Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 DF
11/21/16
11/18/16
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 DE-2
[For me, the situation level of the interscoping form for sensible construction contributes to the horizontal level of an intersection. The content level contributes to the vertical level of an intersection.
Participation occupies the horizontal (or hidden) axis.
Recognition occupies the vertical (visible) axis.
One single actuality accounts for the union of two actualities.
The single actuality is ‘the state of grace’ or ‘the state of self-destruction’.
In practice, the nested form containing this single actuality should not interscope with lower levels. It may interscope with higher levels. It usually belongs to the content level of an interscope.]
11/17/16
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 DE-1
[Participation may be modeled with the slogan:
Our human nature is to participate in divine nature.
Recognition may be modeled with the slogan:
In order to be ‘who I am’, I must recognize ‘myself as an image of God’.
For the interscope, recognition belongs to the content level. Participation belongs to the situation level.
Sensible construction follows when participation (situation) coheres with recognition (content).
When recognition and participation become full of contradictions (as one might predict for any life change), they no longer interscope. Instead of separating as two distinct (yet coordinating) actualities (as one might expect), they congeal into an conflict-filled intersection.]
11/16/16
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 DD-2
[Humans cannot wrap their sensible minds around two actualities that combine into one actuality. We must socially construct ‘a reference (a single actuality) on a reference (of the the two actualities)’. This process is discussed in How to Define the Word ‘Religion’ in the chapter on the meaning underlying the word ‘religion’.
The single actuality (the reference constructed) is composed of two actualities (whose union is the foundation of construction) and is contextualized in a content-level nested form.]
11/15/16
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 DD-1
[Another model is that of the individual and, by extension, the institution, as two intersecting nested forms.
This configuration of nested forms is typical for social construction.
Why?
The intersection can not be interpreted sensically.
Intuitively nonsensical actuality stimulates social construction.]
11/14/16
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 DC
Summary of text [comment] page 76-77
[This configuration of nested forms is typical for sensible construction.
Why?
The perspective level is not mentioned. Content and situation levels operate under the umbrella of a perspective level. But that perspective is not articulated.
This makes it very difficult for a student of history. The perspective level of sensible construction is not available for critical analysis, simply because it is not articulated. It is tacit knowledge. The perspective level may be called ‘a Zeitgeist’.
A Zeitgeist may be open to the influence of grace as opposed to self-destruction. Grace may be regarded, in a minimalistic biological context, as indirect (as opposed to direct) reciprocity. It also may be regarded as (biologically defined) altruism.
However, since our current Lebenswelt is not ‘the Lebenswelt that we evolved in’, grace emanates from civilized perspectives.
Grace may be regarded, in a minimalistic civilizational context, as ‘perspectives that do not produce self-destructive normal contexts’. In historic religious traditions, grace extends far beyond this basic contrast because it is associated with (what Teilhard de Chardin described as) the divine attractor.
The omega point is the One True Triune God.]
11/11/16
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 DB
Summary of text [comment] page 76-77
[The individual and, by extension, the institution, is modeled as two interscoping nested forms on the levels of content and situation.
Participation situates recognition.]
11/10/16
11/9/16
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CZ
[Yet second model reflects the third. This model suggests that the person cannot truly recognize “himself” except as an image of God. The Holy Spirit mediates this recognition.
Through the normal context of the Holy Spirit, I can recognize myself.
If the person does not recognize “himself” in this fashion, which is the fashion that we evolved to see ourselves, then another self-recognition occurs:
I recognize myself according to the designs of a normal context that is finite, that is, an idol.
I idolize the design through which ‘I recognize myself’.
This model offers a postmodern scholastic avenue for appreciating Schoonenberg’s text.]
11/8/16
