[Next, go to the single content-level nested form (2.1 FC): The potion does not alter ‘the nested form containing the intersection’.

For the nested form containing the intersection, (let me imagine that) the normal context is ‘a tradition of guidance by shamans’. The person who took the peyote is under the watchful eye of an experience shaman (one who knows how to fly). Taking the peyote does not alter the container that the novice is in. It does not alter the potential of the novice in response to the shaman’s guidance. The shaman and the novice may be regarded as a shamanistic dyad.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 69 through 71

[Here is an example.

Once upon a time, there was a fellow who ate the fruit of the peyote bush in order to fly (travel like a shaman).

Go first to the intersection (2.1FB): Initially, the potion alters the horizontal nested form of participation. The nature of the fellow changes under the influence of the drug. The potential (or dispositions) alter. The fellow may feel heavy or light; focused or confused.]

[Schoonenberg sets forth the scenario where:

A person takes a potion.

The potion alters “her” state of existence.

The potion is a metaphor for the actuality of grace (or the actuality of self-destruction).

The scenario is placed into the prior intersection in the following figures.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 69 through 71

Schoonenberg gave an example of ‘the person influenced by grace’.

Consider the metaphor of illness. Grace is like a drug that a person has taken. The potion works on the person’s nature, aiding its combat with the illness.

The reverse is true for sin. A person takes a drug that induces ill effects in the person’s nature.

But doesn’t God, at times, bypass a person’s decisions?

What about miracles of healing or punishment?

What about the repercussions of the grace of paradise and Original Sin?

Summary of text [comment] pages 69 and 70

[The saying goes: A picture tells a thousand words.

‘The intersecting nested form’ and ‘the nested form embedding the intersection’s single actuality’ are pictures. They have inspired many words.

Schoonenberg’s text is dense. He presumes that the reader shares a common cultural understanding. Decades (maybe, even centuries) of controversy are condensed in each line.

These controversies occurred before the dawn of the Age of Semiotics.

These controversies set the stage for the Age of Semiotics.

Nested forms present visual models for ways that ‘the diverse elements of Schoonenberg’s discussion’ could fit together. My speculations may or may not be on target.

So what is the advantage?

The target belongs to this sign-filled age of understanding.]

[If grace is an actuality, then may be modeled as the single actuality in the intersection.

So may self-destruction.

Grace stands in contrast to self-destruction.

Grace, as an actuality, emerges from and situates two potentials.

So does self-destruction.

Natural dispositions are capable of being ruled and molded by each state of existence.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 69 and 70

Schoonenberg wrote that our nature reacts with grace in so far as it is at the disposal of the human person. Natural reactions express “man’s” personal answers in so far as such reactions express such answers.

[To me, the words ‘the natural reaction’ and ‘disposal of the human person’ sound like the horizontal axis of the prior intersecting nested form (the axis of human^divine nature and human dispositions).

The words ‘our personal answers’ and ‘express such answers’ sound like the vertical axis (the axis of divine object and conscience).]

Summary of text [comment] page 69

[‘Our states of existence’ (of either grace or self-destruction) are tumultuous because they contain contradictions.

On top of that, ‘our states of existence’ face apparently incompatible normal contexts. A divine object (such as an idol) may be incompatible with our human nature (to participate in divine nature; such as, triadic relations). Normal contexts obey the laws of exclusivity. The incompatibilities, manifested as contradictions in ‘our states of existence’, may drive conversion from one exclusive normal context to another.

The tension between the normal contexts and the realms of possibility constitutes a God-source and human-subject polarity within the intersection.

Finally, ‘our states of existence’ belong (as an actuality) in a content-level nested form. This content-level form describes the person. However, this nested form is not articulated. It models the person’s unconscious.

Thus, Schoonenberg’s word ‘counterpole’ is rendered as both ‘God-source and human-subject’ and ‘God-source and human-subject within the person’.]