Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[I compare the intersecting forms of the thought experiment where I choose ‘something’ and the message underlying the word “religion”.
I find that something that I may choose1V parallels consciencespecified1V.
I feel that I should label this parallel: Free will.
Perhaps the word “parallels” is insufficient.
How about complements or resonates with?]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[My speculation, of course, stands outside of Descartes’ Age of Ideas.
Both something independent of what I think1V and myself as a container of thoughts1V belong to the realm of possibility.
That means that they are upwellings in a monadic sea.
These upwellings are like two ends of a string that tie together into a knot.]
[In scholastic terms, the thinker–container belongs to ens reale (mind-independent realness) even though ‘thinking itself’ goes with ens rationis (mind-dependent realness).
Yet, the mind-independent-ness of the thinker as container is different than what the scholastics understood ‘ens reale’ to be.]
[If I can compare this nested form to the one derived from ‘the thought experiment where ‘I choose ‘something’‘ …
… then consciencespecified1V matches something1V in the potentials inherent in something that I may choose1V.
Something1V corresponds to value1V.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[What is the categorical nature of this term “free will”?
Consciencefree and conscienceunfree appear as competing potentials in the intersecting nested form that describes the message underlying the word, “religion”.
To me, these seem to correspond to the label “free will”.]
[IF the narrow confines of words and bondage never inspire the person to say: “This is not my choice. Or maybe, this is not my desire.”
THEN everything but the heart is swept into the drama.
The interscope still applies. Values1b cohere to desires1a.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
Schoonenberg quoted John 8:31-35 and summed up as follows:
The heart the whole person is free only when it is bound to God.
The heart remains a slave when in sin.
[What does this imply?
Is a person not whole until they have a heart?
A broken heart?]
[In the intersection, words3H(2, thoughts3V(2, deeds2(1V)) and bondage2(1H)), all share one actuality: the heart2.
So I can imagine that …
… law corrupts the normal context of I, seat of choice3V.
… sin corrupts the normal context of ‘the mirror of the world3H’.
… death begins when both sin and law corrupt the heart2, the single actuality that is my choice2V and something that situates my potential2H.
Sin and law are vectors.
Death is the symptom.]
