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.

Let me put that into a picture.

Intersecting nested forms for blog 8P

Menninger went on to the “sins of anger, violence and aggression”.

On the horizontal axis of law^essential(sin(disposition)), the dispositions are “the psychologies of rage and resentment”.   The sin itself is often manifested as rudeness.  The law^essential includes both a judicial system of plea-bargaining & mandatory prison time as well as a community of damaged opportunistic individuals.

When “sin” is replaced by “political incorrectness”, then law^essential condones acts of rudeness, violence and aggression against individuals deemed “incorrect”.

On the vertical axis of think^group(sin(conscience^lacking)), Menninger mentioned that rudeness, violence and aggression are made possible by attitudes of ingratitude, inconsiderateness, and lack of self-control.  He also noted the alternate to think^group was the think^divine of gratefulness and good manners.

Since Menninger was unaware that he stood for both Progressives and Christians, he was not in a position to see how Progressive think^group contrasted with Christian think^divine.  Consistent with prior blogs, Progressive think^group tells the believer what she wants to hear: Rudeness, violence and aggression express righteous anger, not bad manners.

Cryptotheological formulae explain the righteousness.

Let me put that into a picture.

Intersecting nested forms for 8N

What about the vertical axis for gluttony – food, drinks and drugs?

Menninger associated gluttony to a destructive self-love, tending towards a “subconscious existence”.  This certainly fits the “loss of conscience” that makes “sins of gluttony possible”.

Menninger did not explore the think^group that puts the sins of food, drinks and drugs into context.  But, like most Progressives, he made fun of quaint religious traditions of think^divine that forbid coffee, tea and beer.

But I have an example: Consider that great propagandizer of self-love and subconscious existence: American television (any time, from 1960 to 2012).  TV think^group romanticized all types of addictions, including the most important one: addiction to itself.

So for TV gluttony, the vertical axis might be “television hype for the goodness of its own programming and ads(sin of being a couch potato(destructive self love tending toward a subconscious existence))”.

Now, what about the Gluttony for Entitlements by the Central Government?

Let us turn to the next set of sins in Chapter 8: “Gluttony – Food, Drinks and Drugs”.

What makes the “sins of gluttony” possible?  Pleasurable substances plus the psychology (or neurophysiology) of addiction make good candidates for “symptoms”.

What puts the “the sins of gluttony” into context?  The “crimes” of obesity, intoxication, drunkenness and addiction made good candidates for “crimes”.

Again, we find opportunity to expand the concept of “crime”.  Menninger limited “crime” to the jurisdiction of the state.  “Crime” could also include the punishing natural consequences of the sin.  Thus, the word “crime” might be replaced by a more general term, such as law^nature or law^essential.

Similarly, Menninger’s idea of “symptom” was “something that would be subject to improvement by a psychoanalyst or mental health worker”.  We can expand this concept by substituting the word “disposition” for “symptom”.

The horizontal axis of “law^essential(sin(disposition))” would be, for this set of sins, “the punishing consequences by both nature and state(sins of gluttony(the psychology or neurophysiology of pleasurable substances)).

Before modernism, the horizontal “crime(sin(symptom))” might be expressed – er, maybe ‘repressed’ – as “this is reprehensible(sin of sensuality(the temptations of lust).

The vertical “think^divine(virtue(conscience^free))” might be – perhaps – “divine judgment(self-denial(avoid the vice of lust))”.

The two of the poles of “divine judgment” and “this is reprehensible” must have put a damper on the sins of sensuality.  Believers worked hard to avoid both “tempting thoughts” (which might correspond to “symptom”) and “the vice itself” (which would correspond to a free will decision to commit the deed).

Menninger was on target by nominating St. Anthony to be the poster child of this premodern mandala.

There is a certain beauty to the Temptations of St. Anthony.  “Divine judgment” told St. Anthony ‘something’ that he did not want to hear, and yet, he could not reject that voice?

This beauty precisely opposes the beauty of the serpent in An Archaeology of the Fall, a serpent that captures the nature of think^group: The serpent tells you what you want to hear.

Substitute “political incorrectness” in for “the sins of sensuality” (in the previous blog) to get a flavor of one of the many atrocities that Menninger was unconsciously hoping to avoid: Sexual injustice is a crime only if it is politically incorrect – or worse – involves a person deemed “politically incorrect”.

Perhaps, Portnoy (of Portnoy’s Complaint) was not the poster-child of modernism in this regard.

Can you imagine who might be?