Summary of text [comment] page 29

[In order to appreciate how the Aquinian definition of “venial” sin may be rendered by the intersecting nested forms, I start where the last blog left off:

Mortal sin alters the horizontal axis into:

denial of law^essential₃(sin₂(dispositions^rewarded₁))

If you consider the mortal sin as distillate, the mash might be something like:

thoughtlessness – lack of consideration of consequences₃(sin₂(this feels good or lessens the pain₁)).

The mash sure seems to correspond to the scholastic phrase “disorder of means”.

Venial sins are thoughtless and impulsive.

In a sense, venial sins mark spontaneous, situational and inchoate interpellations by the excluded vertical nested form of think^group(sin(conscience^lacking)).

These interpellations become more compelling – more and more “speaking to me” – once a venial sin becomes a habit.

Prayers and admonitions are important tools in quieting these interpellations.]

[Sin often entails acts of mind that basically deny the consequences of the sinful act (that is, law^denial).   The denial of law^essential makes it appear that there are no consequences.  This, of course, is never the case.

Thus, the definition of “mortal” sin by Aquinas is rendered in the intersecting nested forms.]

[The Modern Slogan “addiction is a disease” totally distinguishes dispositions and conscience.

Addiction occurs when a disposition cannot be resisted.  One becomes physiologically dependent on a substance. But, just as importantly, one becomes psychologically dependent on a justifying attitude.

Moderns ignore conscience^lacking.  This is why medical treatment alone rarely reforms dependency.  Any cure for addiction must alter both dispositions and conscience.]

Summary of text [comment] page 29

The question of the difference between “venial” and “mortal” sin was addressed by the Scholastics, including Saint Thomas Aquinas.  Aquinas defined “mortal” sin as a disorder concerning the end itself and a “venial” sin as a disorder concerning the means.

[From the perspective of the intersecting nested forms, the “end itself” corresponds to “how sin is conceived and contextualized”. That corresponds to conscience^lacking and think^group.  Mortal sins serve to habituate the former and reify the latter.  This precisely fits Aquinas concept of “mortal sin” as “a disorder concerning the end itself”.

At the same time, the intersecting nested forms reveal another dimension.  Sinful acts also participate in the nested form along the horizontal axis.

Sinful acts reward certain dispositions over others.  Since both dispositions and conscience belong to the monadic realm of possibility, they cannot be totally distinguished, so the appeasing of dispositions and the fixing conscience^lacking may feel indistinguishable.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 27 & 28

Schoonenberg examined the various enumerations of sin in the OT and NT and concluded that there were two varieties: ones that led to excommunication (in spirit if not in act); and ones that are “trespasses” for which we daily ask God, our Father, to “forgive our debts”.

Christ empowered his disciples to forgive sins.  The empowerment supports empirical questions:  What acts did Jesus’ disciples forgive?  At what price?

Over generations, ministers identified gradations of sin.  This is reflected in the Sacrament of Penance, where ecclesial penance is required for serious sins and prayer, fasting and alms-giving is expected for less serious sins.

What constitutes a sin that requires ecclesial (or sacramental) penance?

Apostasy, murder and adultery top the list.  These are “mortal” sins.  These are also in the 10 commandments.

What constitutes sins that are remitted by prayer, fasting and alms-giving?

Any act that shows an unclear conscience should be considered a “venial” sin.  After all, even a kindly act can be performed for selfish reasons.  Vanity and self-righteousness may wear the robes of humility and purity.  The person who goes against the counsel of God does not completely reject God’s law.  She commits a sin in the classic sense of “missing the mark”.

[Consider the nested form of think^group₃(sin₂(conscience^lacking₁)) and ask yourself:

Do particularly bad transgressions automatically fix attitudes (conscience^lacking) and require self-justifying beliefs (think^group)?

Are some sins so cruel that one could never perform them without blaspheming?

Are some sins so “being with Cupid” that one is instantly in the erotic thralls of concupiscence and the only way forward is self-justification?

These are the behaviors – the sins – that Ted Peters focused on in his book entitled Sin:Radical Evil in Self and Society.  These sins are called “mortal”.

