I hesitate to answer, since I’m not really on top of this philosophy stuff, but I doubt Roderick would agree with the analogy you quote. It sounds like it’s describing substance dualism, whereas in the exchange I linked above Roderick writes that the mind is the form of the brain.

I took an online critical thinking class months ago. The text book framed the mind/body distinction this way:

“Mind is to brain as oxygen is to the lungs.”

Would you agree with that?

(1) Metaphysical separation
(2) Power separation
(3) Species separation

I think he conflates (1) and (3).

Isn’t that dealing with the difference?

Man is now permanently “alienated” from God, the fundamental alienation; and also from other men, and from nature.

It is this cosmic metaphysical separateness that lies at the heart of the Marxian concept of “alienation,” and not, as we might now think, personal griping about not controlling the operation of one’s factory, or about lack of access to wealth or political power. Alienation is a cosmic condition and not a psychological complaint. For the reabsorptionists, the crucial problems of the world come not from moral failure but from the essential nature of creation itself.

I don’t see where he explicitly distinguishes two senses of alienation. These three quotes reference the same sense.

I do though see a hint of another sense in his explanation of “the way out offered by the reabsorptionists.”

…all this “perfecting” and “reuniting” obviously takes place only on a species-collectivist level. The individual man is nothing, a mere cell in the great, collective-organism man…

So, implicitly, he’s saying that alienation is (1) a metaphysical separation and (2) a species separation.

But why would anyone want either one? Sure you could try to identify species unification with evil collectivism. But how the hell is that right?

Doesn’t the objectification-of-people derive from (2)? I mean, historically speaking, haven’t the “lesser” people been ones who end up enslaved?