[A normal context includes design.

‘Recognition’ points to the design manifested in God Recognizing Himself.

What does God Recognize?

Himself.

God recognizes Himself as a divine object.

Similarly, when ‘I recognize myself’, I may see ‘an image of God.’

Or I may simply see a reflection in a mirror of someone else’s making.

‘Recognition’ emerges from and situates the potential of ‘what I am able to recognize. That is, my conscience, and self.]

[Those in a state of self-destruction want to force others to participate in their limited and limiting agendas. These sinners need prayers.

Those in the contradicting state of grace becomes less and less recognizable as human and are correspondingly treated less and less humanely. Good people are dehumanized.]

[‘Signs of contradiction’ are manifest in the single actuality composed of participation and recognition. A content-level normal context operates to exclude these signs, but the single actuality would no longer exist at the moment that the contradictions were resolved.]

[Second, the content level nested form.

For the nested form that contains the single actuality of the intersection, additional divine and human polarities appear within the exclusive normal contexts and the inclusive realm of potential.

The drama plays out through a contrast between ‘grace’ and ‘self-destruction’.

From the limiting view of ‘the normal context of self destruction’, ‘the actuality of grace’ is a sign of contradiction.

From the unlimiting view of ‘the normal context of grace’, ‘the actuality of self-destruction’ is a sign of contradiction.]

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.]