Celebrity is full of narcissism and insensitivity.

M. Scott Peck’s The People of the Lie contains accounts of people who are self-absorbed and lack sympathy.  Often, these people seek positions where they have power over others.  They want to win.  They want others to lose.  They are not winning unless others are losing.  They struggle to tilt the game in their favor.  They force the other person to play, even when the other person is not interested.

Celebrity shows a bad ass attitude.

Celebrities want you to join their “club” because their “clubs” are better.  After all, their clubs are about them.

So modern Celebrity serves as a metaphor for pride.

Pride allows you to turn the spotlight on yourself.

Celebrity is full of tragedy.

Modern celebrity is an advertisement for Proverbs 16:18: Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Today, substitute the word “rehab” for “destruction” and “fall”.

Peters placed “pride” alongside “tragedy” in the ancient Greek story of Prometheus, in the ancient Hebrew idea of the king as the representative of God, and in the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel.  To me, celebrity is equally on the spot.

Pride allows you to turn the spotlight on yourself.  You can define ‘reality’.  Pride is the feeling that you can carve your own destiny.  You can make yourself into a graven image.  Or maybe, a craven image.

You can make yourself into an object of desire.  And, the only way to do that is through illusion.  Pride casts illusions.

Celebrity is an illusion.

According to Peters, the first commandment goes like this: You shall have no other gods before me.  You shall not make for yourself a pesel (Exod. 20:3-4).

A “pesel” is “a graven image”.  The Greeks translated “pesel” into “eidolon”, which is related to the word “eidos” or “form”.  Today, we are familiar with a word derived from eidos: “idol”.

The idolatry of the modern world does not come in the eidos of pesel.  Instead, we have made pesels of our ideas (another word derived from eidos).

What ideas have become “graven images”?  In 1969, Langdon Gilkey argued that, for Americans, “the idea of freedom” was our equivalent to a graven image.  I guess some graven images do not last long.  In 2012, “Freedom” pales in comparison to modern “Celebrity”.  Is “Celebrity” the next “American Idol”?

Do “free people” define “reality”?  Do “celebrities” define “reality”?

The answer is “yes” for both questions.  But there is a difference.  The difference can be seen on the pages of the Enquirer every week.

Pride puts anxiety(faith^UnChristian) into context.

Humility puts anxiety(faith^Christian) into context.

Did “pride” play a role in the temptation of Eve?  Yes, the serpent promised Eve that she would become like God if she ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

If the serpent was simply telling Eve ideas that she already – at some level – knew, then pride – at some level – dwells in all of us.  We are always waiting to hear confirmation of what we already – at some level – know.

And what do we know?  At some level we know that, like our Creator, we can define “reality”.

Thus, pride is the beginning of sin.  It exalts a power that we all know – at some level – we have: The power to define ‘reality’.

Pride is the feeling that puts anxiety(faith^UnChristian) into context.

Pride makes the emotions of anxiety(faith^UnChristian) so real that we feel compelled to take our self-absorption to the next level.

Self-esteem is the foundation of faith^Progressive.

“Esteem” is the xiety that the Progressive person has, or could have had, or pretends to have.   Anxiety is how Progressive people situate their “self-esteem”.   Anxiety is the fear of the loss of self-esteem, which reflects the very principle that binds mind to body.  Like any sinner, they will aggressively seek out and commit violence on anyone who stimulates their anxiety.

But what puts the anxiety(faith^Progressive) into context?

I now turn to Chapter 4 of Peters’ book.

For the pursuit of “affirmative action”, “esteem” may require that any institution have members in proportion to the frequency of particular types of “selves” (decided by the experts) that occur in the general population, but, on condition that all members adhere to one worldview, that of Progressivism.

I call such adherence “lemming-hood” and I warn: Beware the mob action of the lemmings, er, I mean, college graduates, or really, any group of people who believe that the “self is what binds mind to body”.

The deductions that follow from the model of humans as mind(body(self)) constitute a significant component of the cryptotheology of Progressivism.

I mention only a few examples.

Progressive “self-esteem” demands “freedom to” rather than “freedom from” (which follows the classical liberal definition of “freedom” as basically, “freedom from (state) coercion”).  These “freedom to”s require the exercise of sovereign power in order to establish the end result (the “to” that “anyone with a mind” esteems).  This justifies “affirmative action” in hiring as well as court orders for “gay marriage”.

Progressive “self-esteem” may demand experts that establish “what constitutes esteem”.  These experts suggest criteria expressing “what constitutes esteem” such as “fairness” (progressive tax rate), “equality” (see next example), “safety” (elimination of all danger), “opportunity” (determination of career options by the state) and so on.

If someone questions these experts, that person is “less than human” because “she threatens to diminish someone’s self-esteem”.

So far, I have presented the Progressive model of the human as “soul(body(self))”.

Any Progressive would reply: We do not believe in “souls”.

Allow me a substitution: “Mind(body(self))”

Now, doesn’t that sound more “scientific”?

Doesn’t that sound more “Progressive”?

The Progressive principle of “self” appears to be a “scientific” term. However, “science” pertains to the realm of actuality and the word “self”, as “the Progressive principle that binds soul to body” belongs to the realm of possibility.  “Social scientists” may treat their abstraction (of whatever the “self” means) as actuality, but this subtly changes the level of analysis from “maybe scientific” to “cryptotheological”.

My proof is by way of demonstration.

I can present the “self” in terms of an ancient Greek definition of “human” as “a soul bound to a body by way of spirit-descent”.

Here it is:  The “self” binds soul to body and establishes the person’s orientation towards “self-esteem”.