[There is a certain irony to the fact that, currently, in 2014, the term “objective” covers two very different concepts.  Here is the first:

Human action₂ is “objective” because it can be objectively observed by a disinterested scientist.

Human action₂ is an “object” that is contextualized through knowledge₃.  This is described in the the category crossing of two nested forms:

knowledge₃₍₂₎ = acceptance or denial of law^essential as well as think^{one_way_or_another} contextualizing the situation₂

The term “knowledge₃” labels the emergence of judgments on both the natural philosophical and the moral religious axes of the intersecting nested forms.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 36 and 37

[I have already brought knowledge and will into association with the intersecting nested forms.  Now, let me see how I can associate “gravity”.

Since human action may be observed, moderns call it “objective”.

Perhaps the term should be “intersubjective”.   After all, the observer is “a subject” as well as one who observes.

On top of that, “the subject” perceives some “object”, some perception of actuality within the realm of possibility.  But that perception is “subjective”.

So maybe the descriptor should be “interobjective”.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 36 and 37

Once Schoonenberg established the concept of grades [of grace or disgrace] plus the inherence of knowledge and will [see previous blogs], he turned to the idea of “the levity or gravity of matter” in sins.

“Matter” touches base with “what makes an action moral”.  There must be external independent sources for the criteria of “what is moral”.  At the same time, the notion is personal.  The external criterion must be assumed within the internal.

The outward aspect provides a norm.  The inward aspect belongs to the human mind and body.

We may speak of action as if it were a “thing in itself”, an isolate from the person’s external and internal criteria, to be judged independently as a “sin” or “virtuous” act.

Tabulations of actions as “mortal sins” pose a danger because action is the sign of an interior decision and a sign of valuation that reflects the ordination of one’s life.  The tabulations lead to the false conclusion that actions are isolated from judgments (external criteria) and potentials (inward criteria).

Judgments and potentials matter.

Summary of text [comment] page 35

[What are we to conclude from the radically different manifestations of Knowledge and Will that accompany one type of situation (where think^group and think^divine both exist) as opposed to another type of situation (where a think^group achieves sovereign power and transubstantiates into an (infra)sovereign religion, a think^pro-object and a think^anti-object)?

The latter type of situation appears beyond the subject matter that Schoonenberg addresses, even though he witnessed the latter type with his own eyes.  In fact, the latter type should be of greatest concern to scholars.  Nearly every nation in the West has fallen, in Modern Times, under the sway of a Public Cult.

Perhaps, one reason is that theology takes time.  Even now, a century after the First World War, we still do not comprehend what happened.  We are still wrestling with the great thinkers of that era, such as Pierce and Saussure.

Schoonenberg, writing 50 years after the death of Peirce, clearly had no access to the categorical tools that I currently use.

Still, Schoonenberg labors to develop a new perspective.

The historic occurrences of sovereign^{infrareligion} rule are becoming more and more frequent.  They no longer appear to be historical anomalies.  I suspect that their increasing occurrence is conditioned by the adoption of “mass media” ways of talking.

The framework of venial and mortal sin seems to both rejected an usurped whenever Anti-knowledge, Denial of Consequences, Perversion and Servitude reign.]

[What happens when an infrasovereign religion achieves sovereign power?

On the natural philosophical axis:

Knowledge₃₍₂₎ becomes Anti-knowledge₃₍₂₎, “the denial of the consequences of pro-object human actions₃₍₂₎”

Law^denial₃₍₂₎: Explanations₃ for objective failure of situation₂

Will₂₍₁₎ becomes perversion₂₍₁₎ or servitude₂₍₁₎

Perversion₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerging from the trained dispositions₁

This coupling matches the common perception of the word “perversion” as “kinky”.  “Kinky” pleases “the dispositions”.  What is missing in this naïve view is the other facet of the will: conscience.

Perversion₂₍₁₎ is human action emerging from both conscience^{instrument_of_pro-object}₁ and dispositions^kinky₁.

