Remember, Menninger was also a Progressive.

At the time of writing, he did not know that “sin” was already being replaced by “political incorrectness”.

Consider the term that he added to the envy set: the sin of affluence.

The horizontal axis becomes:

The crime of unequal outcomes to be punished with policies enforcing “fairness of outcome”(the political incorrectness of affluence(psychology of “equal potential demands equal outcome”))

… Or something like that.

Is the “symptom of the psychology of ‘equal potential demands equal outcome’” the Progressive equivalent of “disposition to covetousness”?

Clearly, on the horizontal axis, the reasons for affluence are misdiagnosed.  People do not become affluent because they somehow “cheat” others of equal potential.  People become affluent by owning up to what they have and taking opportunities.

At this point, for the “sins of envy, greed and avarice”, we have encountered nested forms along two intersecting axes in Menninger’s apparently Christian frame.

The horizontal axis follows:

Law^essential(sins of envy, greed and avarice(psychology of covetousness))

The think^group vertical axis is:

“The ungodly consolations of a complex life or idolatry of money(sins of envy, greed and avarice(the conscience^lacking of self-aggrandizement))

The alternate think^divine vertical axis – we can only guess – might be:

Think^divine of the simple life (the virtue of fairness(the conscience^free of self-reliance)

And this think^divine would change the horizontal axis – we can only guess –to:

Law^essential(the virtue of fairness(the psychology of personal ownership and open opportunity)

Is that not odd?

The “psychology” of the disposition sounds like “natural rights”.

What about “sins of envy, greed, avarice and affluence”?

Menninger threw a Progressive word into this set.  Let us initially consider the first three items from a classic Christian perspective.

“The psychology of covetousness” makes “sins of envy, greed and avarice” possible.  This psychology includes a “rodent”-like fixation on the trappings of elite status; good looks, money, big homes, luxurious cars, important political positions, fancy clothes, an entourage, and so on.

“Covetousness” is more than about “possessions”.

The “sins of envy, greed and avarice” range from shoplifting to the machinations of crony capitalism.

The law^essential for these sins typically includes disturbingly large jail time for petty crimes and equally disturbing minimal fines for major crimes.  The iniquities inherent in the state administration of law^essential play out in unspoken and unseen manners that may be even more punishing for the community than for the criminals.

The law^essential for the sins of envy, greed and avarice include the consequences of the sin itself.  These sins degrade the person who commits them as well as everyone who empowers that person.  This degradation does not come from God.  They come from the sins themselves.

What is the vertical axis for “sins of envy, greed and avarice”?

Menninger took care to point out that “sins of envy” are also “sins of self-aggrandizement”.  A loss of conscience accompanies self-aggrandizement.  A loss of conscience also goes with a single-minded lust for possessions, a pre-occupation with possessions, not being able to say “enough”, and a fascination with status and the excitement of “getting away with it”.

In short, greed, envy and avarice are not about “fairness”.

The think^group that puts “sins of envy, greed and avarice” into context is the opposite of “the divine consolations of the simple life”.  Perhaps, we should call this think^group the “the ungodly consolations of the anything-but-simple life” – or – maybe we can call it “the idolatry of money”.

At first, it seems that “caring” belongs to think^divine.  But, in this instance, I wonder.  I bet it means “caring for the environment” and belongs to Progressive think^group.

To the Progressive, the “politically incorrect act of littering” emerges from an “acedia” (conscience^lacking) that could be called “conscience^incorrect”.   You are not just lazy.  You actively could not care less about the environment.

This “conscience^incorrect” must be supported by a think^incorrect even though that think^group may not – and most likely does not – exist.  I will call this deduced but non-existent think^incorrect “desires to exploit and ruin the environment”.

The litterer no longer “simply does not care”; the believer “adheres to a think^incorrect that actively hates the environment”.  The believer is a bad person.  The bad person thinks incorrectly.

Surveillance and heavy fines for littering are designed to force the litterer to abandon the politically charged think^incorrect that is being attributed to her.  She cannot recant, however, because she does not hold the think^incorrect that is being attributed to her.  She is just lazy.

This sounds like a witch hunt to me.

The “story of littering” makes a wonderful example of how the Progressives have taken the word “care” from the Christian Lebenswelt and re-assigned it to a new Progressive system of differences.

Christians care for “souls”.  Progressives care for “the environment”.

“Caring for the soul” is theological.  “Caring for the environment” is cryptotheological.

Progressive cryptotheology replaces think^divine with think^correct.

What about the vertical axis of think^group(sin(conscience^lacking)) in regards to one exemplar sin of sloth: littering?

Menninger was fond of the word “acedia”, which literally translates into “not caring”.  Menninger considers “acedia” a “refusal to grow”.  That sure sounds like conscience^lacking.

Menninger, as in previous sets of sins, only mentioned the alternative to think^group when it comes to “sins of sloth”.  That alternative is “caring”.

What about the sins of sloth?

A classic “sin of sloth” is littering.

Let us use it as an example.

The disposition that makes littering possible includes a “psychology of inconvenience”.

The law^essential that puts littering into context ranges from “the cost of someone else cleaning up after you” and continues to “invitations for property crime”.  The consequences of the sin extend far beyond the sinner.

“Littering” is a good example for Menninger’s perspective that the deterrents of “sin” and “personal responsibility” are superior to any imposed deterrents.

When “sin” is replaced by “political incorrectness”, then “littering may be construed as a crime against the environment” and punished with heavy fines and the like.  This implies that the symptom underlying “littering” may be “cured” in a field of imposed rewards and punishments.

How to establish such a field?  A surveillance state is required to monitor the populace in regards to this crime.

The Progressive horizontal axis becomes “police state surveillance and heavy fines(the political incorrectness of littering(the psychology of inconvenience)).

Let me put that into a picture.

Note that in this picture I retained the clinical axis of crime(politically incorrect action(symptom)) because Menninger’s terms seem to fit better.

Compare this to the more general (and more Judeo-Christian) horizontal axis of law^essential(sin(disposition)).

For the sins of sensuality and gluttony, Progressive think^group was “on the side of the sinner” in that it largely told the sinner what she wanted to hear.

This began to change in the section on anger.

Progressive cryptotheological think^group justifies rudeness, violence and aggression by the politically correct person.

However, at the same time, Progressive think^group repudiates rudeness against the politically incorrect person.

Progressive think^group projects a think^incorrect and conscience^incorrect onto the person who commits an act of rudeness, aggression or violence.  That is, Progressives presume that the politically incorrect actor adheres to an incorrect ideology and has a false conscience.  Thus, the politically incorrect actor should be “scapegoated”.

In contrast, the politically correct actor should be “golden calfed”.

In this instance, think^group does not stand in opposition to think^divine.  Rather, it casts itself as think^divine (or as think^correct) against the empty-set (straw man) think^incorrect. Think^incorrect would (theoretically) have to exist if the action were to be politically incorrect.