Summary of text [comment] pages 37, 38 and 39

[While the previous blog constitute a hypothesis (by way of scenarios), I sense that it resonates with Schoonenberg’s ideas, and may help explain why …]

Schoonenberg proceeds to the issue of finality.

The many decisions for good or evil are analogues of that global decision by which we decide our eternity in the act of dying … or … anticipations of that final option during this life …

[While many would laugh at the idea of a “final option” at the moment of death, we must remember that the ways of God are not the ways of humans.

The increase in intensity portrayed in the last blog resonates with the image of finality.

The increase of intensity is directly linked to “denial of the consequences, law^denial” that is “not taking responsibility for one’s actions”.

As the intensity increases, the sinner’s perceptions of the consequences become more and more impossible, until, of course, one arrives at Progressivism, Communism, Fascism, or any of the modern Public Cults founded on “an object that brings all of subjects into organization”.

All proclaimed that their object was historically inevitable.  “Inevitability” indicates “a total denial of the consequences of one’s actions”.

Oh, and it provides that unnerving excuse: I was just obeying orders.]

Summary of text [comment] page 37

[I am still on the question: Does “intensity” also pertain to the horizontal nested form?

In the last two blogs, I proposed several scenarios that would fit the natural philosophical horizontal nested form.

These scenarios show an increase in intensity.  The individual’s choices become more and more demonic.  Also, the individual is increasingly shielded from the consequences of ‘his’ actions, placing ‘his’ conscience at higher and higher risk.  Then, in a total flight from personal responsibility, the person has become an instrument of a think^pro-object.

Scenario A is spontaneous: “Oh, this ‘partial good’ will increase pleasure or reduce pain at no cost.”

Scenario B is more calculating, more remorseless: “Oh, this ‘partial good’ will increase pleasure and reduce pain at no cost to me and I don’t care if others suffer.”  Of course, the “no cost to me” is delusional and the lack of sympathy makes the sin appear criminal.

Scenario C is intensely sinful.

Scenario C^-1 is so intense that the sinner redefines “sin”.]

[Do these examples mean that Capitalism as a Symbolic Order of Individual Hedonism is sinful?  Not any more than any exchange involving immoral people, including those who run central governments.  Yes, lawyers will work for any Symbolic Order that Pays.

The central government starts with scenario C and promotes “plans to reduce pain” by eliminating wind surfing entirely.  If “safety” is the “object that brings all subjects into organization”, then wind surfing is an anti-object and must be banned.

In short, the central government enforces an inverse of the third option: C^-1.

C^-1: Think^pro-object₁(x₂(conscience^pro-object₁) favors “x₂” where “pro-object defines the consequences of my actions” (technically, “denial of law^essential”), basically claiming that “law^essential conforms to my Master’s intentions or to my Master’s interpretation of what law^essential should be, especially in regards to ‘the object that brings everyone into organization’.  In addition, anyone who disagrees is beholden to think^anti-object ideologies and has false conscience^anti-object”.]

Summary of text [comment] page 37

[However, I cannot stop there.  I can also wonder:

Does “intensity” also pertain to the horizontal nested form?

Consider these scenarios:

A: Think^group₃(x₂( conscience^lacking₁)) favors “x₂” that would be performed if “one denied the consequences of one’s actions” in regards to oneself, basically claiming that “law^essential does not apply to me”. The person ignores the consequences that may harm self (and possibly others).

Example, no one who windsurfs ever imagines drowning.

B: Think^group₃(x₂( conscience^lacking₁)) favors “x₂” that would be performed if “one denied the consequences of one’s actions in regards to others”, basically claiming that “law^essential does not apply to me”. The person ignores that others may suffer evil consequences.

Example, a vendor who rents a cracked windsurfing board to a novice.

C: Think^pro-object₁(x₂(conscience^pro-object₁) favors “x₂” where “one defines the consequences of one’s actions” (technically, law^denial), basically claiming that ‘law^essential conforms to my intentions or to my interpretation of what law^essential should be, especially when others imagine that they suffer consequences and complain’. In fact, the complaining person is beholden to think^anti-object ideologies and has false conscience^anti-object”.

