[The prior blog on the symbolic features of words will now be brought to bear on the two versions of the single actuality belonging to the intersection of recognition and participation.

One actuality may be labeled ‘grace’ (Figure 2.1 DL).

The other actuality may be labeled ‘self-destruction’ (Figure 2.1 DN).

The single actuality is ‘either grace or self-destruction’.

These two words contrast with one another in a system of differences.

Both these actualities emerge from and situate two potentials.

The potential underlying recognition derives from ‘the omnipotence of God’ (for grace) or ‘the limited potencies of my own self-recognition’ (for self-destruction).

The potential underlying participation derives from ‘the omniscence and omnipresence of God’ (for grace) or ‘the limiting choices afforded me by my normal context’ (for self-destruction).]

[As soon as someone comes up with a difference, the spell should be broken. The adjective ‘social’ will then resume a place within a system of differences.

Then this shoe of Progressivism slips off.

So what is this hidden term that contrasts with ‘social’?

The term ‘sensible’ contrasts with the word ‘social’.

The words ‘social’ and ‘sensible’ produce two contrasting and exclusive primordial images.

‘Social justice’ is a different primordial image than ‘sensible justice’.

‘Social’-isms are different primordial images than ‘sensible’-isms.]

[For example, consider the term ‘social’. Progressives use this term as a qualifier (in terms like ‘social justice’, ‘social equality’, ‘social responsibility’ ‘social construction’, in sum, all ‘social’-isms).

The qualifier ‘social’ does not have a contrasting qualifier.

The contrasting qualifier is hidden.

Why is it hidden?

If the word ‘social’ points to a particular normal context, then this normal context cannot be questioned. Otherwise, the contrasting qualifier would not be hidden.

The hidden normal context must be assumed.

Normal contexts obey the laws of exclusivity. In this instance, ‘any contrasting qualifier’ must be excluded. The word ‘social’ is a point de caption. It is like the knot in a shoelace holding the shoe onto the foot. If it comes undone, the shoe falls off.

What?

If you do not bend knee to ‘social justice’, then what kind of monster are you?

The word ‘social’ is a clue. It tells whether the conversant is think^pro-object or think^anti-object.]

Summary of text [comment] page 69

[Words belong to systems of differences.

Whenever hearing a word, the listener should ask:

What is this word different than?

If the word has no contrasting terms, then the word veils a contrast.

Furthermore, the veiled contrasting term must remain hidden.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 68 and 69

[In the intersection-based model, self-destruction directly influences ‘what I am able to recognize (in particular, not my true myself, but an alienating idolatrous distortion)’.

Self-destruction indirectly alters my dispositions or nature (decreasing my capacity for fullness and meaning).

Perhaps, the terms ‘self-destruction’ or ‘state of self-destruction’ ought to label the single actuality of recognition and participation?

After all, Schoonenberg treated self-destruction as if it were an actuality.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 68 and 69

[In the prior figure, recognition_2V becomes ‘I am an image of God_2V’, which is the same as ‘I recognize myself in the objects of the Father and the Son_2V’.

Similarly, participation_2H becomes ‘I will do this in His image_2H’].

Summary of text [comment] pages 68 and 69

[How does grace enter into the picture?

In both the interscope and intersection, grace directly influences ‘what I am able to recognize (in particular, my true self through the divine objects)’.

Grace indirectly alters my dispositions or nature (increasing my capacity for fullness and meaning).

Perhaps, the words ‘grace’ or ‘state of grace’ ought to label the single actuality for the intersection of recognition and participation.

After all, Schoonenberg treated grace as if it were an actuality.]