[Would anyone offer you anything for ‘free’ (without apparent cost or obligation) in the short run, unless they hoped that the exchange would ‘obligate you, in the long run’?
An alternate approach is to offer ‘free stuff’ means ‘ with strings attached.
These strings (words) are co-opposed to bondage.]
[So what happens when, in the Modern opposition, “freedom” is defined as lack of responsibility?
Do less responsibilities mean more freedom?]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The following are equivalent:
Mirror of the world3a(something2a
Responsibility3a(2a
The following are equivalent:
something2a( potential of my desires1a))
Freedom2a(1a))]
[Progressive values1b are supposed to underlie our choices2b.
There should be no contradictions, when values1b align with desire1a.
Our choices2b touch base with Schoonenberg’s use of the word “service3b”.
Some value1b must be worth serving3b.]
Schoonenberg wrote that we exercise freedom in serving either God or Satan.
[According to the interscope:
An organizational imperative2a emerges from and situates the potential inherent in me in the context of the mirror of the world1a.
Progressives speak to our desires1a.
Progressives tell us what values must be chosen1b.
Progressive values1b are supposed to inform the subject’s desires1a.]
[Progressive institutions insist on a litany of obligations, expressing what the citizen ought to be. Their demands backed by the sword of the sovereign.
Progressive institutions compete with the family, tribe and religion. They want to be responsible for you (not to you).
They work through words: legal codes, deceptive labels, surveillance, indoctrination, mandatory education, rewriting history, agenda setting, ridicule and ostracism.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
Schoonenberg wrote that we exercise freedom in serving either God or Satan.
[The claim, “I am not responsible.”, touches base with the modern definition of the word “freedom” as lack of obligations, especially impositions by family, tribe and religious cultural institutions.
The irony is that this assertion, rather than achieving a lack of obligations, merely transfers one’s obligations to institutions that declare themselves to be responsible.
How clever the Progressives can be.]
[… that obligations3H(2 for the intersecting nested forms, corresponds to:
Mirror of the world3H(my heart2
In the intersection, my heart2 is the single actuality of my choice2V and ‘something’ contextualized by the mirror of the world2H.
Words3H(2H, excuses3H(2H and resentments3H(2H correspond to the latter actuality.
They still cry out, “I am not responsible.”
But how irresponsible is that?
In my heart, I know that the values that I have been choosing1V no longer represent the desires inherent in me1H.
In our heart, I know the truth that I cannot accept:
My resentments are co-opposed to bondage.]
[The person believes that this cry, this something2a, is valid.
The person simply presumes that their mirror of the world3a reflects their values1b.
Sensible construction allows this.
Sensible construction cannot question the social construction that it presumes.
Sensible construction must give way to an intersection.
Otherwise, one cannot step back, detach and see …]
