Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Compare a sovereign religion to an infrasovereign institution that refuses to seek sovereign power.
For example, consider a health-related business devoted to (what it calls) “smart choices’”.
This business tries to covert the free person into a character who, either does not smoke tobacco products, or smokes responsibly.]
[The subjective impact of the (infra)sovereign religious zealot is very different.
The imposition validates the objectorg plus the righteousness that supports it.
The imposer feels spiritually superior to the subject.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[What is the subjective impact when a sovereign imposes an objectorganization?
The subject loses responsibility and freedom.
The subject gains in words & bondage.]
[What does it mean for sovereign power to impose an object that brings the subject into organization.
The imposition forcibly reduces both the responsibilities and the freedoms of the subject.
What does the subject gain from this exchange?
Some would argue that everyone (the collective) gains by the good inherent in the object (such as a reduction in health care costs, greater health benefits, and so on, all deriving from the cessation of cigarette smoking).
That argument, however, merely re-asserts the intention of the pro-object. It ignores the subjective impact on the individual.]
[An (infra)sovereign religion cannot look at the character of the person. That would require seeing in terms of thinkdivine, a perspective that puts both sovereign and subject into context.
The (infra)sovereign religion can only look at people in terms of thinkpro-object and (its projection of) thinkanti-object.
The subject is reduced to the one accepting the object that brings the subject into organization.
Conformity to thinkpro-object becomes the common core.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Consider the sovereigninfra as a being that reduces the person’s heart in order to impose an organizational good.
What are some of the implications?
Here is one.
This religious being (the sovereigninfra religion) looks down upon the person.
It sees a person (modeled according to the intersecting nested forms) and attempts to directly manipulate features within that model.
The religioninfrasov nudges.
The religioninfrasov pushes.
The religioninfrasov bullies.
The religioninfrasov reduces subjects accused of thinkanti-object to the position of homo sacer (see Giorgio Agamben).]
[Summary of text [comment] page 83
With regulation, I, seat of choice3V, is reduced to a subject to the sovereigninfra.
The mirror of the world3V forcibly aligns my choice2V with the thinkpro-object of the sovereign religion.
The words3H(2H of the sovereign place me in bondage2H(IH)).]
[With conversion, I, seat of choice3V, chooses something worth choosing2V that may conflict with many of my own tendencies1H.
I resolve my internal conflict by training my desires1H.
I begin to exercise new potential in me1H.]
[There is more potential in me1a than can be reflected by any human-instituted mirror of the world3a.
Conversion increases the person’s responsibility and freedom.
Regulation reduces the person’s responsibility and freedom.]
