowing fear and preaching falsehoods.]

Summary of text [comment] page 61-62

[Our Lebenswelt closes whenever a think^group gains sovereign power and becomes think^pro-object and think^anti-object.

In practice, these two thinks are complementary ways of sinning.

One encourages the sins of sovereign power. Think^pro-object forces their organizational objectives onto others.

The other fosters sins of resistance and resentment. One great temptation of anyone falsely accused of think^anti-object is to embrace anger or bitterness.]

Summary of text [comment] page 60

[Schoonenberg’s phrase (sins of ‘man’ against ‘man’) sounds like Thomas Hobbes’ vision of “the war of all against all”.

According to Rene Girard, Hobbes’ vision describes the onset of a mimetic crisis.]

[Think^groups do not always seek sovereign power.

When they do, think^group fits this image of “idolatry”.

“The object that brings the person into organization” may become an “idol”.

Ambitious institutions, inspired by their own righteousness, will form alliances in order to attain sovereign power.

These alliances can turn deadly. Each organization wants sovereign power for its own organizational goals. Furthermore, the attainment of sovereign power incites competition for positional power within institutions.

The sovereign cannot contain the infighting “among (infra)sovereign religions” because “these fighting bands have taken over sovereign power”.

In this manner, idolatry eventually leads to sins of ‘man’ against ‘man’.]