Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XE

Summary of text [comment] pages 86 and 87

[Each of these models exhibits a simple relational structure.

The relational structure illustrates how difficult discussions of various topics, such as freedom, can be.

Imagine a thinker focusing on one structural element to the exclusion of other elements.

This is especially easy to imagine when the one thinker is trying to show how another thinker is wrong.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 MW

[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.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 MA

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Just as the regular first-century Jews selected the ‘something2a’ that empowered the Pharisees, many twentieth century Americans vote for ‘something2a’ that denies other people’s rights and properties.

By pretending to be a victim, we get free stuff.

We vote for Progressive representatives to scam easily intimidated common folk (who strive to build wealth).

The very rich folk, however, have different options.

They hire lobbyists.

How character building is that?]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 LU

[Here is a funny twist.

The elites in one political party openly represent the (infra)sovereign religion of Big Government Liberalism.

The elites in the other political party say that they do not belong to the religion, but behave as is if they do.

The same co-opposition of words3a(2a and bondage2a(1a) that marked Judaism at the time of Jesus also marks the Public Cult of Progressivism today.


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KY

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.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 CA

[In the early 7760s, Schoonenberg wrote on the cusp.

During and after the second battle of the enlightenment gods (The Hot Battle of the Fraternalist Ideologies: 7738-7745 U0’). A Progressive religion attained sovereign power in the USA. It had not consolidated power. It was the first generation of a new idolatry.

Schoonenberg was unaware that a change in the symbolic order constitutes an opening of the mythos.

In the USA, big government liberalism changed the meaning of the words of classical liberalism. Big government liberalism won the third battle of the enlightenment gods (The Cold Battle of the Materialist Ideologies 7745-7789 U0’). The American people lost that battle. Classical liberalism was eclipsed.

It does not matter what causes the change of a symbolic order, whether a discrepancy between lawdenial and lawacceptance, bureaucratic veiling of original meanings, apparent contradictions within the symbolic order itself, God punishing the iniquity of the parents in later generations, two civilizations making contact, the trauma of plague or war, migrations, and so on. The change in the symbolic order is mythic.

The system of differences changes.

Language changes.

Confusion deepens.

Novel meanings, presences and messages are revealed.]