Summary of text [comment] pages 24 & 25

[Consider the movie, Brazil.

Brazil dramatizes the exclusive and interpellating character of think^group and think^divine plus its closure when a think^group gains sovereign power and mutates into think^pro-object and (the projection of) think^anti-object.

Brazil imaginatively captures the conditions of closure after the transubstantiation of think^group.

There are apparently only two groups.   Think^pro-object is capricious, bureaucratic, cruel and the only game in town.  Think^anti-object is the terroristic resistance.

The terrorists are never captured and provide the rationale for totalitarianism.  Innocent people are killed, apparently by both parties, the security forces and the resistance.]

[As long as think^group and think^divine are exclusive yet interpellating, not every sin promotes the Antichrist.

Once a think^group attains sovereign power and perversity reigns.  Once transgressions are fully justified through the instrumentality of think^pro-object, then every sin promotes the Antichrist.  The sinner becomes an instrument of “the object that brings all subjects into organization”.]

[An entertaining but disturbing cinematic portrayal of the material and spiritual deformation of think^group appears in the movie Pulp Fiction.   One (criminal) character is spooked by a miracle.  The other is not.]

[Here, Schoonenberg appears to meld Christ and think^divine.

The vertical parallel axes of think^divine and think^group are inherently unstable, in that they are exclusive yet interpellating.

The think^divine nested form may be regarded as formative.

The think^group nested form may be regarded as formative, but it may also be deformative.

A think^group nested form may be deformative in two ways.

One is material.  The sinful pursuit of material advantage favors a self-justification₃(concupiscence₂(₁)).  Sometimes, this complex is spooked by blasphemy₃(cruelty₂(₁)).

The other is spiritual.  A think^group strives to attain sovereign power in order to dictate an organizational objective for all society.  Blasphemy₃(cruelty₂(₁)) becomes the norm.  Yet, both everything and nothing spooks these idolaters.  They are paranoid.  They feel invulnerable.

Both types of deformation are parasitic and fully capable of taking over the host.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 24 & 25

Sin is against God and the world (as it participates in the history of salvation through God’s grace).  Sin is against Christ.  So the dynamic is a positive feedback where God’s grace flows more and more abundantly at the same time that sin drives more and more dramatically to the rejection of Christ.

The history of Israel shows precisely this dynamic.

Christ’s coming on Earth initiated a positive feedback that will bring forth the Antichrist as the embodiment of sin.

Does that mean that every sin categorically promotes the Antichrist?

No.

Sin is situational, even though it comes from the heart, the core of our personhood and freedom.   Conditions are always a factor.  But outer manifestations are signs of inner conscience and dispositions.  Signs can both reveal and veil.

For Schoonenberg, this much has unfolded:  The sin against the Holy Spirit draws the individual into extreme consequences [into an sovereign^infra religion that excludes think^divine] and bars ‘him’ from every path to salvation.

[Schoonenberg’s conclusion resonates with Zizek’s definition of “perversity”, as “one who transgresses (think^divine) while acting as an instrument of a think^group“.

It also parallels Ted Peter’s 7 steps to radical evil, where the final state is blasphemy^­₃(cruelty₂(₁)).  Blasphemy₃ is idolatry.  Idolatry elevates one’s think^group into a think^pro-object that eclipses think^divine.

Blasphemy₃ contextualizes cruel action₂.  Blasphemy₃ brings cruelty₂ into relation with “the possibilities inherent in self-justification(concupiscence())₁”.

Self-justification₃(concupiscence₂(₁)) parallels think^group(sin(conscience^lacking)).]

Summary of text [comment] page 24

Bultman repeatedly argued that sinfulness belongs to the lapsedness of the past and redemption is an openness to the future.

[Bultman presumes that the future is the history of salvation, that is, of increasing delineation of think^divine.

This makes sense in the fact that, when a think^group fails and law^essential runs its course, the emotional and cognitive reactions inform subsequent sacred prohibitions.  The failure and re-establishment of order is enshrined in sacred rituals.

No one wants that to happen again.]

If Christ and the prophets most fully reveal [think^divine], then the “history of salvation” is the unfolding of “what Biblical revelation means”.

On the other hand, one can also argue that the words of prophets and of Jesus the Christ were only taken seriously after everything they predicted came true.  After the first, and then the second, respectively, temple was destroyed, how could anyone deny the truth?

Perhaps, there is a simultaneous looking forward as well as back in the gift of think^divine.]

[Outside of history, law^denial is conjured through Progressive think^group.  Think^group expresses imaginary pictures, primordial images that cannot be challenged, of “the anticipated consequences of the imposition of their organizational objectives”.  These primordial images add to an exclusion already exercised by controlling the language.  These divorced people must be happy, they got a “no fault divorce”.

After all, what do the words “fault” and “marriage” mean in a world of “no fault divorce”?

Take a few moments and toy with the antihistorical and farcical primordial image of “a fault free divorce”.   Human relationships like a little plastic toys.  Sometimes toys break and it is nobody’s fault.  You shop for another one.  See.  It’s pretty and new again.

Not.

The Primordial Images of American Progressive Elites informs attitudes of conscience^lacking and trains the dispositions.  No fault divorce undermines prudence and trains the dispositions in the arts of deception.  The next relationship is never pretty and new again.

American Progressive Elites cannot imagine, much less articulate, the debilitating unfolding of law^essential that follows the eclipse of traditional marriage.]

Summary of text [comment] page 24

[The other association may best be expressed through an example: marriage.

The (think^divine) norm of “what God has joined let no man sunder” is opposed by the modern norm of “no fault divorce” (think^group).  These two norms are exclusive yet interpellating.  A contest between them plays out in history.  A contest also occurs “outside of history”; that is, in the realm of primordial imagery.

The former associates with the unfolding of law^accept.

The latter associates with law^denial.

Inside of history, the unbinding of marriage by Progressives has had repercussions on every level of society, from the population (demographics) to the personal (the flourishing of resentment).  Think^group necessarily denies the consequences of its policies on human action.

In fact, their symbolic order cannot articulate any deformative impacts because the “words have changed” to accommodate their faultless policies.

The repercussions of no-fault divorce, plus the denial of those repercussions (law^denial), constitute the Real of History (law^essential).

Or rather, more technically, there is a relation of impossibility between law^accept and law^denial. ]

Summary of text [comment] page 23

Free will [specified conscience] relies on norms [think^group and think^divine] .  Many of these norms are built over time.  Many are handed down by God.  Many are created out of the cloth of deception, telling the interpellated what they want to hear.

Sin [think^group] may eclipse awareness of any true (not deceptive) norm [think^divine].

In this regard, sin is opposed to the meaning of history, especially the history of salvation.  Sin is in history.  But since sin derives from freedom, sin is antihistorical.

[To me, this recalls Jung’s archetypes, which are “antihistorical”.  A better word would be “ahistorical”.

Perhaps, here, we may see another delineation of the definition of “religion”.  So far, “religion” has been defined according to the criteria of the intersecting nested forms and relation to sovereign power.

Here, “religion” is archetypal in the precise sense that “primordial images never occur in their archetypal purity” but always specified through historical circumstance.

But there could be another association.]