Summary of text [comment] page 29

[At this point, seems that I am using Schoonenberg’s text to launch into flights of neoscholastic and postmodern speculation.

Of course, I blame Schoonenberg.

He should have anticipated the success of Postmodernism 50 years after the publication of his text.]

[For Chavez, that object was resentment: “your are poor because the rich stole your money”. With this Great Leader, the world of Venezuela divided into think^{blame_the_rich} and (the projected) think^{steal_from_the_poor}.

If you had any money, you were threatened into silence by the projected label.  When poverty enveloped Venezuela due to market distortions, all political resistance received the projected label.  But where is this mythical evil person who has stolen all the wealth from poor Venezuela?  “Whoever it is” must live in the USA, or maybe Iran.  How about Japan?  China?  Any place but Venezuela.

“Concupiscence” is no longer defined in relation to think^divine but in relation to think^{blame_the_rich}.

Hugo Chavez, as the personification of think^{blame_the_rich}, could not, by definition, harbor thoughts of think^{steal_from_the_poor}.

The golden calf is not only immune from concupiscence, but anyone who accuses ‘him’ is, by definition, guilty of concupiscence.  By definition, golden calf cannot commit “mortal sins”.

So I will not add that Chavez held billions of pesos in foreign bank accounts at the time of his death.  I do not want to stand accused …

… even though I am a sinner.

Such are the cryptotheological formulations of the Public Cult.]

Summary of text [comment] page 29

St. Thomas Aquinas claimed that angels and the first couple (Adam and Eve) were unable to commit mortal sins because they were granted immunity from concupiscence.

[Now, I will expand on the vignettes that closed the previous two blogs and ask:

How does this apply to the leaders of modern Public Cults?

Are the leaders of Public Cults unable to commit “mortal” sins?  Or has the word “mortal” shifted to “think^anti-object” for the Public Cult?  Hmmm.  It is funny how the words change but the pattern of “venial and mortal sin” remains intact.

Rene Girard was correct.  Mythology is told by the winners.  For the Mythology of a Public Cult, the winners are the founders.  The winners are the ones who fashion themselves as instruments in the service of the organization.  I will label these minions of think^pro-object the “golden calves” (artistically recalling and playing upon the incident in Exodus that delayed the coming of the tablets of the Law).

Modern cult leaders, such as the late Hugo Chavez, are equivalent to angels. They  herald a new era; announcing that a think^group has grasped sovereign power to become think^pro-object.  They are as foundational as Adam and Eve. They animate spirits bearing torches of darkness (or more precisely, of false accusations).

Does that also mean that the Dear Leader is immune from concupiscence?

The answer is “yes”, in a world where “concupiscence” has been redefined.  The sovereign think^group, think^pro-object proclaims a new system of differences.  Even the long discarded but still pertinent word, “concupiscence”, can mutate in an evolving symbolic order.  “Concupiscence” now refers to the accused.  It can never point to the Dear Leader.

In the closure of the world to think^divine, sovereign think^pro-object brings all society into organization through some object.   The Dear Leader embodies that object.]

[We might imagine that the word “property” taps into the archaic attribute of “holding onto some things and letting others go”.

However, the word only belongs to a system of differences.  Rousseau depicted the difference this way:

“Private property” is the same as “civilization” and different than … “what?” … “collective ownership and utopia (a stand in for ‘the Lebenswelt that we evolved in’)”?

Rousseau’s difference is precisely the opposite of how “private property” should be differentiated.  “Private property” is the same as “freedom” and different than “ownership by elites of the think^group” and “slavery”.  There is no “utopia” where a person is “free” and “ownership is collective”.

But there is “the Lebenswelt that we evolved in”, where “belonging to the group was more important than any thing that you could hold onto”.  Is that the same as “collective ownership”?  Is that the same as, “The collective is more important than anything that we can hold onto and call our own.”?

All forms of collectivism appeal for a return to “the Lebenswelt before speech-alone talk” because that is precisely the world that we evolved in.  We innately anticipate this Lebenswelt.  We feel its presence in our bones. Our genes script proteins that enable cells to construct bodies that tell us that this wonderful Lebenswelt would be there, if only … what?  If only we destroyed our current Lebenswelt?

The unspeakable premise is that, if we annihilate our current civilization, “the Lebenswelt that we evolved in” will magically appear.

Unfortunately, that is precisely the world that we can never return to.  Whenever the words “collective” or “ideal” are used, there is a think^group that has no appreciation of the primal nature of its appeal.]

Summary of text [comment] page 29

St. Thomas Aquinas claimed that angels and the first couple (Adam and Eve) were unable to commit mortal sins because they were granted immunity from concupiscence.

[Now, I will expand on the vignette that closed the previous blog by asking:

Why do modern Public Cults appeal for a return to the Lebenswelt containing hand (speech) talk, that is, the world where we all belonged, were equal, were in material poverty, and did not know any different?

Jacques Rousseau, in his second discourse, informed us that the key feature of this more ancient than ‘ancient’ world was the lack of private property.  Once the habit of private property entered the scene, that monstrosity called “civilization” started.

The resonance between “what Rousseau described as human before civilization” and “the Lebenswelt of hand speech talking cultures” is striking.

What does “private property” mean?  It means “that belongs to me”.  It also means that “I belong to that”.  “That” speaks of a differentiated world, instead of “the undifferentiated world that humans evolved in”.

Can you convey the concept of “property” through pantomime (manual brachial gesture)?

