[The previous blog provided some insight into the normal context of the second, adjacent lower nested form.

In 1.5AA4 I wrote:

Normal context₃( subject₂( object₁))

Context of attraction, repulsion or neutrality₃( subject who desires₂( object of desire₁))

In 1.5AB1 I wrote:

Will₃( subject₂( object₁))

So these must be parallel.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 36 and 37

[Let me try to locate “gravity” once again.

Allow me to review the nested forms:

The most general are:

Thirdness( secondness( firstness))

Normal context₃( actuality₂( possibility₁))

Looking at the earlier blogs, I have:

Knowledge₃( human action₂( will₁))

And that can be turned into a polarized form:

Knowledge₃( acts of knowledge₂ acts of will₂( will₁))

Knowledge₃₍₂₍₎₎ will₂₍₁₎

Also, that can be turned into interscoping nested forms:

Knowledge₃( human action₂( subject₁))

Will₃( subject₂( object₁))]

[Let me write the full twist as two interscoping nested forms.

The higher level form is:

One subject contextualizes another subject’s actions₃( objective human actions₂( subject₁))

Knowledge₃( human action₂( subject₁))

The lower level form is:

Context of attraction, repulsion or neutrality₃( subject who desires₂( object of desire₁))

Normal context₃( subject₂( object₁))

Both the upper and lower nested forms have the qualities of:

Intersubjective₃( objective₂( subjective₁))

So, we should look into this second, adjacent lower level normal context.

And, what happened to to the idea of “gravity”?]

[There is a certain irony to the fact that the term “objective” covers two very different concepts.  So now, let me see whether I can accomplish the full twist to the claim:

Knowledge₃ is “intersubjective”.

Well, why not “interobjective”?  After all, there are two objects.

Then I can counter: There are also two subjects, each perceiving an “object”.

Knowledge₃ brings these two subjects, with their respective objects, into a nested form.

“Knowledge₃” contextualizes “human action₂“.

Human action₂ is the objective behavior of a subject₁.

“Knowledge₃” brings “objective human action₂” into relation with “the possibilities inherent in the subject₁“.

These possibilities concern some object perceived by subject₁.  That object, for the subject₁, must be actual on a different (interscoping, adjacent lower) nested form.

That suggests that there may be “some normal context₃” that brings “the subject₂” into relation with “the possibilities inherent in the (perceived) object₁“.

This “normal context₃“, plus knowledge₃, yields two subjects and two objects. Hence, in this case, thirdness is “intersubjective₃” and “interobjective₃“.

How twisted was that?]

[The term “will₂₍₁₎” labels the emergence of “objective” human action₂ (from the point of view of knowledge) from “subjective” realms₁ (from the point of view of the will, which operates with some “objective” in mind.  Plus, that “objective” may reflect the normal contexts of the intersecting nested forms).]

[But that is not all.

“Object relations” in socioanalysis (the non-existent sociological field that would mirror psychoanalysis) go with think^divine, think^group, think^pro-object, (projected) think^anti-object, as well as acceptance or denial of law^essential.]

[There is a certain irony to the fact that the term “objective” currently covers two very different concepts.  Here is the second:

Human action₂ is also “objective” in so far as it reveals the “object” of our will₂₍₁₎ (will₂₍₁₎: human action₂ emerging from both conscience^specified₁ and dispositions₁).

“Object relations” in psychoanalysis go with conscience^specified and dispositions.  Our will bends towards an object.]

[There is a certain irony to the fact that, currently, in 2014, the term “objective” covers two very different concepts.  Here is the first:

Human action₂ is “objective” because it can be objectively observed by a disinterested scientist.

Human action₂ is an “object” that is contextualized through knowledge₃.  This is described in the the category crossing of two nested forms:

knowledge₃₍₂₎ = acceptance or denial of law^essential as well as think^{one_way_or_another} contextualizing the situation₂

The term “knowledge₃” labels the emergence of judgments on both the natural philosophical and the moral religious axes of the intersecting nested forms.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 36 and 37

[I have already brought knowledge and will into association with the intersecting nested forms.  Now, let me see how I can associate “gravity”.

Since human action may be observed, moderns call it “objective”.

Perhaps the term should be “intersubjective”.   After all, the observer is “a subject” as well as one who observes.

On top of that, “the subject” perceives some “object”, some perception of actuality within the realm of possibility.  But that perception is “subjective”.

So maybe the descriptor should be “interobjective”.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 36 and 37

Once Schoonenberg established the concept of grades [of grace or disgrace] plus the inherence of knowledge and will [see previous blogs], he turned to the idea of “the levity or gravity of matter” in sins.

“Matter” touches base with “what makes an action moral”.  There must be external independent sources for the criteria of “what is moral”.  At the same time, the notion is personal.  The external criterion must be assumed within the internal.

The outward aspect provides a norm.  The inward aspect belongs to the human mind and body.

We may speak of action as if it were a “thing in itself”, an isolate from the person’s external and internal criteria, to be judged independently as a “sin” or “virtuous” act.

Tabulations of actions as “mortal sins” pose a danger because action is the sign of an interior decision and a sign of valuation that reflects the ordination of one’s life.  The tabulations lead to the false conclusion that actions are isolated from judgments (external criteria) and potentials (inward criteria).

Judgments and potentials matter.