Category Archives: The science of Original Sin

What about this vision of Original Sin as a reification of our own interpretations of the ‘what is real’. Once reified, a “serpent” inspires us to actions that produce results that differ from expectations (i.e. what is defined to be ‘real’). How do we deal with those results? Examples? And how does this picture resonate with traditional interpretations of these chapters of Genesis. This topic is addressed in chapters 11,12 and 13.

09/2/20

The Two Actualities of the “Be Little Men” Movement

0001 Sociology is often a curious field of inquiry. In the mirror of the world3, there is only one Be Little Men movement (blm).  Blm is a slogan2.  No substitutions to these words are allowed.  The potential1 underlying the slogan2 is fixed on the only possibility among a sea of possible meanings, presences and messages.  That potential is the possibility of marxist righteousness1.

Here is a picture of a triadic relation, as introduced in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

Figure 1

0002 What is marxist righteousness1?

Marx is a “communist” who names his enemy, the “capitalist”.

The specter of “capitalism”?

Das Kapital?

The root word for “capital” is “head”.

Wrap your cap around that.

0003 Marxist righteousness1 relies on the emptiness of spoken words.  A speech-alone word is merely a placeholder in a system of differences.  Meaning, presence and message must be projected into each spoken word.  The marxist reserves the right to project that meaning, presence and message.

Allow no substitutes.

Substitutions squander the purity of the projection.

0004 What does this mean to me3?

This is what the target of a marxist slogan never asks.

The slogan isolates the guilty.

Originally, the capitalist is the one upon which marxist righteousness descends.  The target is guilty, with no option of managing the label, except through submission1.  Indeed, the organizational objective2 is to manifest submission1.

Now, other labels serve as slogans2a.

This second nested form situates the first nested form, as described in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

Figure 2

0005 There are two blms.  On the content level, blm is a slogan2a emerging from (and situating) righteousness1a.  On the situation level, blm manifests organizational objectives2b that actualize the potential of submission1b, thus increasing the wealth, power and overall prowess3b of those reflecting the mirror of the world3a.

According to rumors, advertisers in saavy suites say that executive suits of major corporations donate large sums1b to an organization2b whose namesake is the slogan2a.  Other, less well-endowed targets are suited up as scapegoats, following the historic and literary patterns noted by Rene Girard.  Marxist righteousness projects a lack, held within the accuser, upon a scapegoat, the target.

0006 Yes, by definition1a, certain types can never submit1b.  These characters are magically gifted with the power to create the lack that they are accused of1a as well as the standing to fill that lack with their own… shall I say?.. capitals1b.

0007 Is marxism a modern version of an ancient religion?

Surely, early civilizations sacrifice humans to their gods.

Remember the old adage?

A capitalist will sell the communist the rope to hang himself.

The joke works as long as the target does not comprehend the intent of the customer.

Why would anyone hang the fellow who sold “him” some rope?

Marxist righteousness calls the fellow, a “capitalist”.

The seller’s hanging manifests the realness of the marxist’s organizational objectives1b.

In the same way, ritual sacrifice validates the realness of ancient deities.

0008 What else does this imply?

The target is not privy to what does this mean to me3b.  The deadly earnestness of marxist submission1b cannot be appreciated from the outside.  The above two-level interscope is sensible only from the inside.  The insider holds the secret knowledge3a that secures the slogan’s single possible meaning, presence and message1a.

If a gnostic path blossoms into a social movement, such as the be little men movement, then today’s secular academic sociologists include the topic in their regional and global meetings, showcasing how they are in tune with the emerging secret knowledge.  They can explain it.  They can write books about it.  They can explore its righteousness1a, explicate its slogans2a, develop pathways for submission1b and extol its authority2b.  They can conduct surveys in order to show how a slogan has struck a cord in social consciousness3a.  They can tell all how the insider feels3b.

0009 Modern sociology is such a curious field of inquiry.  It poses as a mirror3a of the worldc.  As such, it constructs its own sensible approach, in the same fashion as marxist religions.

