Category Archives: The Evolution of Talk

The “evolution of talk” covers the evolution of the human capacity for language as well as the modes in which that capacity is expressed. Aspects are discussed in chapters 1,2 and 7 of An Archaeology of the Fall.

09/2/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 BL

[Schoonenberg did not explicitly engage the specter of modern nothingness.

Does anybody?

I suspect that the Shiites (the Party of Ali) do. Iranian mystics look at modern Western Progressives and see their Secular Society as less than nothing.

Western Progressive Society is ‘a nothing so negative’ that it appears ‘a positive something’.

Secular Society resembles branches growing without the tree. There are no roots. There is no trunk. There are only branches.

This is the ‘nothing’ that we have created without God.]

09/1/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 BK

[Similarly, the vast nothingness that we see in contemporary American television is supported by the dynamics of ‘I recognize myself according to some … nothingness’.

This ‘nothingness’ consists of characters, such as ‘a helpless victim terrorized by a bad one’. The televised helpless victim inspires sympathy, because the viewer is also a victim (a disempowered person who cannot talk back to the television producers).]

08/25/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 BF-2

[The cultural veiling of key theological words in the constantly tumultuous symbolic orders of the civilized West has been going on for a long time.

The 12th century is 900 years ago. Clearly, some people were already trying to liberate the concept of human freedom from the trappings of Original Sin.

Augustine and the Council of Carthage occurred 1800 years ago. Already, some were trying to liberate love from grace.]

07/5/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2AF

[The televisionaires speak their truth to you, little viewers with golden ornaments.

You cannot talk back, so the television will speak for you. Mainstream TV will portray a character, a victim, some poor trifle that stands for you, the true victim, who cannot talk back to the television. You will feel sympathy for this pathetic creature because you identify with the victim.

You are the victim of the televisionaries, but you do not know it. You only see what is in front of you. You only see images on a screen.

I will consider ‘the so-called truths that they broadcast’, which Christ called a lie, in the next blog.]

07/5/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2AE-2

[In addition, one views the adoration of individuals who adhere to Progressive thinkpro-object. Media folk throw garlands before celebrity elites. Their elites express consciencepro-object.

I call these adored people: golden calves.

Like the famous Biblical golden calf, these celebrities thrive on small ornaments donated by little people. Their tokens are melted and poured into liberal causes by Progressive clerics. Celebrities, especially celebrity politicians, are mouthpieces of Progressive Cults.

‘The unreal agape of the golden calves’ accompanies ‘the unreal loathing of the scapegoats’. The scapegoats are projections of thinkProgressive_TV‘s fevered imaginations.

The televisionaries love their gods and hate their fellow humans.]

07/1/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2AE-1

Summary of text [comment] page 72

[In the amusing (yet horrifying) parodies of Christianity that constitute today’s religions of Progressive television, the artistic depiction of unreal agape (as well as unreal eros) has reached spectacular heights.

When one watches any mainstream media newscast, one sees the vilification of innocent people. They are labeled thinkanti-object and conscienceanti-object. They are the scapegoats.]

06/30/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2AD-3

[By the 2010s, the word ‘sin’ was replaced by ‘anti-object’ terms. These anti-object epithets are drained of traditional meaning. They are fully compliant with Progressive ideologies. They are not descriptions. They are political accusations. They are thinkanti-object.

Over the past 50 years, the old wineskins of familiar words have been emptied. The old wineskins have been filled with new definitions, powerful concoctions of ‘anti-knowledge’.

Orwell was right on this one.

Our language has been redefined.

The old wineskins are about to burst.]