Summary of text [comment] page 39

[“The final self-donation” opens our metaphorical windows to knowing both think^divine and law^essential.  That does not mean that we achieve the fullness of wisdom.  It simply means openness to wisdom.

“The final impenitence” shuts our windows tight and creates a virtual outside in order to keep them closed.  There is no openness here.  Within the reach of the sovereign, there is no escape from think^pro-object.

When think^group assumes the throne and eclipses think^divine, it becomes think^pro-object.  “The Party of Think^pro-object” holds as sacred the “object that brings all of subjects into organization”.

Who does not hold the object in esteem? Who will break one of a tangle of rules? Who dare piss off a perverted instrument of their pro-object order? Who stands at the wrong place at the wrong time?  These are branded think^anti-object.

Sovereign^infra rule establishes a new religion, a new Public Cult.

Hail Pro-Object!  Hail the Dear Leader who bears “the Object that brings us into Organization”.

Think^divine resides beyond the thin line marking the horizon.

Think^divine exterpellates.]

Summary of text [comment] page 39

[You have the power.  You have the power to be responsible.  You also have the power to be an instrument of “the object that brings all subjects into organization”.  You have the choice.

In this, “the exercise of power” mirrors “the final total self-donation” and “the final impenitence”.

Total self-donation – the confirmation of love – puts sovereign power into context by saying, “You have the power to be responsible.”  Hope and faith yield “organizational goals without the need for sovereign power”.

Impenitence, the hollowing out of hope and faith in favor of some partial object, grasps for sovereign power by saying what many want to hear: “You have the power to bring society into order according some organizational objective”.

But then, what if, by some historical fluke, I become sovereign.  Can I become “the object that brings everyone into organization”?  I am the change is more than a title of a good book.  The phrase brings to the fore the creepy confounding of human flesh and totalitarian impulse.  In the exercise of power, final impenitence becomes idolatry.  The “object that brings all subjects into organization” is mortal.

The golden calf walks on two hind legs.]

Summary of text [comment] page 39

Schoonenberg wrote that there is a great similarity in the way that mortal sins lead to final impenitence – the complete loss of faith and hope – and the way that simple moral acts lead us to total donation of self – the confirmation of love.

[To me, the “final impenitence” and “the total self-donation” correspond to a habitual participation in either think^group or think^divine as interpellation diminishes (more intense) or collapses (totally intense).

On the side of total donation of self, think^divine becomes the nested form of complete inspiration.  Think^groups fail to interpellate, to the repulsion of everyone belonging to think^groups.  In parallel to the “grades of disgrace”, one no longer worries about the consequences to self, others, or order itself.  The person recognizes the consequences and accepts responsibility.  Responsibility confirms love.  Faith and hope flourish as grace confirms love.

On the side of the final impenitence, think^group divides the entire world according to a key – an object – an idea – a promise – a gnosis – into “those who love the object” and “those who hate it”.  There is no need for grace, because the object itself is precious.  The person not responsible for her actions, the object is.  “Precious” is as “precious” does.  There is no faith or hope, because the final impenitent knows the destiny of society.  Sovereign power confirms the inevitable destiny.

Precious and inevitable, the object hollows out the words “hope” and “faith” and tells us what we want to hear: You can wear the ring of power and not be corrupted by its magical lure.]

[What is the triadic relation that law^essential differentiates into?

“My acceptance of the potential consequences (law^acceptance)” and “my denial of the consequences of action (in regards to self (option A), self and others (option B) or self and others and order itself (options C and C^-1); (law^denial))” relate to one another on the basis of impossibility.

This triadic relation is most slippery because one cannot assuredly place any element solely into one category.  Instead, the triadic relation writhes as a triadic system of differences with indeterminate normal context, actuality and possibility.

Does “impossibility₃^“ bring “denial of consequences₂” into relation with “the potential inherent in the consequences₁”?

Makes sense, since acceptance is “a potential of the consequences₁“.

Does “denial of the consequences₃^“ bring “impossibility₂” into relation with “the potential inherent in the consequences₁”?

Makes sense, since denial could be the normal context so that certain consequences are regarded as impossible.  Plus, acceptance is a potential consequence.

Does “acceptance of the consequences₃^“ bring “denial of the consequences₂” into relation with “the potential inherent in the image of impossibility₁”?

If acceptance is the normal context and the actions come out as denial, then something is making the normal context impossible.  That something could be many things, such as misinformation (I mean, anti-knowledge.).

And so on.  If you think about each permutation long enough, it becomes plausible.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 37, 38 and 39

[What is this business with law^essential, law^acceptance and law^denial?

It seems that I am dividing law^essential into to parallel horizontal nested forms (just like the parallel vertical nested forms).  The normal context termini of these nested forms parallel forms would be law^{acceptance_of_consequences} and law^{denial_of_consequences}.

