Summary of text [comment] page 88
[Here are the two nested forms:
‘I, seat of choice3’ brings ‘my choice2’ into relation to the ‘possibilities inherent in something1’.
‘The thought experiment3’ brings ‘something2’ into relation to ‘the possibilities inherent in me1.]
[The thought experiment defines the normal context on the content level of two interscoping nested forms.
I, seat of choice, defines the normal context on the situation level of two interscoping nested forms.]
[What did I find?
Two actualities were evident: the event of the choice2 and the actuality of something2.
Two actualities implied two nested forms: I choose something and a thought experiment where something forms in my mind. The former goes with the event. The latter goes with the actuality of something.
Thus, the idea of ‘I choose something’ became the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’.]
Summary of text [comment] page 88
[The title of section 3 of chapter 2 is The Inclination to Evil.
But, Schoonenberg’s real topic is freedom.
My challenge was to examine this topic using nested forms.
So, I began my nested analysis the idea of ‘I choose something’.]
[Before I go another round in chewing the cud on this, I want to briefly re-iterate the interscope and intersection proposed in section 2.1.
Consider two nested forms:
I recognize myself as an image of God.
My human nature is to participate in divine nature.
The intersection produces two contrasting single actualities: grace and self-destruction.
Here they are.]
Summary of text [comment] page 88
[Here, I take a breath and step back.
I have been going round and round within the model of ‘the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’.
At least I am not still on page 83 of Schoonenberg’s text.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 87 and 88
[To me, it seems that concupiscence (literally, ‘the state of being with Cupid’) resonates with bondage. Disintegration goes with words.
Imprisoning, disintegrating words are co-opposed to bondage-inducing concupiscence.]
