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
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.]
01/22/19
01/21/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SI
[My heart2 both emerges from and situates the potential in me1H and the potential in something (that I may choose)1V.
The first is desire. The second is value.
Even though the two actualities contradict one another, they both belong to one actuality. My heart2 is marked with contradictions that are not easily resolved.]
01/18/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SH
[The thought experiment3H or the mirror of the world3H brings the potential in me1H into relation to something situating the potential in me2H plus my choosing2V.
I, seat of choice3V, brings the potential in something (that I may choose)1V into relation to something situating the potential in me2H plus my choosing2V.
My heart2 is the single actuality constituted by two actualities of ‘something situating the potential in me 2H‘ plus ‘my choosing2V‘.]
01/17/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 SG
[The thought experiment where ‘I choose something’ produces three models.
One is an interscope.
The other two are intersections.
Only one version of the intersections is considered. In this model, the interscope’s situation level became the vertical nested form. The interscope’s content level became the horizontal axis.]
01/16/19
