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.
[Smoking a tobacco cigarette is a personal ritual that some people find comfort in.
The ritual is not “religious” to the extent that it lacks presence (relation to the sovereign) and carries no message.
Smoking has one notable effect. It stops cycles of negative thoughts.
This relaxing ritual breaks negative-thought obsession.]
[Smoking tobacco cigarettes invites health problems.
No one should smoke tobacco cigarettes.
So why would anyone desire to smoke?
The element of desire is not so obvious and is nonsensical.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Each sovereigninfra demands ‘something2a’.
Often, this is a prohibition.
For example, smoking tobacco cigarettes was rendered taboo in the 1990s.
A health-minded sovereigninfra decreed, “The subject shall not smoke cigarettes.”
I want to explore this example because the elements of conversion are obvious and sensical.]
[The passage of an institution from point 1 to point 3 changes the message of the institution.
The message goes from conversion by persuasion (or example) to conversion by the sword.
All sovereigns have the sword, so why not use it?
If the objectorganization is so important that it must be imposed by sovereign power, it is important enough to worship as an idol.
Thus, sovereign religions veer towards idolatry.]
[Politics substitutes for religion, in the passage of an institution from point 1 to point 3.
Political machinations become a screen for religious convictions.
There is much to be said about this.
However, the topic is far from Schoonenberg’s text.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
Schoonenberg wrote that we exercise freedom in serving either God or Satan.
[Now, let me consider Satan in the guise of an (infra)sovereign religion and how it plays into ‘the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’‘.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[‘Responsibility3(2’ and ‘freedom2(1)’ expand or contract together.
Responsibilities3a(2a contextualize and embrace the somethings2a that my freedom2a(1a) supports.
Contrary to Modernism’s false opposition, responsibilities and freedom are in co-opposition.]
[The technical term is ‘reciprocity’
Each of us intuitively knows that nothing is truly free. To accept a gift is to accept the responsibilities of reciprocity.
This raises a fascinating sociological question:
How does one engage in reciprocity with an institution?]
[Would anyone offer you anything for ‘free’ (without apparent cost or obligation) in the short run, unless they hoped that the exchange would ‘obligate you, in the long run’?
An alternate approach is to offer ‘free stuff’ means ‘ with strings attached.
These strings (words) are co-opposed to bondage.]
[Progressive values1b are supposed to underlie our choices2b.
There should be no contradictions, when values1b align with desire1a.
Our choices2b touch base with Schoonenberg’s use of the word “service3b”.
Some value1b must be worth serving3b.]
Schoonenberg wrote that we exercise freedom in serving either God or Satan.
