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.
[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.
[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.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
Schoonenberg wrote that we exercise freedom in serving either God or Satan.
[The claim, “I am not responsible.”, touches base with the modern definition of the word “freedom” as lack of obligations, especially impositions by family, tribe and religious cultural institutions.
The irony is that this assertion, rather than achieving a lack of obligations, merely transfers one’s obligations to institutions that declare themselves to be responsible.
How clever the Progressives can be.]
[How is the mirror of the world3H to blame?
It is filled with blame.
Blame within the mirror of the world3H offers an alternate to responsibility and freedom.
Blame within the mirror of the world3H offers words and bondage.
There is an element of truth to the blame game.
This may be why Schoonenberg hopes to conceive of Original Sin as the sinfulness of social structures.]
