08/11/14

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 1.5AE3

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 thinkpro-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”.]

08/8/14

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 1.5AE2

[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: Thinkpro-object1(x2(consciencepro-object1) favors “x2” where “pro-object defines the consequences of my actions” (technically, “denial of lawessential”), basically claiming that “lawessential conforms to my Master’s intentions or to my Master’s interpretation of what lawessential should be, especially in regards to ‘the object that brings everyone into organization’.  In addition, anyone who disagrees is beholden to thinkanti-object ideologies and has false conscienceanti-object”.]

08/7/14

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 1.5AE1

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: Thinkgroup3(x2( consciencelacking1)) favors “x2” that would be performed if “one denied the consequences of one’s actions” in regards to oneself, basically claiming that “lawessential 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: Thinkgroup3(x2( consciencelacking1)) favors “x2” that would be performed if “one denied the consequences of one’s actions in regards to others”, basically claiming that “lawessential 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: Thinkpro-object1(x2(consciencepro-object1) favors “x2” where “one defines the consequences of one’s actions” (technically, lawdenial), basically claiming that ‘lawessential conforms to my intentions or to my interpretation of what lawessential should be, especially when others imagine that they suffer consequences and complain’. In fact, the complaining person is beholden to thinkanti-object ideologies and has false conscienceanti-object”.

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

08/6/14

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 1.5AD

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 thinkdivine and thinkgroup stops.

It does not.  It cannot.  Even when the occlusion of thinkdivine by a sovereigninfra thinkpro-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 thinkdivine.  They are analogous in this way.  They differ in intensity.]

08/5/14

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 1.5AC

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.

Thinkgroup3( human action2(consciencelacking1)) and thinkdivine3( human action2(consciencefree1)) have the same structure, even though they are exclusive yet interpellating.

Does this make them of the same kind?]

08/4/14

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 1.5AB4

[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.]

08/1/14

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 1.5AB3

[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”.]

07/31/14

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 1.5AB2

[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.]

07/30/14

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 1.5AB1

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))]

07/29/14

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 1.5AA7

[Let me write the full twist as two interscoping nested forms.

The higher level form is:

One subject contextualizes another subject’s actions3( objective human actions2( subject1))

Knowledge3( human action2( subject1))

The lower level form is:

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

Normal context3( subject2( object1))

Both the upper and lower nested forms have the qualities of:

Intersubjective3( objective2( subjective1))

So, we should look into this second, adjacent lower level normal context.

And, what happened to to the idea of “gravity”?]