02/19/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TD

[Can Descartes’ formula be framed as an intersection with the same structure as the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’?

The fact that I think serves as a thought experiment_3H.

What I think_2H emerges from and situates my potential as a container of thoughts_1H.

I am_3V is the seat of what I think, which, in the case of Descartes, is doubt_3V.

My determination of myself, as the seat of ‘what I think’_2V, both emerges from and situates a possibility that is independent of myself as a container of thoughts_1V.]

02/18/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TC

[In scholastic terms, the thinker–container belongs to ens reale (mind-independent realness) even though ‘thinking itself’ goes with ens rationis (mind-dependent realness).

Yet, the mind-independent-ness of the thinker as container is different than what the scholastics understood ‘ens reale’ to be.]

02/15/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TB

Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84

[The prior blog reminds me of the quandry posed by Decartes’ formula, “I think, therefore I am”.

“I think” goes with ideas inside of me. “Therefore, I am” asserts the existence of the thinker (as a container of I think).]

02/14/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TA

[If I can compare this nested form to the one derived from ‘the thought experiment where ‘I choose ‘something’‘ …

… then conscience^specified_1V matches something_1V in the potentials inherent in something that I may choose_1V.

Something_1V corresponds to value_1V.]

02/13/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SZ

02/12/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SY

Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84

[What is the categorical nature of this term “free will”?

Conscience^free and conscience^unfree appear as competing potentials in the intersecting nested form that describes the message underlying the word, “religion”.

To me, these seem to correspond to the label “free will”.]

02/11/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SX

[IF the narrow confines of words and bondage never inspire the person to say: “This is not my choice. Or maybe, this is not my desire.”

THEN everything but the heart is swept into the drama.

The interscope still applies. Values_1b cohere to desires_1a.]

02/8/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SW

Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84

Schoonenberg quoted John 8:31-35 and summed up as follows:

The heart the whole person is free only when it is bound to God.

The heart remains a slave when in sin.

[What does this imply?

Is a person not whole until they have a heart?

A broken heart?]

02/7/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SV

[In the intersection, words_3H(2, thoughts_3V(2, deeds_2(1V)) and bondage_2(1H)), all share one actuality: the heart₂.

So I can imagine that …

… law corrupts the normal context of I, seat of choice_3V.

… sin corrupts the normal context of ‘the mirror of the world_3H’.

… death begins when both sin and law corrupt the heart₂, the single actuality that is my choice_2V and something that situates my potential_2H.

Sin and law are vectors.

Death is the symptom.]

02/6/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SU

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TD

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TC

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TB

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TA

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SZ

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SY

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SX

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SW

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SV

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SU