Summary of text [comment] page 69

[Let me see whether I can package the prior blogs.

First, the intersection:

The intersection of participation and recognition is captured in two slogans:

(1) Our human nature is to participate in God’s divine nature.

(2) ‘I recognize myself’ in fullness and meaning only when ‘I recognize myself as an image of God’.

‘God’s design (a relational object)_3V’ brings ‘both recognition and participation₂’ into relation with ‘the possibilities for conscience, ‘what I am able to recognize’, and self_1V’.

‘God’s nature (a relational structure)_3H’ brings ‘both recognition and participation₂’ into relation with ‘the potential of human dispositions and natures_1H’.

Now, what about human and divine poles that Schoonenberg mentioned?

The divine poles appear to be the normal contexts. The human poles appear to belong to the potentials.]

Summary of text [comment] page 69

[‘The single actuality of grace_2a’ and ‘the single actuality of self-destruction_2a’ are riven by contradictions. The impression is that the world resists our desires, because the actuality_2a does not reveal that it contains an intersection. The content level normal context_3a cannot see the intersection. It only sees the actuality_2a.

These two contradicting actualities of the states of grace or self-destruction are contextualized by normal contexts that exclude one another.

I should say: The normal context strive to exclude one another.

The moment that either grace or self-destruction wins, the intersection is resolved. The winning single actuality appears in a normal context_3a devoid of tension.

The person has become either a good or bad angel.]

Summary of text [comment] page 69

[Schoonenberg used the word ‘counterpole’ to describe the difference between the source and the subject of grace.

The word ‘counter’ implies a resonance between more than one polarity.

The intersection containing the tension within recognition and participation contains a polarity between divine and human poles.

Intersections contain a single actuality that, in turn, fit into a nested form.

The nested form that embodies the single actuality of grace or self-destruction portrays an additional human and divine polarity.]

[Intersections are like knots. They generate single actualities that do not interscope to an adjacent lower level. They interscope to higher levels, but not lower. Thus, when an intersection appears, its single actuality goes into the content level of an interscoping form.

At least, this seems logical to me at the moment. It seems like an odd rule. ‘The single actuality of an intersection’ behaves as possibility in an interscope.

‘A nested form on the content level’ contains ‘a single actuality that is composed of two actualities’. Two actualities compose an intersection. However, the content level nested form contains only the single actuality.

‘The single actuality of an intersection’ is treated ‘as a single actuality’ by ‘a content level nested form’.  The normal context does not see ‘the operations within the intersection’ very well.]

Summary of text [comment] page 69

Schoonenberg used the word ‘counterpole’ to describe the difference between the source and the subject of grace.

[By ‘counterpole’ Schoonenberg alluded to divine and human poles.

The intersection, modeling the tension within recognition and participation, carries a polarity with divine and human poles.]

[The realm of actuality obeys the laws of noncontradiction.

Noncontradiction is different than the exclusivity of the normal context.

The laws of noncontradiction set the stage for the exclusivity of the normal context.

Our own experiences of ‘grace’ and ‘self-destruction’ confirm this.

The single actuality of ‘grace’ and ‘self-destruction’ encompasses two contending actualities, participation and recognition, which always seem to be contradicting one another. Yet, they belong to the same actuality.

We experience a battle among contending forces. We wonder whether one or the other will gain an the upper hand.

Which dominates?

A state of grace or a state of self-destruction?]

[Detachment initiates the transition from 2-level interscope to intersection.

Detachment initiates the transition from sensible to social construction.]

[What lessons come from these associations?

First, two interscoping forms may coalesce into an intersection. The intersection gels when the perspective level no longer supports sensible construction.

Sensible construction is depicted by a two level interscope, containing only content and situation. The perspective level is assumed to be valid and appropriate.

In the interscoping forms, ‘the potential underlying participation_1b’ emerges from and situates ‘my recognition_2a’. ‘My recognition_2a’ comes from ‘the potentials of me to recognize myself_1a’.

These elements are not in tension when the perspective level is taken for granted.

When the perspective level no longer ‘makes sense’, the actualities of recognition and participation also no longer make sense. The actualities of recognition and participation are in tension.

The tension between ‘I recognize myself’ and ‘my human nature is to participate in the divine nature’ produces an intersection at the moment when ‘my self-recognition_2a’ no longer sensibly undergirds ‘my potential for participation_1b’.]