Servitude₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerging from the trained dispositions₁

This coupling matches the common perception of “the slave” as “the one who is unable to run away”. The slave cannot run away because of exhaustion and compromized feelings (disposition^servitude).

The “slave” is defined as “the person who acts, with insubstantial resistance, according to the directives of the instruments of higher power, not because ‘he’ agrees, but because ‘he’ fears to be caught disagreeing”.

When subjects are brought into relation according to some organizational goal, the “pervert” becomes a “master” and the “subject” becomes a “slave”.]

[What happens when an infrasovereign religion achieves sovereign power?

On the moral religious axis:

Knowledge₃₍₂₎ becomes Anti-knowledge₃₍₂₎, that is, “knowledge enclosed within the (infra)sovereign religion as it emerges from the situation₂”.  No other knowledge is permitted.  Anti-knowledge includes explanations for why sovereign efforts fail (law^denial), in addition to one-sided justifications (think^pro-object as well as think^anti-object).

Anti-knowledge₃₍₂₎: think^pro-object₃ emerging from and assessing the situation₂

Why situation₂ and not human action₂?

Organizational objectives dictate human action in addition to the person’s will.  “Situation₂” is “human action₂ under the conditions of the organizational directive₁”.

Will₂₍₁₎ becomes perversion₂₍₁₎ and servitude₂₍₁₎

Perversion₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerging from a conscience^pro-object₁

Zizek defines “perversion” as “a person who acts as an instrument of a higher power”.

Servitude₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerging from conscience^{fear_of_being_anti-object}₁

This coupling matches the common perception of “the slave” as “the one who is unwilling to run away”. The slave will not run away because of anxiety (conscience^{fear_of_being_anti-object}₁).]

Summary of text [comment] page 35

[Given the ideas in blogs 1.5W1 and 2, let met pose this question:

What happens when an infrasovereign religion achieves sovereign power?

When a think^group achieves sovereign power, it divides into think^pro-object and a projection of think^anti-object on the basis of “an object that brings all subjects into organization”.  I depict this situation (infra)sovereign religion, sovereign^{infra-religion} or Public Cult.]

Summary of text [comment] page 35

[This echoes a sentiment that I feel about religion^{suprasovereign} and religion^{infrasovereign}.  The first feels like knowledge₃₍₂₍₎₎.  The latter feels like will₂₍₁₎.]

Summary of text [comment] page 35

[I now place another list to both nuance and contradict the associations provided in blog 1.5T (the summary of knowledge and will).

These portrayals combine two categorical levels.  The first instance describes a crossing of the categories.  The second instance presents a nested form (with the missing category left blank).

On the moral religious (vertical) axis of the intersecting nested forms:

Knowledge₃₍₂₎ : think^{group_or_divine}₃contextualizes human action₂, as sin or virtue

Knowledge₃₍₂₎: think^{group_or_divine}₃(human action₂(___₁))

Will₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerges from specified conscience₁

Will₂₍₁₎: __₃(human action₂(conscience^{lacking_or_free}₁))

On the natural philosophical (horizontal) axis of the intersecting nested forms:

Knowledge₃₍₂₎: consequences₃ contextualize human action₂

Knowledge₃₍₂₎: law^essential₃(human action₂(___₁))

Will₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerges from dispositions₁

Will₂₍₁₎: __₃(human action₂(dispositions₁))

These definitions feel more evocative than the previous formulations because knowledge and will are implicated when the higher category alters the circumstances of the adjacent lower category.]

Summary of text [comment] page 35

Perhaps, we can label the gradation for sin: “grades of disgrace”; and the gradation for virtue: “grades of grace”.

Such grades may serve as models for human relationships.

[For example, the grades of disgrace for the relationship of matrimony might be “acting cold or quarreling” (venial); “adultery or public humiliation of partner” (mortal); and “divorce” (irreversible, the relationship is damned, leaving an undead remainder of legal action).

For example, the grades of grace for the same relationship may be “patience and attention” (inspiration); “having children” (co-creation with God); and “growing old together” (irreversible, the two are one flesh, leaving a living remainder of family).]