[What does this mean?
‘Something2a’ was my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.
What does that have to do with desire1a?
Desire1a is a possibility inherent in me1a, but it is not the only possibility.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Complicated rules for ritual purity facilitated a bondage of perpetual inadequacy2a(1a).
The Judean elite mirror of the world3a brought ‘something2a’ into relation with the possibilities inherent in me1a.
‘Something2a’ was my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[At the time of Christ, the mirror of the world3a reflected family and tribal traditions plus religious demands of ritual purity.
‘Something2a’ attempted to satisfy the words and the bondage of these thought experiments.
‘Something2a’ attempted to satisfy the expectations of tribe or family plus the religious expectations of ritual purity.
So the possibilities inherent in me1a were capped by a double burden.
Weirdly, this supports the modern notion of “freedom” as not being constrained by tribal, family or ritual obligations.]
[Obligations went from responsibilities to words.
The words of the Law put the majority in bondage.
Common folk (the so-called “deplorables”) were required to meet traditional family and tribal obligations.
They were never adequate when it came to ritual purity. They were good people, but they were cast as losers
All they could hope for was to avoid accusations of thinkanti-object, that is, rumors that would ruin one’s life and relations.
Does that sound vaguely familiar for today’s (2017) America?]
[Amazingly, the children of Israel returned to their homeland.
Interpretations of the Mosaic Law were formulated, in the centuries before Christ, by an (infra)sovereign religion.
Obligations were formulated according to a thinkpro-object obsessed with ritual purity. The Saduccees and Pharisees became experts in the obligations of ritual purity. This expertise was a ticket to wealth and status.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[So what happened?
I continue my guess.
Obviously, problems came from establishing a king.
The formation of a sovereign encouraged competition among contending points of view. Sovereign power offered opportunities for exploitation. Royal decrees put people in bondage. The court deprived the people of what they own.
The kingdoms of Israel and Judah failed due to royal immorality and incompetence, as well as the alienation of their own subjects.
Oh, plus an attacking empire.]
[Also, the obligations of tribe and family are particular.
My particular tribe and family may have a tendency to micromanage. Petty demands add to time-honored expectations.
Plus, there will always be a slacker in the house.
Plus, the family and tribe may have a debilitating tendency to blame all their woes on one person. Everyone wants to be blameless, so nothing gets done.
The Law of Moses mitigated that.
The Law of Moses held out the possibility of reward (or, at least, not punishment) for the individual with initiative, despite family and tribal obligations.]
[In contrast, tribe and family may been trapped in their own word-games.
For example, the tribe is always at war with the rest of the world.
The 10 commandments do not encourage the universal thought experiments.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Compared to the obligations3a(2a and the exercises of the heart2a(1a)) of the family and tribal traditions, the Judaic Law must have felt liberating.
The Law of Moses lays down obligations that are universal. They apply to all. Including everyone in the tribe and family.]
[The mirror of the world3a was illuminated by unforgiving traditional ways.
Something2a was either freedom within one’s tribe or family (provided you accept your responsibilities) or slavery to another tribe or family.
So the possibilities inherent in me1a faced two stark choices.
Weirdly, these choices support the modern notion of “freedom” as not being constrained by pre-existing responsibilities.]
