Before modernism, the horizontal “crime(sin(symptom))” might be expressed – er, maybe ‘repressed’ – as “this is reprehensible(sin of sensuality(the temptations of lust).

The vertical “think^divine(virtue(conscience^free))” might be – perhaps – “divine judgment(self-denial(avoid the vice of lust))”.

The two of the poles of “divine judgment” and “this is reprehensible” must have put a damper on the sins of sensuality.  Believers worked hard to avoid both “tempting thoughts” (which might correspond to “symptom”) and “the vice itself” (which would correspond to a free will decision to commit the deed).

Menninger was on target by nominating St. Anthony to be the poster child of this premodern mandala.

There is a certain beauty to the Temptations of St. Anthony.  “Divine judgment” told St. Anthony ‘something’ that he did not want to hear, and yet, he could not reject that voice?

This beauty precisely opposes the beauty of the serpent in An Archaeology of the Fall, a serpent that captures the nature of think^group: The serpent tells you what you want to hear.

Substitute “political incorrectness” in for “the sins of sensuality” (in the previous blog) to get a flavor of one of the many atrocities that Menninger was unconsciously hoping to avoid: Sexual injustice is a crime only if it is politically incorrect – or worse – involves a person deemed “politically incorrect”.

Perhaps, Portnoy (of Portnoy’s Complaint) was not the poster-child of modernism in this regard.

Can you imagine who might be?

Let me put that into a picture.

Intersecting nested forms for 8I

How would Menninger’s mandala apply to lust, fornication, adultery and pornography?

With modernism, the horizontal axis, “crime(sin(symptom))” could be “crimes of sexual injustice(the sins of sensuality(the psychology of the sex drive))”.

Note how the term “crimes of sexual injustice” encompass more than anything that would be in the books of modern law.  They include breaking hearts.

The vertical axis of “think^group(sin(conscience^lacking))” might be the “denial of the intrinsic sinfulness of anything connected with sex(sins of sensuality(the capacity to violate trust and integrity))”.

Three of the four poles are theoretically “liberating”: “the psychology of the sex drive”, “the capacity to violate trust and integrity”, and “denial of any intrinsic sinfulness to sex”.

These liberations are countered by “crimes of sexual injustice”.

The liberations are “social”.  The injustice is “cosmic”.

Now, let us consider the next section of Chapter 8: “The Sins of Sensuality – Lust, Fornication, Adultery and Pornography”.

Before modern awareness, portrayals of sex were considered immoral, reprehensible, and anathema.

OK, it was bigger than that.

Even thoughts about sex (totally imaginary private portrayals, so to speak) were considered immoral, reprehensible, and anathema.  St. Anthony struggled.  So did Augustinian monks and nuns.

For centuries, “being good” meant sexual restraint, denial and suppression – with certain caveats depending on one’s elite status.

But somehow, the sexual act survived.  Otherwise, we would not be here.

In the modern era, psychoanalysts attacked the hypocrisy of “denouncing sexual expression” while at the same time practicing the act, including adultery and masturbation”.

Today, the trend is to deny any intrinsic sinfulness in regards to sex, despite the fact that modern sex games may be intentionally hurtful, destructive or predatory.

Better perhaps, to have an unbroken heart, like the companion to Christian, the hero of Pilgrim’s Progress.  Her name was Faithful.  She had integrity.  She could be trusted.

Ironically, Menninger, a Freudian Psychoanalyst, appears to have constructed a mandala, which exemplifies the logic of Carl Jung, Freud’s greatest disappointment.

One axis – the horizontal axis – of the mandala is crime(sin(symptom)).

The other axis – the vertical axis – appears to be a union of exclusive opposites: think^group(sin(conscience^lacking) and think^divine (virtue(conscience^free)).

Intersecting nested form for 8E

Let me put that into a picture.

At this point, we may envision an alternative to the entire nested form of group-think or think^group, sin, and lack of conscience or conscience^lacking.

That is think^group(sin(conscience^lacking)).

Menninger imagined that the clerics of post-modernism could capture the parallel alternate: think^divine(virtue(conscience^free)).

Let me put that into a picture.

In Chapters 7 and 8, Menninger argued this: A “sin” may also be regarded as a “crime” or a “symptom”, but that does not mean that “sin” is no longer important.

The nested form, crime(sin(symptom)) preserves this substance and adds another layer of sophistication.  Every “sin” is contextualized as “crime” and made possible by “symptoms”.

If narcissism is defined as “what makes sins of pride possible”, then the basic nested form of crime(sin(symptom)) becomes crime(sins of pride(narcissism)).

So far so good, now let us go to the other axis.

Menninger mentions both “moral dereliction” and “self-deification” (137) as possible labels for what makes “the sins of pride” possible along this axis.  Thus making the nested form “groupthink(sins of pride(self-deification))”.

“Moral dereliction” and “self-deification” belong to “lack of conscience”.