[The thought experiment where ‘I choose something’ models as two interscoping nested forms and provides an opportunity to explore Schoonenberg’s statement.]
We exercise our freedom in serving either God or Satan.
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Back to Schoonenberg’s text.]
We exercise our freedom in serving either God or Satan.
[The mirror of the world3a reflects a symbolic order3a.
Responsibilities and words express the character of ‘a system of…3a’.
Correspondingly, the potentials within me1a are already refined, cut into interpellations, finite in number, because they well up in response to the normal context configured as ‘a system of…3a’.
Freedom and bondage express the character of ‘… differences1a’.
Both obligations and exercises of the heart share an actuality2a that corresponds to an utterance, emerging from and situating the potentials inherent in me.]
[What is to be found in the thought experiment3a?
The thought experiment3a is the content-level normal context.
Like the system…3a in parole, the thought experiment3a seems to be referential.
We project referentiality into the thought experiment.
But, it also exists as a symbolic order.
The system…3a sets the normal context for the potentiation of …differences1a.
Parole2a exists as a system of differences3a-1a.]
[Have I arrived at another way to speculate about responsibility (in virtue) and words (in sin)? ]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Does the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’ have both referential and symbolic character, just like the symbolic order of parole?
Does the potential inherent in me1a compare to my potential of using manual brachial gestures for hand talk1a, consisting of a finite and habitual suite of different possibilities.]
[For hand talk, a system of gesturing and seeing3 brought parole2a into relation with the potential of a finite number of different habitual manual brachial gestures1a.
The mirror of the world3a compares to the system3a in a system3a of differences1a.
A thought experiment that everyone in the group is participating in3a acts like gesturing and seeing3a.
Similarly, the potential inherent in me1a parallels the potential of a set of finite and habitual different features (comparable to the manual brachial gestures in hand talk)1a.
Something2a compares to parole2a, the utterance.]
[Now, I want to compare something2a to parole2a.
Parole2a is the actuality in the content level of the system of differences of language.
The nested form is:
A system…3a( parole2a( …of differences1a))]
