Summary of text [comment] page 42
[Three items should be noted.
First, the formulation indicates why moral evil feels like physical evil. They have the same categorical structure. In this regard, they feel like they are “connected”.]
Summary of text [comment] page 42
[In nested form, this would be:
Moral evilphysical2(1): __3( human acts create situation2( moral evil proceeds from subject1 (who will be regarded as a person by the normal context))
___3( actus hominis2( passio hominem1)
Moral evilmetaphysical3(2): … determines subject1 as a person3 & determines status of subject(3)( limitations of subject(3) under the situation2 ( __1 )
malum hominis3( actus et potenia hominis2( ___1 )
Typically, we label subject1 as “culprit” and subject(3) as “victim”.]
Summary of text [comment] page 42
Schoonenberg argued that natural evil lies in both a privation of a good [evilphysical2(1)] and the limitation of the subject [evilmetaphysical3(2())].
A new dimension arises when natural evil effects humans [that is; when humans occupy the terminus of “metaphysical evil” as subject(3)].
The question arises: Does this connect natural and moral evil?
[A subsidiary question for the translator: Is ‘connect’ the correct word?]
Perhaps not and sort of.
Perhaps not. Scientific inquiry will reveal the nature of the natural subject [that is, subject1, the terminus in Firstness. Therefore, the termini in Thirdness and in Firstness are only connected in actuality.] This pertains to natural evil.
Sort of. Scientific inquiry cannot reveal the moral intentions [that would correspond to a moral agent as subject1. A connection between the termini in Thirdness and in Firstness is always a possibility for moral agents. Why? The moral status of subject1 and the naturally limited status of subject(3) are simultaneously determined. This pertains to moral evil.
In sum,] our own feelings that “natural evil” has a “moral component” bears witness to some relation, which the translator of Schoonenberg labeled “connection”.
This connection concerns, what Schoonenberg called “a new dimension” that arises in regards to moral evil. [That “new dimension” “connects” the termini in Thirdness and in Firstness.]
Summary of text [comment] page 41
[Schoonenberg’s example gives us a way to think about evilphysical and evilmetaphysical as “a deprivation of a good through subject1” and as “a limitation built into subject(3)”, respectively.
Let us say that an earthquake creates a tsunami that cascades over a coast, depriving animals of their habitat whereupon they die due to their limitations.
“Physical evil” pertains to “the change in habitat that emerges from the natural subject (of geological processes1)”.
“Metaphysical evil” pertains to “the normal context (determination3) that emerges from the actuality of the habitat change plus the limitations of animal life(3)”.
In short, “physical evil” creates circumstances (the deprivation of goods) where “metaphysical evil” (the limitations of subjects(3)) comes into play.
Technically, this may be expressed in nested form:
physical evil2(1) : ___3(earthquake that radically alters habitat2( … proceeds from natural subject1; geological processes1))
metaphysical evil3(2) : … determines status3 of natural subjects(3); that is, living forms(3)( radically altered habitat plus limitations of living beings2( ___ 1))
This precisely parallels the exposition of knowledge3(2) and will2(1) in prior blogs.]
Summary of text [comment] page 41
[“Evil3” resonates with “determination of the status3 of the … subject(3)”.
Is subject(3) the same as subject(1), “the potential from which the action proceeds1”?
The answer is typically “no”.
Consider Schoonenberg’s example.]
Schoonenberg used the example of an earthquake creating a physical evil – a privation of good – that catastrophically alters the status of living beings, changing the conditions so that these living beings – limited by metaphysical evil – die.
[This can be written in nested form:
… determines status of natural subjects(3); living forms(3)( earthquake that radically alters habitat2( … proceeds from natural subject1; geological processes1))
“The determination of status” pertains to “subject(3)”.
Subject(3) is not necessarily identical to subject1.]
Summary of text [comment] page 41
Natural evil is infrahuman. It is frequently expressed as pain, illness or deformity.
Natural evil may be distinguished from moral evil in humans.
Moral evil proceeds from the person, determines ‘him’ as a person, and encompasses human action.
[Notably, this resonates with the idea of nestedness. The Latin terms are particularly evocative.
Consider the above sentence on moral evil. Does it not sound like normal context3( actuality2( potential1))? Even more so in the Latin.
Moral evil3( human acts2( moral evil proceeds from the person …1)
malum hominis3( actus hominis2( passio hominem1)
Consider the above sentence on natural evil.
Determination of the status3 of natural subject(3)( pain, illness, deformity2( … proceeds from a natural subject(1) that is not necessarily the same as the determined subject(3)))]
Summary of text [comment] page 40
Section 6 of chapter 1 is titled, “ Analogy of Sin and Physical Evil”.