Example, the lawyer defending the vendor who rented out a faulty board that led to the death of a novice windsurfer.]

Summary of text [comment] page 37

Venial and mortal sin are analogous.  They differ in intensity.

[One would think that, for mortal sin, the interpellation between the vertical nested forms of think^divine and think^group stops.

It does not.  It cannot.  Even when the occlusion of think^divine by a sovereign^infra think^pro-object appears complete, and the world seems to be swallowed in an inevitable doom, the guilt is palpable.

One would also think that, for saintly practices, the interpellation stops.

It does not.  It cannot.  The dispositions always are falling in love with some good, some partiality, that undermines impartiality.  Buddhism developed a symbolic order devoted to removing the veils of illusion.  But, as any devout Buddhist will tell you, few have ever removed the last partiality.

Then why do the Ideological Pervert and the Buddhist Saint both come across as totally intense?

To me, “the diminution of interpellation between the two primal vertical nested forms” resonates with the image of “intensity”.

Both venial and mortal sin diminish (or or exacerbate) the call of think^divine.  They are analogous in this way.  They differ in intensity.]

Summary of text [comment] page 37

Many theologians speak of an analogy between venial and mortal sin.

Venial and mortal differ in intensity.

[One would think that “gravity₂” and “intensity” would be synonyms.  They are not.  “Gravity” implies two realms.  “Intensity” implies one.

So I may ask: Is there an analogy or a commonality to venial and mortal sins?

Are mortal sin and venial sin different species of the same genus?

The idea of “kind” draws my imagination to the exclusive yet interpellating vertical nested forms in the intersecting nested forms.

Think^group₃( human action₂(conscience^lacking₁)) and think^divine₃( human action₂(conscience^free₁)) have the same structure, even though they are exclusive yet interpellating.

Does this make them of the same kind?]

[Here is the scenario for “gravity” that relies on the interscoping nested forms:

Knowledge₃( human action₂( subject₁))

Will₃( subject₂( object₁))

If I consider “gravity₂” as the “realm of actuality₂ in tension with the intersubjective₃ and the subjective­₁” then “gravity₂” precisely reflects “the aspect of human action₂ corresponding to the subject₂”.

Does this definition of “gravity₂” accord with the Dutch logic table?

It seems so.

The more grave₂ the sin or virtue, the more imprisoned or free the subject becomes.]

[What about the other question: What about the idea of “gravity”?

I can see two scenarios.

Here is one that relies on the polarized form:

Knowledge₃₍₂₍₎₎ Will₂₍₁₎

If I consider “gravity₂” as the “realm of actuality₂ in tension with the intersubjective₃ and the subjective­₁” then “gravity₂” precisely reflects “the aspect of human action₂ corresponding to the poles of knowledge₃ and will₁”.

“Gravity₂” is “that feature of human action₂ that must be intersubjectively contextualized₃ as knowledge₃”.

“Gravity₂” is also “that feature of human action₂ that reifies conscience₁ and disposition₁; that is, the will₁”.]

[The previous blog provided some insight into the normal context of the second, adjacent lower nested form.

In 1.5AA4 I wrote:

Normal context₃( subject₂( object₁))

Context of attraction, repulsion or neutrality₃( subject who desires₂( object of desire₁))

In 1.5AB1 I wrote:

Will₃( subject₂( object₁))

So these must be parallel.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 36 and 37

[Let me try to locate “gravity” once again.

Allow me to review the nested forms:

The most general are:

Thirdness( secondness( firstness))

Normal context₃( actuality₂( possibility₁))

Looking at the earlier blogs, I have:

Knowledge₃( human action₂( will₁))

And that can be turned into a polarized form:

Knowledge₃( acts of knowledge₂ acts of will₂( will₁))

Knowledge₃₍₂₍₎₎ will₂₍₁₎

Also, that can be turned into interscoping nested forms:

Knowledge₃( human action₂( subject₁))

Will₃( subject₂( object₁))]