Category Archives: Defining Religion

03/3/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AC

[Infrasovereign thinkpro-objects permeate this Age, interpellating adherents of the Zeitgeist and denigrating thinkdivine.

Adding to the confusion, we rely on the our ability to make sense of language. We fall back on our apparently sensical sensible constructions and ignore the apparently nonsensical social constructions underlying any contemporary ideology.

We treat the words of contemporary ideologies as if they referred to things (and they do, but those actualities are themselves social constructions).

Our innate ability to respond to ‘talk as if it made sense’ cannot confront ‘the underlying nonsense that, once presumed, supports sensible construction’.]

03/2/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AB-2

[Which social construction will contradict our (human) self-centered and selfish sensible attitudes.

In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, the few contenders were family, band and tribal traditions.

In our current Lebenswelt, we are faced with a wide variety of contenders.

After the Incarnation, we are faced with the thinkgroups of our Zietgeist and the thinkdivine of the Way.

Deception is everywhere. Thinkgroups pretend to provide the Way.]

02/24/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 Y-2

[Hmmm. That raises a question:

What are the rules of science?

What is the rule that allows scientists to construct mind-dependent beings (ens rationis) that are true to the presumed mind-independent beings (ens reale)?

It seems that the mind-dependent being must image or point to ‘the subject of study’, thereby producing a sign-object in the mind of the scientist.

Models provide images.

Experimentation provides indexes.]

02/23/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 Y-1

[Even science builds on social construction.

Consider the idea that a glass of water has more molecules than all the people on the planet and all the people who ever lived. It makes no sense at all.

Technically speaking, ‘molecules’ are ens rationis (mind-dependent beings) constructed under strict conditions that presumes ‘the existence of ens reale (mind-independent beings)’.

Note, however, the presumption (that mind-independent beings exist) is itself an ens rationis (mind dependent being).

The presumption is a social construction.

The ‘molecule’ is a sensible construction that assumes the validity of the social construction of ens reale (mind independent being).]

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.]