Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CD

[In ‘the Lebenswelt that we evolved in’, the eternal cycles of the world and the always present ancestors ordinated each member in each band.

‘Freedom for responsibility’ did not constitute ‘free will’. Rather it was our natural evolved condition.

‘What we now call ‘concupiscence’ (or ‘the state of being with Cupid’) did not involve turning away from the divine. Instead, desire was triggered and channeled by band and tribal traditions.

How else could it be? Desire was a condition for survival. We mimicked the desires of others in order to survive, including the desire to ‘totally give myself to another’.

Our ancestors were in ‘the state of being with one another’. Grace came naturally. Timeless and ancestor-bound traditions facilitated, ordinated, and guided.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2R

Summary of text [comment] page 71

[In sum, ‘the idea of natural love’ is pure propaganda.

It moves the interpellated person away from what the human evolved to be.

Where does one see this idea propagated in contemporary society?

On television and in the movies?

In popular books and magazines?

Wake up.

Does anyone writing for popular television, movies, books and magazines suffer the consequences of misleading their consumers?

Let the buyer beware.

‘Natural love’ sells, just like perfume.]


Beneath the Veil of Strange Verses by Jeremiah L. Alberg 2013 1B

Alberg presented a quick summary of Girard’s ideas (xiv-xvi, 14-16).  This summary affirms my suspicions that An Archaeology of the Fall places a discontinuity right in the middle of Girard’s hypothesis.

An Archaeology proposes that, 7800 years ago, humans began to change the way they talked, from hand-speech talk to speech alone talk, and the difference in semiotic qualities potentiated unconstrained complexity; that is, civilization.

“The world that we evolved in” is not the same as “the world that we live in”.

The world of constrained complexity is not the same as the world of unconstrained complexity.

Girard’s concept of mimetic rivalry pertains to our current Lebenswelt of unconstrained complexity.  Literature is full of it.  As we all know, or at least, as Girard convincingly argues, (what we once called) “literature” provides greater insight into the workings of the human mind than what we call “social science”.

But then, social science has its own “literature”.  How confusing is that?]