In Chapters 7 and 8, Menninger argued this: A \u201csin\u201d may also be regarded as a \u201ccrime\u201d or a \u201csymptom\u201d, but that does not mean that \u201csin\u201d is no longer important.<\/p>\n
The nested form, crime(sin(symptom)) preserves this substance and adds another layer of sophistication.\u00a0 Every \u201csin\u201d is contextualized as \u201ccrime\u201d and made possible by \u201csymptoms\u201d.<\/p>\n
If narcissism is defined as \u201cwhat makes sins of pride possible\u201d, then the basic nested form of crime(sin(symptom)) becomes crime(sins of pride(narcissism)).<\/p>\n
So far so good, now let us go to the other axis.<\/p>\n
Menninger mentions both \u201cmoral dereliction\u201d and \u201cself-deification\u201d (137) as possible labels for what makes \u201cthe sins of pride\u201d possible along this axis.\u00a0 Thus making the nested form \u201cgroupthink(sins of pride(self-deification))\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cMoral dereliction\u201d and \u201cself-deification\u201d belong to \u201clack of conscience\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In Chapters 7 and 8, Menninger argued this: A \u201csin\u201d may also be regarded as a \u201ccrime\u201d or a \u201csymptom\u201d, but that does not mean that \u201csin\u201d is no longer important. The nested form, crime(sin(symptom)) preserves this substance and adds another layer of sophistication.\u00a0 Every \u201csin\u201d is contextualized as \u201ccrime\u201d and made possible by \u201csymptoms\u201d. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-613","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-the-science-of-original-sin"],"yoast_head":"\n