Other sins, when habitually performed, may eventually produce the same results.  These are the “trespasses” mentioned in the Lord’s Prayer: “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

These are the behaviors – the sins – that Karl Menninger often focused on in his book entitled Whatever Became of Sin?  These sins are called “venial”.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 25, 26 & 27

[Do these lists of particular transgressions tell us what “sin” is?

Does the word “sin” cover more than the realm of human action, the realm of actuality?

The answer is no and yes.

With the intersecting nested forms in mind, we can sense how “the realm of actuality” both fixes the range of possibilities and promotes “ways of thought” that justify its own configuration.  These too, may be caught in the label of “sin”.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 25, 26 & 27

Section 5 of chapter 1 is titled, “Sin Unto Death – Mortal Sin – Venial Sin”.

What are consequences of sin?  In the Old Testament, heinous sins entail a break with God, life and His people.  In the New Testament, particularly bad sins can lead to excommunication, the equivalent to all the above.

What sins fit the bill?

Incest is obviously one (1 Cor. 5:11-18).   The OT has its lists, including sins against one’s neighbors.  The NT has its lists, including the continuation of pagan practices.

All these lists may be taken to be warnings.  They are signposts of danger.  Even though the community may not impose punishments, God sees all.  There are punishments far more deadly than being cast out or excommunicated.

Summary of text [comment] page 25

Sin is a sign of inner conscience and disposition.  Signs reveal and veil.  If one sees a sinful act, one cannot determine the perpetrator’s inner conscience and dispositions as a permanent, solid, thing.

[Both sin and virtue are actualities that emerge from conscience and dispositions.  Since the conscience is composed of exclusive yet interpellating realms, sometimes it is hard to pin the specification down.

Well, Schoonenberg’s caution notwithstanding, there comes a time when habitual expression makes the specification clear.  The training of the dispositions adds further evidence.  Conscience becomes specified as “lacking” freedom or “free”.

How does this happen?

At some point, actuality binds the realm of possibility.  When we habitually engage in sinful or virtuous behaviors, we come to a point where actuality specifies possibility. The “lacking” in conscience^lacking and the “free” in conscience^free reflect how we train ourselves.  We learn to ignore or hold onto freedom.  We habituate our consciences to be “a slave to some concupiscence or cruelty” or to be “free and virtuous”.

Thus conscience^specified could also be written conscience^habituated.

The limitation of the extent of possibility by repetitive behaviors raises questions that are oddly addressed in the topic that Schoonenberg turned to next: What is the relation between “venial” and “mortal” sin?]

[The first item to note about the movie, Brazil, is that the object that brings society into organization is purely nonsensical.  The object is “security”, which makes no sense at all, since the security apparatus tortures and kills innocent people, attempting to identify members of the resistance.

This nonsensical object resonates with Rene Girard’s “conflictual mimesis”, where a mimetic rivalry loses sight of “what they were fighting over” (acquisitive mimesis) and focuses purely on confronting the demonic other (think^anti-object).  In conflictual mimesis, each rival appears as a double with respect to the other.

Brazil artfully points out that the one of the doubles does not have to actually exist.  The “rival” (here, the terroristic resistance) may be the projection of an anti-object by a pro-object sovereign.  This explains why innocent people are rounded up and tortured while the security apparatus can never find the terrorists.

Do the terrorists even exist?

Well, they must be. Bombs are going off everywhere.  Or maybe, the bombs are overloaded environmental conditioning ducts.

The second item to note is that think^divine makes it appearance through dreamy fantasies that interpellate the hero’s impossible journey.  Recall, the relation between “the denial of law^essential” and “law^essential” is that of “impossibility”.

As the movie goes, the dream is actualized, by a synchronic event, and this leads to madness (chaos) and capture (control), fulfilling the logic of think^pro-object, stigmatizing and punishing the naïve, confused and innocent think^anti-object hero.

The third item to note is that the only option for the subject is withdrawal into Nothingness.  In Nothingness, the hero finds salvation.  In Nothingness, the security apparatus blames the victim.

Here, Rene Girard has spoken most eloquently on the uniqueness of Christ as the way into the Nothingness of the Eclipse of Think^divine.]