0010  Five related works are available at www.smashwords.com.

A Primer on the Category Based Nested Form

A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction

How To Define the Word “Religion”

Comments on Eric Santner’s Book (2016) “The Weight of All Flesh”

Comments on Peter Burfeind’s Book (2014) Gnostic America

08/25/20

Catholics Defend Adam Against Darwin: A Pitch

To date, it seems that Catholics have flown a white flag to scientism, especially when it comes to human evolution.  Nicanor Austriaco, O.P., strikes back, in a 2018 article appearing in the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly.  This well-trained biologist delivers a blistering attack on the anti-essentialism of science.

Strangely, he locates an essence for the human in a 2016 book by two modern academics.  Why Only Us? is authored by two Harvard professors, Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky.  The first works on computer models for language.  The second is a famously political linguist.

Comments are in order.  However, in a blink of an eye for the world of academics, Marie George flexes her erudition by taking Austriaco to task on his interpretations of Thomas Aquinas.  She hands the Dominican a tar baby of scholastic qualifications.

Academic quarrels do not get better than this. Instead of one commentary, three are necessary, one for Marie George, one for Nicanor Austriaco OP, plus one for Berwick and Chomsky.  The category-based nested form and the first singularity offer insights not available to any of these authors.

Christians need not defend Adam against Darwinism.  Rather, Christians have an option that reveals Adam within an evolutionary framework.  This is the drama of An Archaeology of the Fall.  This is the hypothesis of the first singularity. Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

The following are available at www.smashwords.com.

Comments on Nicanor Austriaco’s Essay (2018) “Adam After Darwin”

Comments on Marie George’s Essay (2020) “Aquinas’s Teachings on Concepts and Words”

Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) “Why Only Us?”

05/6/20

A Theology of the Deep State (Part 1)

It is official.  The federal government has established a religion.  May I propose a label for this new referent?  Let me call it the “deep state”.

Others call it the “administrative state”.

The imprimatur comes when Steve Deace, broadcasting on Blaze TV from the heart of America’s flyover country, states the obvious, saying, “We are not dealing with a political party.  We are dealing with a cult.”

For example, only a cult can perform the purgation and humiliation rites afforded to Brett Kavanaugh, then a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States.  Now a member of the SCOTUS, this individual is forever branded by one accusation.  The accusation, while never proven true, is justified by its reliance on an organizational objective, claiming, “Believe the woman, for … (whatever righteousness applies)”.

Righteousness1aC is the nectar of religion.

Organizational objectives2aC are like gods.

Hey, what are those subscripts?

Subscripts are introduced in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.  The “1” indicates Peirce’s category of firstness, the realm of possibility.  The “2” denotes actuality in a category-based nested form.  The “a” refers to the content-level of an interscope (a category-based nested form composed of category-based nested forms).  The “C” points to the society tier (the third tier in a category-based nested form composed of interscopes).

The three tiers are societyC, organizationB and individual in communityA.

Yes, this notation introduces a novel approach to Sociology.

Plus, this approach is worth looking into.  Homeschoolers should consider the course titled, How to Define the Word “Religion”.

Why?

State indoctrinators define the word so narrowly that it seems that they are covering up a topic much larger, and more interesting, than churches, synagogues and mosques.

This brings me back to the prescience of the broadcaster noted above.

The immediate stimulus for the broadcaster’s response is a coronavirus-related national work-stoppage.  The statistics associated with the unfolding pandemic simply do not support the drastic, uni-dimensional, solution of a total shutdown, bringing the US economy to a standstill.

Yes, in economics and politics, there are two dimensions.  There are trade-offs.  

Yet, in the matrix of the administrative state, there are only organizational objectives2aC.  The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and other state-cults3aC focus on saving lives2aC.  We must save lives at all costs1aC.

Organizational objectives2aC emerge from (and situate) the potential of righteousness1aC.

The problem?

