Summary of text [comment] pages 86 and 87
[Let me review, again.
I have discussed two types of models, so far.
Both rely on the category-based nested form.
One is the two-level interscope, composed of category-based nested forms on the content and situation levels.
The other is the intersection, composed when two category-based nested forms contribute to one actuality.]
[The two-level interscope and the intersecting nested forms helps to formulate answers.
The thought experiment of ‘I choose something’ provides a useful model.
The two-level interscope coheres to the idea of sensible construction.
The intersecting nested forms stimulate the idea of social construction.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 86 and 87
Schoonenberg recounted various heresies that seized upon some aspect of the heart, to the exclusion of others.
The Church struggled for balance among apparently disparate and unrelated issues.
Freedom, bondage, obligation, words, responsibility, thoughts, and deeds were related.
But how?
[In the gnostic paradigm, secret knowledge may alter the fate of a person. Secret incantations permit the soul to perform the proper actions in order to return to the source.
Can I, seat of choice3V, compare to someone who holds secret knowledge?
Or does the acquisition of secret knowledge compare to a thought experiment3H?]
Summary of text [comment] page 85
[In the astrological fixation, the fate of the person is determined by the alignment of the planets and stars.
Does this sound like a deterministic thought experiment3H or a contender for I, seat of choice3V?]
Summary of text [comment] page 85
[The questions in the previous blogs correlate with the normal contexts of the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’.
Consider the two-level interscope, then the intersection.]
Here is another issue that he raised:
Can I be determined by my bondage (as depicted in Manichaeism) in the same way that a pagan’s fate is determined by the stars (as in astrology)?
