Category Archives: Defining Religion

02/20/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 V

[In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, our ancestors exhibited constrained complexity.

So, what can we (humans) conclude about our evolved nature:

We innately expect words to be referential, facilitating seeking pleasure, avoiding pain and safely ignoring the rest.

We innately hold a self-centerness and a selfishness that expects to be contradicted by a (nonsensical) tradition within constrained complexity.

We innately expect sensible construction to be contradicted by social construction.

Social construction builds networks of cooperation based on objects that are ‘references constructed on references’.

We innately expect to conduct sensible construction on the basis of a reference, that cannot be fully talked about, generated by social construction.]

02/15/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 S

Summary of text [comment] page 80

[The primary symbolic order, the one that made intuitive and natural sense, was the first to evolve. Reference is intended to make sense. By ‘sense’, I mean ‘different from nonsense’.

In the first symbolic order, the selfishness and self-centeredness of humans reflected a primal innocence. Just like all other animals, we expect our word-gestures to make sense, so we can seek pleasure, avoid pain, and know what to safely ignore.

This primary symbolic order serves ‘sensible construction’.]

02/10/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 P

Summary of text [comment] page 80

[When a child adopts the religion of his parents and folk, this adoption is developmentally different from what follows childhood.

The child executes developmental stages that belong to ‘the Lebenswelt that we evolved in’.

Under most circumstances, recognition and participation interscope.

When they do not, the child must ‘grow up’.]

02/9/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 O

Summary of text [comment] page 80

[When religious institutions look at the person, they see a person who needs to be repaired. Two normal contexts and two potentials intersect in a single actor.

When religions interpellate the actor, they provide a symbolic order (or specialized language) through which the person may construct “himself”. This construction may build character (as in a suprasovereign religion) or impose organization (as in a infrasovereign religion).

Either way, conversion reduces contradictions between human thought and action.]

01/13/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 EM

Summary of text [comment] pages 78 and 79

[So let me return to that quote. “By his nature, man is for himself a chaotic datum in need of integration through love.”

For the intersecting nested forms, the divine call to love invokes an openness to thinkdivine, an honesty that admits lawessential, an integrity to consciencefree and an awareness of one’s dispositions.]

01/12/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 EL

Summary of text [comment] pages 78 and 79

[What are some consequences for the social system?

The inability to love produces failure through a feedback mechanism that dissipates potential energy rather than coupling it to constructive purpose.

In effect, the ‘inability to love’ is parasitic. Like all parasitic structures, the energy that it uses to sustain itself reduces the energy available to others in the system.

The entire spontaneous order becomes impoverished.]

01/10/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 EJ

[In the pursuit of partial goods, denying the consequences becomes part of the game of establishing harmonyapparent.

Lawessential falls under the spell of lawdenial, a network of excuses that brings sinful actions into relation with a narrowing range of attitudes and emotional needs.

Lawdenial characterizes sovereign religions.

So ironically, some sort of harmony is achieved by sin.

However, harmonyapparent includes deception as an essential part of its functioning.

Harmonyapparent integrates lawdenial.

Harmonyapparent comes at the expense of harmonyfull.]

12/30/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 ED

Summary of text [comment] page 79

Without love, we (humans) cannot integrate our many disparate dispositions.

Sinful acts lead to the inability to love. They deprive us of grace.

Without grace, the sinner cannot integrate his dispositions. The sinner cannot pull himself together.

The sinner is always missing the mark. Plus, he is cruelly depriving himself of participation in a drama that is ultimately far more interesting than the inevitable narcissism of fixating on one’s own dispositions.

[This drama plays out in the person’s movement in the field of ‘the object that brings us all into relation’].

12/28/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 EB

[Consider the unity of human thought and human action.

Seek pleasure. I mean, seek the pleasure that is offered by the thinkgroup. Belonging may be one of those pleasures. If the mob is doing it, I can do it too.

Avoid pain. I mean, avoid the pain that is threatened by the thinkgroup. Perhaps, a thinkgroup may offer ways to shift pain to others. Don’t be the scapegoat. Scapegoat others to shift blame from yourself.

Sinful behavior, emerging from and situating consciencelacking, plus one’s disposition to seek pleasure and avoid pain, has consequences.

These consequences, of course, are unintended.

They are ignored in lawdenial.

The great tradition of natural law, lawessential, remembers ‘those unintended consequences’.

Lawacceptance serves to keep those memories alive. Their maxims constitute the laws of nature that Schoonenberg refers to.

Thus sinful ‘man’ is unable to keep commandments of the natural law.]