They2aC may come into conflict.

One solution endows each insitution3aC with a similar character.  In the case of the deep state, that character is a demand for sovereign power3bC.  Sovereign laws and decrees2bC are necessary in order for each institution3aC to achieve its organizational objectives2aC.  This imperative1cC satisfies the potential underlying all legislation2bC: the possibilities inherent in order1bC.

Picture piglets struggling to latch onto their mother’s teats.  Each has its own agenda.  Of course, these agendas conflict.  Yet, a certain order is achieved as long as the mother offers her milk.

Or consider the abandoned infants, Romulus and Remus, suckling the teats of a she-wolf. Surely, the Romans offer a more evocative icon of the feminine nature of sovereign power.  Believe the she-wolf and she will offer her milk, instead of her teeth.

To Marxists, there is nothing more.  The sovereign3bC must be the exception1cC.  The state3bC must not be subject to its own laws2bC. The milk2cC must flow1cC.  The milk2cC sustains order1cC.  Order1bC is to sovereign power3bC as righteousness3aC is to institutions1aC.  Listen to the speakers.  Hear the talking heads.  Every shill3aC signals a virtue1aCthat calls the citizen to a righteousness1aC that seeks to establish order1bC.

There is nothing above sovereign power3bC.

Yet, there3cC is.

The problem is that we cannot envision it2cC.

Here is a way to picture the society tier for Big Government (il)liberalism.

Figure 1
05/5/20

A Theology of the Deep State (Part 2)

The two-level interscope is typical for sensible construction.  Sensible construction does not ask, “Why?”.  Sensible construction assumes that, whatever we are doing, it’s okay.  The perspective level is never questioned, unless something goes horribly wrong.

Here is a picture of the society tier for Big Government (il)liberalism.

Figure 2

If there is anything hidden within the perspective level, it is this: The milk2bC must flow1cC.

That is, the milk of the federal government2bC.

There are no suggestions for why the milk must flow, except for the fact that so many institutions3aC demand sovereign power3bC in order to implement2bC their organizational objectives2aC.  Institutions3aC that do not appeal to Caesar3bCoften wither or mutate into institutions that do.  Mutation is facilitated through infiltration by believers2cA in a particular (sovereign-entangling) righteousness1aC.

Each organizational objective2aC is a god.

Some call them “sacred cows”.

Since each organizational objective2aC emerges from (and situates) the potential of righteousness1aC and since righteousness1aC is inherently metaphysical in nature, the deep state consists in a wide range of cults (institutions3aC) that have a common feature.  Each righteousness1aC accommodates a call for sovereign power3bC.

Diversity is the strength of Big Government (il)liberalism.

However, there is a problem.

All the advocates claim to be “not religious”, even though they are.

Why?

Why do the advocates for Big Government (il)liberalism, who congregate in cults3aC, claim to be “not religious”?

Well, the American Constitution’s first amendment states that the federal government shall not establish a religion.

Consequently, acolytes of the deep state define “religion” narrowly, with intellectual constriction, as falling into bins labeled “Christian”, “Jewish”, “Islamic” and so forth.  In this way, they skirt the question that cannot be confronted.  Why is their righteousness not “religious” as well?  These state-entangled institutions3aC implement organizational objectives2aC that situate the potential of righteousness1aC.  Why is their metaphysical righteousness exempt?  Why are not they “religious”?

This crucial point is ignored by current experts in Sociology, because they are committed to Big Government (il)liberalism.  Okay, that’s a cheap shot.  But really, the answer demands a definition of the word, “religion”, that does not simply slap labels onto people.  Do any sociological theories explain why the labels work?  Or, do the labels explain themselves?

The course, How to Define the Word “Religion” offers a novel definition, one that is not hemmed in by a deep-state historical narratives or restrictive legalisms.

But wait, the indoctrinated… er, educated citizen replies, “Okay, let’s be sensible.  These state-entangled institutions, and their advocates, say that they are not religious because they are not ‘Christian’, ‘Jewish’, ‘Islamic’ and so forth.  This is obvious.  Everyone agrees.”

