Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 IE
01/9/18
01/8/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 IE
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Obligations parallel the horizontal axis pair:
Lawessential3H( human thoughts2V and human actions2H(_1H))
Or:
Lawessential3H( what is good and what is bad2( _1H))
Do these look compatible?
Do obligations parallel the essence of the law?]
01/5/18
01/4/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 IC
[Let me compare this to ‘the message underlying the word ‘religion’‘.]
01/3/18
01/2/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 IA
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Obligations are implicit to the mandala of the heart.
They are portrayed in the following categorical pair:
Thought experiment3H( my choice2V and something2V(_1H))
Or:
Thought experiment3H( my heart2( _1H))]
12/29/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 HZ
[In the next few blogs, I construct a thread in the style of Carl Jung.
It will lead me back to Schoonenberg’s discussion on our inclination to evil as a sequel to sin.]
12/28/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 HY
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The heart is a single, contradiction-filled actuality.
Does the intersection of ‘I choose something illuminated in the mirror of the world’ reflect the anatomy of desire?
Have you heard the name of Jacques Lacan?
How about Bruce Fink or Slavoj Zizek?
How about Carl Jung and Marie Franz?
A brief reading of any of their disturbing works will bring this model to life.]
12/27/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 HX
[A recommended electronic text in regards to the Progressive word-based mind:
James Ostrowski, Progressivism: A Primer on the Idea Destroying America, 2014, Buffalo, New York: Cazenovia Books, first edition, ISBN 978-0974253-87]
12/26/17
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 HW
[What do I mean by the term “words”?
Listen to the promises of Progressive politicians.
Listen to the reporting of Progressive news organizations.
Read the legalese packed into the thousands of pages in a single piece of Progressive legislation.
Listen to the Professor’s concerns about the sensitivities of others.
Read the twisted logic of Progressive so-called social scientists.
These “words” do not liberate.
They shackle.]