There is not only moral evil but physical evil.
The “moral” belongs to the human realm. The “physical” belongs to the subhuman realm. The “moral” coheres to “history”. The “physical” coheres to “evolution”.
This raises some questions: Is physical evil analogous to moral evil? Is “evolution” analogous to “history”?
Let us start here: “Evil” is “the lack of some good”. This applies to both types of evil.
What about limits? Each creature is limited to particular goods. Are these limitations a “metaphysical evil”? (Leibnitz suggested this.)
No and yes.
No, such a limitation is not the lack of some good.
Yes, if evil is considered “a thing in itself”, rather than a privation of a good. This “thing in itself” is a feature that the creature could theoretically have, but does not. Limitations, then, are privations of “goods that a creature might have had”.
[I am not sure whether such limitations should be called “metaphysical evils” (as Leibnitz called them). I am sure that such limitations contextualize actuality.
Thus, it seems that the term “metaphysical evil” encompasses a categorical transition: normal context3(actuality2(1)), just as the term “physical evil” encompasses the categorical transition actuality2(possibility1).]
Summary of text [comment] page 39
[Here, of course, I must place my own mea culpa.
What I am doing surely seems to be a fixation. Look at this blog. Who in their right mind would blog on a short theological treatise written by a now forgotten Dutch theologian?
I certainly operate within the parameters of my own dispositions. I cannot claim a truly free conscience. I always feel the call of a multitude of causes. But these causes are magical. They do not seek sovereign power. They seek the laughter of the festival. Lighten up. Have some fun. Do not be so intense.
These multitudinous causes should not be confused with religious causes, even though they may be accounted for by some religious institution. They are play filled, like Disney’s Magic Kingdom. They do not hold the possibility of grasping sovereign power. Perhaps, someday there will be a word for these phantasmagorical beings, a word that differs from the term “religion”.
The Sovereign does not need to maintain order in Disney’s Kingdom. Unless, of course, a sovereigninfra religion motivates it to do so.
My play – my joy – is running around the landscape that Peirce discovered a century ago. His joy – his madness – was to clear that field. He called it “semiotics”. I call it “postmodern scholasticism”.
At the same time, I wonder whether I will see the joy of freedom crushed, like a bird in a fist, as it has so many times before. Look at American Television in 2013. It pretends to be our friend, while, at the same time, condescends and manipulates. In fact, people on television claim to speak for me. They tell me what I should think in order to me to be their friend.
The instruments of pro-objects occupy seats of sovereign power. The television, that new way of talking, tells us “what we want to hear”. I have a sickening feeling, culled from history, about where this will lead. The Final Option (perhaps, the inevitable consequence of of a Single Payer Healthcare System) will be only one example of a Final Impenitence on a scale that dwarfs the individual as well as our imagination.
This topic, I suspect, Schoonenberg will tentatively approach. Stay tuned.
And so I conclude my blogs on section 5, chapter 1, entitled: “Sin Unto Death – Mortal Sin – Venial Sin”.]
Summary of text [comment] page 39
[What about self-donation?]
In the same way that sins may lead to the final impenitence, basic moral acts may lead to the total self-donation and eternal reward. But the virtuous person is not going it alone. The Council of Trent talks about the special graces of perseverance.
[This is because, with every step upwards, there is a possibility of slipping back. Every illumination offers the opportunity for reification, the fixation of an illumination into a thinkgroup, lessons that tell people what they want to hear.
For grades of grace, the vertical nested form {thinkdivine(virtuous action(consciencefree))} trains the dispositions. A significant feature of training is desensitizing oneself to partial objects. Supernatural wisdom is needed in order to discern thinkdivine from the variety of partial objects through which God may be appreciated. Consciencefree and the dispositions learn to work together. Grace magically changes the possibilities of discernment and thus, the selection of human action.
Analogies between “grades of grace” and “grades of disgrace” break down because the dispositions respond to partial objects, not the whole object. No matter how hard one trains, each new good appears as a good in itself; that is, a temptation for idolatry.
Life is easier for grades of disgrace. Thinkgroup substitutes a partial object for the whole. Thinkgroup trains our dispositions to fixate, rather than to step back. How difficult is that?
Talk to any Professor in a Multiversity for a demonstration. They have selected one another for employment on the basis of the intensity of their fixations. Each department is ideologically pure. The conversation will always turn to the Professor and ‘his’ fixation.]
Summary of text [comment] page 39
[Returning to Schoonenberg, what can I say?
The “final impenitence” and “thinking yourself to be a golden calf” have a lot in common. After all, aren’t we entitled to hear only “what we want to hear”? Who wants to hear the truth when it is so easy to deny it?]