Shall I venture a translation?

If you disagree, no milk for you.  Instead, you will feel the sovereign’s teeth.

This is a word-game, where so-called “enlightenment” institutions3aC advocate for certain laws and decrees2bC in order to promulgate their organizational objectives2aC, yet declare themselves to be “not religious”.  Why is their righteousness1aC different from the righteousness1aC of institutions that fall under the label?  How do their missions2aC differ from the Christian, Jewish and Muslim missions2aC?  Why do they say that they are not religious?

Oh, yes, that gets around the first amendment.

Clearly, the veiled perspective levelc of the deep state encourages subsidies2bC for innumerable “points of light”, institutions3aC that self-identify as “not religious”, yet are founded on diverse calls to righteousness1aC.  These cults3aC that have a character in common.  Each point of light3aC signals its virtue1aC, while demanding that state laws and decrees3bC implement its organizational objectives2aC.

The advocate-lobbyist says, “Our missions2aC are ‘not religious’, yet are necessary for the organization of a righteous society.”

The advocate-lobbyist cannot say, “There may be a reason why the organizational objectives2aC of all deep-state institutions3aC call for the exercise of sovereign power3aC. But, we cannot know the reason until the milk becomes all there is.”

Only then, will the veil be pulled back and the perspective levelc revealed.

What do we know?

Big Government (il)liberalism establishes institutions3aC that declare themselves to be “not religious”, even though, like Christian, Jewish and Islamic institutions3aC, they contextualize organizational objectives2aC that emerge from (and situate) the potential of righteousness1aC.  Their declaration exempts them from the first amendment of the American Constitution.

Big Government (il)liberal organizational objectives2aC have a common feature.  Their2aC implementation relies on sovereign power3bC.  Since sovereign power3bC is not subject to its own laws and decrees2bC, then the resulting institutions3aC participate in the sovereign’s state of exception.  In fact, the sovereign3bC is the only one who can bring contemporary trends to fulfillment by cultivating a state of exception2cC.

The federal government not only has established a host of religions3aC, each standing as a point of light in a New World Order, but all these religions3aC vicariously participate in the exception2cC that contextualizes sovereign power3aC.

What does this imply?

The theology of the deep statec is yet to enter into consciousness in our current, Enlightenment-celebrating, Zeitgeist.  State-entangled institutions3aC are everywhere.  Few have eyes to see.  Many avert their gazes.  The suprasovereign levelcC stands behind a curtain and will step out only when a state of exception2cC brings all into relation1cC.  That moment will be a revelation.

There are signs of a future unveiling. The hour draws near.

Consider Comments on Peter Burfiend’s Book (2014) Gnostic America.

Consider Comments on Eric Santner’s Book (2016) The Weight of All Flesh.

These works belong to the Intimations of Political Philosophy series, available at smashwords.

Broadcaster Steve Deace reads the writing on the wall, announcing, “We are not dealing with a political party.  We are dealing with a cult.”

The federal government has established a legion of religions3aC, each declaring itself to be “not religious”.  Plus, each has one other feature in common with all others.    Where are the intellectual tools to articulate these sociological phenomena?

11/12/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BAJ

[Reason itself does not require grace. Or does it?

Since I, seat of choice3V, contextualizes the heart2, and since the heart is contextualized by the mirror of the world3H, then reason may (inadvertently) open the person to the influence of grace through the horizontal normal context.

Reason may change the heart2 just enough that the person’s intuition1H may feel grace-filled inspiration.]

11/6/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BAF

Summary of text [comment] page 88

[The vertical axis is not unaffected.

The vertical axis intersects with the horizontal in the single actuality containing ‘my choice2V and something2H’.

The single actuality of ‘my heart2’ parallels ‘what I see2’.

‘I, seat of choice3V’, encounters new ‘possibilities inherent in something that I may choose1V’.]