Summary of text [comment] page 13.

Paul sees “sin” [sin(conscience^lacking)] as preceding transgression [sin].  Every “sin” is opposed to the Holy Spirit [think^divine].  “Sin” hardens the “heart” [think₃(₂(conscience₁))].  See Eph 4:3; Rom 8:14 and Gal 5:19-21.

He who lives in “sin” is “carnal” and “of the flesh” [denying law^essential₃(appeasing₂(dispositions₁))].

The concept of “flesh” is the summary of “what man is under sin”.

[As indicated with the brackets interspersing the summary of the text, elements of the intersecting nested forms parallel Paul’s comments.

Two words have powerful associations:

“heart” : think₃(_₂(conscience₁))

The “heart” is purely theoretical in this association.  That is, think₃(_₂(conscience₁) is a purely theoretical concept.  It cannot become actual unless specified.

“Heart” is concrete only when specified in a super-ego or tautological fashion.

A “hardened heart” is think^group₃(_₂( conscience^lacking₁).

An “open heart” is think^divine₃(_₂(conscience^free₁).

“flesh” : a denial of law^essential₃(_₂(disposition₁))

The “flesh” has multiple associations.  “Flesh” presumes a think^group and conscience^lacking that facilitates sins that emerge from one’s dispositions.  “Flesh” denies the consequences (law^essential) of those sinful acts as well as appeases the dispositions.  “The denial of law^essential₃” puts the transgression into context.

Of course, law^essential remains “what it is” as the consequences or contextualization of the transgressions.  It cannot be articulated in the symbolic order of the think^group.]

[Before going back to text, I want to note that I have adopted a format of “summary of text [comment] page number”.   The text is very dense.  Some paragraphs are like scrolls that unroll the moment that you set eyes on them.

Here is the fine print:

The date corresponds to the year the imprimatur was given for orginal Dutch version by J. Terpstra S.J., Praep. Prov. Neerl.

The page numbers are from the 1965 edition of Man and Sin: A Theological View, published by Notre Dame Press.

Imprimatur for English translation was given in 1965 by Timothy A. Jurtin S.J., Vice Provincial, New York.]

[Why can’t think^group recognize the natural consequences of the transgressions that it contextualizes?

Why can’t think^group resist the wants and needs that fuel the transgressions?

In short, why is think^group blind to law^essential and unaware of their facilitation of unruly dispositions?

I am not sure.  It may have something to do with the exclusivity of symbolic orders. Each think^group lives in its own bubble.

In contrast, law^essential is, what it is, irrespective of think^group and conscience^lacking.]

[And what about the consequences?

Death (the ultimate consequence, I suppose, found in law^essential) contextualizes transgressions in natural and philosophical terms that are alien to the moral and religious terms of think^group.

Think^group cannot recognize the unintended consequences of its social constructions nor can acknowledge the passions (dispositions) driving them.

Think^divine can.  It exists in parallel to think^group. It is not in denial when it comes to recognizing the consequences of one’s actions.]

[Even more disturbing, while conscience^lacking plays games on conscience^free, a similar drama also plays out on an intersubjective scale in the relation between think^group and think^divine.

Think^group seems to not be aware (or pretends so) that, by justifying sinful acts, it appeals to one’s dispositions in wanton ways.  Instead of training the dispositions, think^group fires them up.  Think^group justifies and explains seeking pleasure and avoiding pain in moral and religious terms.]

Text (pages 10-12) [comments in square brackets]

[Now I will put the picture in the last blog into words and think about some of the implications.

The Law (think^divine) puts virtue into context.  Virtue situates conscience^free.  Virtue also situates (trains) dispositions.

Transgressions situate conscience^lacking.  Transgressions also situate natural & philosophical dispositions; or maybe, material and immaterial desires.

This curiously implies that conscience^lacking is opportunistic in selecting transgressions that appeal to one’s dispositions.  By “opportunistic”, I mean “a process like natural selection”.  Natural selection is opportunistic.  Both adaptations and exaptations are opportunistic.

In short, conscience^lacking is looking for ways to tell one’s dispositions “what they want to hear”.  The dispositions are poised to act.  Both conscience^lacking and one’s dispositions are situated by the transgression.

In addition, the exclusive yet interpellating character of conscience^lacking and conscience^free may be foundational in the way that conscience^lacking packages itself as it potentiates transgression.  Conscience^lacking senses the Law in conscience^free’s ordination (like orientation, but including both material and immaterial dimensions).

My guess (which is consistent with Paul’s Letter to the Romans) is that conscience^lacking goes against the Law by revolting against conscience^free, the forbidding yet interpellating other, so that the person is less disposed to “the freedom to seek and align oneself with the truth (which is God’s Law)” and more disposed to “the advantages to me of acting out this transgression”.]

[Let me pull this together with a picture.]

Text (pages 10-12) [comments in square brackets]

[Excluding and interpellating the way of slavery is the way of freedom:

Think^divine₃(virtue₂(conscience^free₁))]

[Thus, Paul describes two intersecting nested forms to sin:

The way of the flesh: law^essential₃(transgression₂(disposition₁))

The way of slavery: think^group₃(transgression₂(conscience^lacking₁))]

[What is going on in the natural philosophical plane?

Conscience^fashion shapes its transgression (the beautiful compass) by confounding two natural dispositions: the disposition to know directions and the disposition to own, hold, and manipulate beautiful things. As the compass became more popular, another disposition, the lemming instinct (so popular on American campuses in 2012), comes into play.

The “missing the mark compass” situates dispositions^{coordinate+pretty+others_say_its_good}.

Law^essential labels the natural and philosophical consequences of this situation.   In the analogy, new constructions are “crooked” with respect to the old constructions.  These consequences cannot be explained within the symbolic order or ‘reality’ of the ever-expanding think^group.  In fact, problems cannot even be articulated because the think^group depends on the transgression.

At the point,when the problems appear to be overwhelming, a detachment ought to take place.  This is precisely what Paul talked about, when he said that the “sin” was responsible for his transgressions, not “Paul himself”.  This detachment must occur, otherwise the person, or here, the city, will self-destruct.

In the story it does.  A person recognizes why the ships are not returning.  They are getting lost because of the compass.]