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.
[Freedom and bondage are exclusively opposed even though they are both exercises of the heart2(1H).
What does this imply?
Since exclusion is a property of the realm of normal context, each of these terms co-oppose an independent normal context.
Freedom2(1H)) co-opposes responsibility3H(2.
Bondage2(1H)) co-opposes words3H(2.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
Schoonenberg joins the term “heart” with the terms “free” and “bondage”. The heart may be free or in bondage to sin, law or death.
[What does this observation imply?
Did the word “free” shift within a changing symbolic order?]
Is there a difference between the terms free will and free choice?
Augustine wrote of a free will in contrast to a slave will, even though both retained free choice.
Anselm contrasted simple choice (arbitrium) and Christian liberty (libertas). This does not quite fit Augustine’s opposition of free and slave wills.
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
Scriptures tell of the ‘heart’. Church doctrine tells of ‘free will’.
In the pagan Greek and Roman world, the ‘heart’ had ‘free choice’ (libertum arbitrium).
So, the terms became confused.
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[What about the potentials underlying the heart2?
‘Free will’ associates with the something that I may choose1V (and by comparison, with consciencespecified1V).
Does ‘free will’ also associate to the grounds of the exercises of the heart2H(1H)) (and by comparison, with ‘the potential inherent in me1H’)?
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Is there a parallel between heart2 and what is good and what is bad2?
Yes, they both are modeled as an intersection.
No, they are supported by exclusive normal contexts. So, the actualities within each are different.
My choice2V and something (emerging from a potential in me)2H are not interchangeable with human thoughts2V and human actions2H, even though they may be compared.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[I can now expand the locations where the terms “sin”, “law” and “death” apply.
The sites are:
“Law” goes with ‘I, seat of choice3V’. “Law” goes with ‘lawessential3H(2’.
“Sin” goes with ‘the mirror of the world3H’ and ‘thought experiment3H’. “Sin” goes with “think3V”.]
[Despite the inadequate wording, what a resonance imply?
Maybe, what is good and what is bad2( free will1V)) complements heart2(free will1V)).
Would this fit Schoonenberg’s claim that free will becomes liberty when deeds are bound to God and becomes servitude when deeds are bound to sin, law or death?]