This apparent duplication of the horizontal axis marks the occlusion of think^divine by think^pro-object.  It marks the moment when the mutual interpellation of think^divine and think^group is outlawed by (infra)sovereign power (the sovereign^infra religion).]

Summary of text [comment] pages 37, 38 and 39

[Since we are on the topic of “finality”, allow me to ask this:

Can one move along the love-hate axis, past the polar end that is “hate”, into a “final hate”, where one no longer feels the hate, instead one lives it, or perhaps, one dies to it?

Can one live and die in the lack of another’s love?

What does it mean to say, “She is beyond hating him.”?  Or, “He is beyond hating her.”?  Does it mean that each no longer obsesses over the other’s lack of love?

Or does that mean that each has grown to desire her or his, um, obsession?

Similarly, can one move along the guilt-responsibility axis, past the polar end that is “guilt”, into a “final guilt”, where one no longer feels guilt, instead one lives it, or perhaps, dies to its denial of responsibility?

What does it mean when someone says: She no longer feels guilt?

Does it mean that she has given up “denying responsibility”, as if, in the denial, there remained a shred of hope, a possibility for redemption?

Does it mean that she has forgotten how to be responsible?]

Summary of text [comment] pages 37, 38 and 39

[What about guilt?

Just as “hate” is the polar opposite of “love” (while remaining on the same axis), is “guilt” the polar opposite of “responsibility”?

Just as “hate” means that “you are always thinking about the other’s lack of love of you”, could “guilt” mean that “you are always denying your responsibility to others”?

Perhaps, that is why, in court, to be “found guilty” means “to be found responsible”.

What? You probably imagined that “guilt” meant “knowing that you are doing injustice to others, but not doing anything about it”.

Hmmm.  Is that not “denying your responsibility to others”?]

Summary of text [comment] pages 37, 38 and 39

[While the previous blog constitute a hypothesis (by way of scenarios), I sense that it resonates with Schoonenberg’s ideas, and may help explain why …]

Schoonenberg proceeds to the issue of finality.

The many decisions for good or evil are analogues of that global decision by which we decide our eternity in the act of dying … or … anticipations of that final option during this life …

[While many would laugh at the idea of a “final option” at the moment of death, we must remember that the ways of God are not the ways of humans.

The increase in intensity portrayed in the last blog resonates with the image of finality.

The increase of intensity is directly linked to “denial of the consequences, law^denial” that is “not taking responsibility for one’s actions”.

As the intensity increases, the sinner’s perceptions of the consequences become more and more impossible, until, of course, one arrives at Progressivism, Communism, Fascism, or any of the modern Public Cults founded on “an object that brings all of subjects into organization”.

All proclaimed that their object was historically inevitable.  “Inevitability” indicates “a total denial of the consequences of one’s actions”.

Oh, and it provides that unnerving excuse: I was just obeying orders.]

Summary of text [comment] page 37

[I am still on the question: Does “intensity” also pertain to the horizontal nested form?

In the last two blogs, I proposed several scenarios that would fit the natural philosophical horizontal nested form.

These scenarios show an increase in intensity.  The individual’s choices become more and more demonic.  Also, the individual is increasingly shielded from the consequences of ‘his’ actions, placing ‘his’ conscience at higher and higher risk.  Then, in a total flight from personal responsibility, the person has become an instrument of a think^pro-object.

Scenario A is spontaneous: “Oh, this ‘partial good’ will increase pleasure or reduce pain at no cost.”

Scenario B is more calculating, more remorseless: “Oh, this ‘partial good’ will increase pleasure and reduce pain at no cost to me and I don’t care if others suffer.”  Of course, the “no cost to me” is delusional and the lack of sympathy makes the sin appear criminal.

Scenario C is intensely sinful.

Scenario C^-1 is so intense that the sinner redefines “sin”.]

[Do these examples mean that Capitalism as a Symbolic Order of Individual Hedonism is sinful?  Not any more than any exchange involving immoral people, including those who run central governments.  Yes, lawyers will work for any Symbolic Order that Pays.

The central government starts with scenario C and promotes “plans to reduce pain” by eliminating wind surfing entirely.  If “safety” is the “object that brings all subjects into organization”, then wind surfing is an anti-object and must be banned.

In short, the central government enforces an inverse of the third option: C^-1.

C^-1: Think^pro-object₁(x₂(conscience^pro-object₁) favors “x₂” where “pro-object defines the consequences of my actions” (technically, “denial of law^essential”), basically claiming that “law^essential conforms to my Master’s intentions or to my Master’s interpretation of what law^essential should be, especially in regards to ‘the object that brings everyone into organization’.  In addition, anyone who disagrees is beholden to think^anti-object ideologies and has false conscience^anti-object”.]