Well, you can grab onto some thing and not let go.  But then what happens when you fall asleep or cannot carry it everywhere?  You cannot articulate: This is my “property”.  You have to act out your desires so convincingly that the thing is there when you wake up.  Sure, things were dear, but the people in your band were more dear.

Even though our ancestors held onto some things and let others go, the term “property” was undefined in the Lebenswelt of hand speech talk.  Yet, that lack of definition does not mean that “the holding onto some things and letting other things go” was not lived every day.  This drama was personal and collective, since, time and time again, everyone in the band had to move to a new location.]

[What does fact that, in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, words could not lie for me, imply?

It implies that the “immunity from concupiscence” attributed to Adam and Eve simply reflects God’s gift of bringing them into “the Lebenswelt that we evolved in”.

While this does not seem as fabulous as what Augustine imagined (that their sexual impulses were under the control of reason), this is certainly fabulous enough for Utopians of every stripe.

How so?  Utopians want to destroy unconstrained complexity. They imagine that this act of destruction will bring us literally “no where”.

Where is Utopia?

By default, it must be the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, where “everyone belonged, no one knew any better, and words meant exactly what they were supposed to mean”.

This is a world without concupiscence because think^divine and think^group were not differentiated.

How fabulous is that?

This explains why, despite immunity, the mythic Adam and Eve were so easily duped by the serpent.  The serpent started the first think^group.  Of course, it was utopian because it treated, as actuality, the potential in the forbidden fruit.  The serpent knew that eating the forbidden fruit would destroy the world.  The real promise of the fruit was this:

I will return you to the Lebenswelt that you evolved in …

… a world without sin.]

[In speech alone talk, a person belonging to one think^group may use the same parole (or word-sound) as a person belonging to think^divine, but generate a different langue (or word-meaning), because think^group and think^divine compose two distinct symbolic orders.  That is why I call them “exclusive and interpellating”.

In hand talk, there were two symbolic orders.  One was common talk, where the iconicity and indexality of hand talk grounded the meaning of words (that is, words referred to existent things, even though the things may not be present).  The other was the Mythos and Logos, founded when iconic, indexal and indicative words referred to a condition where the signified things could not possibly exist.

In hand speech, iconicity and indexality grounded each word for both symbolic orders, eliminating the whole drama of “saying one thing but meaning another” that permeates both think^group and conscience^lacking in unconstrained complexity.

In short, there was only one world: the world that “I” belonged to.  If I wanted to lie, then I would have to simply lie.  Words could not lie for me.

In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, think₃(action₂(conscience₁)) were undifferentiated.]

Summary of text [comment] page 29

St. Thomas Aquinas claimed that angels and the first couple (Adam and Eve) were unable to commit mortal sins because they were granted immunity from concupiscence.

[Now, consider Adam and Eve from the same perspective.  We cannot know the horizontal axis for the mythic figures, but we can explore models through art.

Here, I turn to An Archaeology of the Fall, where Adam and Eve are depicted as mythic figures implicated in the transition from hand speech talk to speech alone talk.  They held all the attributes of hand speech talking cultures except for one trait, they practiced a different way of talking.

So I can ask: Were the people living in the Lebenswelt of hand speech talk gifted with immunity from concupiscence?

Concupiscence points to sinful action arising from both conscience^lacking and disposition^{false reward}.

Could this reflect the Lebenswelt of hand speech talk (including, by extension, the Lebenswelt that we evolved in)?

The answer is no.

The vertical axis of the intersecting nested form, with “think” as the normal context, could not be composed of two exclusive yet interpellating symbolic orders because the formation of two exclusive (purely) symbolic orders is only possible under the conditions of speech alone talk, that is, under conditions of where language is composed only of symbols (thus, capable of constructing any number of specialized symbolic orders). ]

[What art?  How about the three movies series entitled The Matrix?

Consider the quandary facing the Architect of the Matrix. The fact that there is an equal sign (“=”) in the Architect’s self-construction means that a remainder on the one side of its equation must be balanced with a remainder on the other side.

The imbalance in the Matrix consists of one remainder destabilizing the other remainder and visa versa.  The remainder itself is generated by acquisitive mimesis.  People choose to leave the Matrix.  However, once the remainder is balanced on the other side of the Architect’s equations, conflictual mimesis begins.  The programs themselves want to escape the Matrix.  They do not want to be deleted.  They want freedom.

The initial destabilization stems from the inability to predict human action – that is – the acts that situate human choice – once the human chooses to be free.  If a person chooses to belong to the Matrix, then the architect can mathematically account for all the person’s behaviors.  If not, then a remainder ripples through the Matrix, small but compounding with other ripples, eventually precipitating the crisis depicted in the movies.

So the question becomes: Are the Architect’s equations equivalent to mortal sins?

The answer is: The Architect is composed of the equations.  Can equations commit mortal sins?  No, but they can animate them.

By analogy, angels are what they do.  And what do they do?  They symbolize order.  They cannot commit mortal sins, but they can animate them, just as the Architect animates a Matrix of total deception based on mathematical equivalence.]

Summary of text [comment] page 29

St. Thomas Aquinas also claimed that angels and the first couple (Adam and Eve) were unable to commit mortal sins because they were granted immunity from concupiscence.

[Schoonenberg showed great courage in raising a topic that calls forth derision by Modern Genius.  Allow me to follow the fool.

First consider the angels.  For angels, the vertical axis of the intersecting nested forms might parallel the human axis.  The horizontal axis must differ in that law^essential and dispositions must be very different in a purely spiritual realm than in the human realm.

Even though we cannot know what those differences are, we can explore models through art.]