Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SO
[On the situation level:
Thoughts3b(2b are in co-opposition to deeds2b(1b)).]
01/29/19
Category Archives: Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in
Human psychology evolved under in the social milieu of constrained complexity. Currently, humans live in unconstrained complexity. What has this done to our minds? These topics are addressed in various parts of An Archaeology of the Fall, particularly in chapters 8C and 11B.
01/28/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SN
[Let me break this down further.
The mirror of the world3a(something2a()) corresponds to either responsibility3a(2a or words3a(2a depending on how something2a situates the potential inherent in me1a.
Something2a situates the potential inherent in me1a as either freedom2a(1a)) or bondage2a(1a)).
So, Schoonenberg’s term “under” could correspond to the mirror of the world3a, or the thought experiment3a, that brings something2a into relation with the potential in me1a.]
01/25/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SM
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[How does the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’ fit the three kinds of servitude?
Let me start with the interscoping forms:
On the content level:
Responsibilities and freedom are in co-opposition.
Words are in co-opposition to bondage.]
01/24/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SL
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
There are three kinds of servitude that corresponds to bondage
1. under sin
2. under law
3. under death
01/23/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SK
[The thought experiment where ‘I choose ‘something’ serves as a categorical tool for investigating Schoonenberg’s passage on responsibility and freedom.
What Schoonenberg expressed, the text itself, stands within the shell of Modernism.
What Schoonenberg was required to express as a Jesuit theologian included the husk of pre-modern Scholasticism.
Perhaps, only by dying in the cryptotheology of Modernism (with its complete fixation on the realm of actuality) and by cracking the coat of pre-modern Scholasticism (with its reliance on signs, without knowing ‘what signs are’), could this text germinate into an exercise in postmodern Scholasticism.]
01/15/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SE
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Some people do not like the word “Satan.
Perhaps another word for the perspective level is the German word: Zeitgeist.
“Zeit” means ‘of the times’.
“Geist” means ‘spirit’.
Perhaps, Zeitgeist could become a technical word:
geistProgressive]
01/14/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SD
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[The previous blog raises an interesting question:
What puts ‘the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’‘ into perspective?
Note Schoonenberg’s refrain: In our freedom, we serve God or Satan.
Both perspectives appear in the mirror of the world.]
01/11/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SC
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[The thought experiment produced two models.
One of these models consisted of two interscoping nested forms, corresponding to content and situation. A third level, perspective, always available and influential, is never mentioned.
This arrangement indicates sensible construction, as opposed to social construction.
Man and Sin: A Theological View was originally published in 1962. The author was Dutch Jesuit theologian. He mimicked the contemporary social sciences by trying to be sensical. Sensical material is situated by sensible construction.
The irony of sensible construction is that it does not challenge the perspective level.]
01/10/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SB
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
Note Schoonenberg’s comment: In our freedom, we serve God or Satan.
[For the past few months, my blogs riffed off of page 83.
The thought experiment where I choose ‘something’ served as a tool for investigating Schoonenberg’s passage on responsibility and freedom.
Redemption is freely choosing to be responsible.]
01/9/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SA
[Normal contexts follow the logic of exclusion. However, exclusion is difficult to attain.
Sin enters through destructive ideas in the mirror of the world.
Law enters through the self-justification of I, seat of choice.]