Human psychology evolved under in the social milieu of constrained complexity. Currently, humans live in unconstrained complexity. What has this done to our minds? These topics are addressed in various parts of An Archaeology of the Fall, particularly in chapters 8C and 11B.
[Comments on Alexander Dugin’s (2012) The Fourth Political Theory notes the coincidence between the turn towards postmodern language games and the establishment of a postreligious sovereign religion.]
[How did this come to be?
In America, the symbolic order began turning in the 1950s. It attained temporary stability in the 1960s. The language (as system of differences) remained weirdly jelled until the 2000s.
Many circumstances contributed to this stasis.
A demographic condition played a role. The so-called boomers born in the late 1940s and all the 1950s dominated discourse for many years.
An institutional condition may have also played a role in the the temporary stability. State-subsidized university systems promoted conformity in language use.
The state universities then set the stage for the postmodern conversion of discourse into a language game during the decades since the 1960s.]
[In brief, Progressive ‘freedom’ reduces the human to less than an image of God.
‘Progressive freedom’ is ‘unreal freedom’, just as ‘Progressive agape’ is ‘unreal fraternity’ and ‘Progressive equality’ is ‘unreal equality’.
Progressives express the unreality of love.]
[Look how the word ‘free’ has turned on the wheel of a changing symbolic order.
What happened to the ‘free eros’ acclaimed in the 1960s?
The word ‘free’ no longer implies ‘independence, responsibility, personhood, and grace’. It suggests ‘without cost to the user’.
‘Free eros’ became sex without commitment.
‘Free agape’ fared no different. ‘Free healthcare’ exemplifies ‘free agape’.
The original meaning underlying the word ‘freedom’ gave the slogans ‘free love’ (eros) and ‘free healthcare’ (agape) a real (though diminishing) association to independence, responsibility, personhood and grace.
Now, 50 years later, Schoonenberg’s assertions ring true.
‘Free love’ sounds like ‘the procreative acts of animals, without the procreation, of course.’
‘Free healthcare’ sounds like ‘standing in line to redeem a government coupon’.]
What have I learned from Alberg’s slim volume?
Both Nietzsche and Rousseau constructed symbolic orders that turned hearts to stone.
Dante pointed to the symbolic order of the Christ.
Jesus, along with the prophets, constructed the first symbolic order from the perspective of the victim.
Flannery O’Connor wrote from the point of view of the victim; that is, the corpse. In doing so, she portrayed the Nothing at the heart of symbolic orders manufactured after the Fall.
Each symbolic order relies on mimesisconstrained.
Mimesisunconstrained re-enacts mimesisconstrained in scandalous and problematic ways.
If “scandal” fascinates on the surface and blocks the path to deeper understanding, then “scandal” it is. If “forgiveness” removes the block of “scandal”, then “forgiveness” it must be.
Discovery is located where scandals lurk.
That brings me to the last author examined by Alberg.
Flannery O’Connor, unlike all the other authors, wrote with a dead hand.
Everything in her books and stories rings with the voice of a corpse, telling of the social construction that destroyed her, and revealing almost nothing about the symbolic order that supported the sinful social construction.
She forces the reader to say, “You do not make sense. Could you explain to me what you are writing in my own symbolic order?”, before realizing that she is only a corpse, a person who could never hold your symbolic order, because if she did, your symbolic order would construct a bureaucratic machine that would kill her.
She will never explain her writing in your symbolic order.
Consequently, many readers want to strangle her.
In our evolutionary history, the “object that brought everyone into relation” existed in the realm of possibility, the realm where contradictions are allowed, the realm where everyone could both compete and get along.
Now, as soon as someone puts a formulation, some key component of a symbolic order, into the hollow space of “where the object is supposed to go”, the “object” becomes like a “thing” that we can want because we sense that others want it as well.
What a powerful and alluring thing this “object” is. We expect that others are willing to sacrifice everything for this “object”. We can back up that expectation with sovereign power. Sovereign power creates the corpse.
And sovereign power is scandalized by its mute testimonial.
All the planners and all the king’s ‘men’ posit the “subject” as the “one who is willing to sacrifice everything for the ‘object’ that brings everyone (in the realm) into organization”.
Does this not sound like mimesisconstrained in its formulation and like mimesisunconstrained in its misrecognition of the “object”?
Is anything more hurtful than someone criticizing your worldview – your symbolic order – without explaining her critique in terms of your symbolic order?
You can only sputter, “You do not make sense.” Not in my Lebenswelt, that is. And in that sputter, comes some spittle, a scattering spray of defensive thoughts, claiming that the critical utterer is informed by a twisted ideology and inspired by demonic motives.
If you are lucky, someone has already organized your thoughts, so all you have to do is act shocked and deny the critique.
The accusing corpse has already been refuted by the symbolic order, even though the accuser is dead.
Corpses cannot explain themselves properly, because as victims, they never held the symbolic order animating the social construction that killed them.
Consequently, the corpse is a scandal.
