What about this vision of Original Sin as a reification of our own interpretations of the ‘what is real’. Once reified, a “serpent” inspires us to actions that produce results that differ from expectations (i.e. what is defined to be ‘real’). How do we deal with those results? Examples? And how does this picture resonate with traditional interpretations of these chapters of Genesis. This topic is addressed in chapters 11,12 and 13.
Summary of text [comment] pages 86 and 87
[How is the psychological experiment, say a survey, like fishing?
Every something2a, that emerges from and situates the potential of the subject under investigation1b, has a hook to a thought experiment3a. That thought experiment3a reflects a perspectivec.]
[Consider the discipline of experimental psychology.
Every psychological experiment where the subject chooses something exhibits this two-level interscope.
The experiment investigates the situational nested form:
I, seat of choice3b( my choice2b( potential of something1b))
However, the experimentalists inject a perspective into the adjacent and lower level, as content.
The name ‘thought experiment3a’ seems appropriate. Does it not?]
Summary of text [comment] pages 86 and 87
[Each of these models exhibits a simple relational structure.
The relational structure illustrates how difficult discussions of various topics, such as freedom, can be.
Imagine a thinker focusing on one structural element to the exclusion of other elements.
This is especially easy to imagine when the one thinker is trying to show how another thinker is wrong.]
[I proposed 2 two-level interscopes so far:
The concept of co-oppositions first appears with this model.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 86 and 87
Schoonenberg recounted various heresies that seized upon some aspect of the heart, to the exclusion of others.
The Church struggled for balance among apparently disparate and unrelated issues.
Freedom, bondage, obligation, words, responsibility, thoughts, and deeds were related.
But how?
[In the gnostic paradigm, secret knowledge may alter the fate of a person. Secret incantations permit the soul to perform the proper actions in order to return to the source.
Can I, seat of choice3V, compare to someone who holds secret knowledge?
Or does the acquisition of secret knowledge compare to a thought experiment3H?]
Summary of text [comment] page 85
[In the astrological fixation, the fate of the person is determined by the alignment of the planets and stars.
Does this sound like a deterministic thought experiment3H or a contender for I, seat of choice3V?]
Summary of text [comment] page 85
[The questions in the previous blogs correlate with the normal contexts of the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’.
Consider the two-level interscope, then the intersection.]
Here is another issue that he raised:
Can I be determined by my bondage (as depicted in Manichaeism) in the same way that a pagan’s fate is determined by the stars (as in astrology)?
