[Oh, speaking of terminology, I want to suggest the following:
‘An infrasovereign religion’ is one that has not grasped sovereign power and may or may not be in pursuit of sovereign power.
‘An (infra)sovereign religion’ has gained power and has instituted itself as an allied member of a Public Cult.
Most Public Cults (religionsovs) are alliances of (infra)sovereign religions.]
[Beware of Progressive declarations using the term ‘social’.
The term has been redefined.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[A similar change in the American language occurs today. The (infra)sovereign religions of Progressivism usurp and tailor the specialized language of Christianity to suit their pursuit of sovereign power.
In particular, the word ‘social’, like the ancient word ‘bones’, has been drained of personal meaning and repurposed for organizational manipulation and control.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[Allow me to summarize:
The Old Testament metaphor of ‘flesh and bones’ (designating the essential person) was usurped (from the suprasovereign perspective) and tailored to fit an (infra)sovereign point of view.
The terms went from popular usage to propaganda.
This precisely follows Schoonenberg’s scenario of refusal and usurpation.
A change of the language, the symbolic order of society, became inevitable.
Schoonenberg did not have the analytical tools to explain why Paul opposed the ‘flesh’ against the ‘spirit’ (and not ‘flesh and bones’ against the ‘spirit’). He only noted that the Old Testament opposition applies to one situation and the New Testament opposition applies to another.
In addition, he limited his discussion to warning that the term ‘spirit’ does not simply replace the term ‘bones’.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[As the second Temple moved deeper into the Axial Age, the entire language of Israel shifted in response to this re-application of the flesh and bones metaphor to Society (as well as other usurpations of character-building metaphors).
The Party of the Sovereign changed the meaning of the words.
The Party of the Sovereign destroyed the language.
Paul’s opposition between ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ is evidence of a shift in the symbolic order of language.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[Elitist (infra)sovereign consciencelacking is more spiritual (thus, more dehumanizing) than the spineless consciencelacking of a person whose flesh is in bondage to seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.
Why?
In the former, interpellation of thinkdivine has been rendered impossible.
Religionsovereign marks the contextualizing of concupiscence by cruelty. Concupiscence requires self-justification. Cruelty requires blasphemy.
Thinkpro-object promotes self-justification.
Hatred of the anti-object produces blasphemy.]
[What happens when the metaphorical ‘bones of a person’ are usurped by elites into an ideology where ‘the elites are the metaphorical bones of society’.
Here, I tip my hat … er … electronic tablet to Slavoj Zizek.
‘The bones (that are the elite)’ embody ‘a higher power’.
Even though the elites become the scaffolding for ‘the flesh of society’, they are persons. They are composed of flesh and bones.
So they have two sets of bones.
The first set justifies sovereign power.
‘The bones that are the elite’ scaffold ‘a flesh that are the subjects’. These bones operate as cruel and perverse instruments of a higher power. Manipulation and thuggery are the right things to do when ‘the bones are the sovereign elites’. What else can the elites do to achieve their organizational objectives?
The elite bones support – no, they command – the flesh of the unworthy and lazy subjects. The flesh must be anchored by the organized goals attributed to a higher power (available only to the elites).
The second set belongs to the person who is ‘an instrument of the higher power’. There is a person behind ‘the bones that hold up society’. The bones of that person are complaint. They bend with the political winds.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[Ironically, later in the Old Testament, ‘the bones’ became ‘the symbol of the sovereign and the religious leaders’.
The metaphor was hijacked by the elites. They veiled the original meaning of the words with new interpretations. The ruling elites contextualized themselves. They justified their sovereign power. They were not building the character of the people. They were usurping it.
They called themselves ‘the blood and bones’ of Israel.
The bones were ‘the objects that bring all subjects into organization’.
This blood defined the elite’s will to power.]
[The person who chains his conscience to a thinkgroup lacks ‘the freedom to be righteous before the Lord’. That person has no bones. That person is spineless.
At the same time, the person cannot deny the feeling in “her” bones. The bones long to stand righteous before the Lord.
Therefore, the opposition between flesh and bones serves as a metaphor for the exclusive yet interpellating relation between consciencelacking and consciencefree.
The flesh may be sold into the bondage of sin. The bones cannot be sold. The bones always want to lift the flesh back up, back to where it is supposed to be, standing righteous before the Lord.
What a remarkable way to portray the conflict within us.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[The early Old Testament image of ‘the flesh sold into the bondage of sin’ calls the person. It calls the person’s bones. It is not a metaphor for society.
The bones long to be free. They long to be righteous before the Lord. Here, ‘bones’ call to mind consciencefree in the intersecting nested form portrayed above. Thinkdivine interpellates ‘the bones’. Thinkgroup calls the ‘flesh’.]
