Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Is there a parallel between heart2 and what is good and what is bad2?
Yes, they both are modeled as an intersection.
No, they are supported by exclusive normal contexts. So, the actualities within each are different.
My choice2V and something (emerging from a potential in me)2H are not interchangeable with human thoughts2V and human actions2H, even though they may be compared.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[I can now expand the locations where the terms “sin”, “law” and “death” apply.
The sites are:
“Law” goes with ‘I, seat of choice3V’. “Law” goes with ‘lawessential3H(2’.
“Sin” goes with ‘the mirror of the world3H’ and ‘thought experiment3H’. “Sin” goes with “think3V”.]
[Despite the inadequate wording, what a resonance imply?
Maybe, what is good and what is bad2( free will1V)) complements heart2(free will1V)).
Would this fit Schoonenberg’s claim that free will becomes liberty when deeds are bound to God and becomes servitude when deeds are bound to sin, law or death?]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[I compare the intersecting forms of the thought experiment where I choose ‘something’ and the message underlying the word “religion”.
I find that something that I may choose1V parallels consciencespecified1V.
I feel that I should label this parallel: Free will.
Perhaps the word “parallels” is insufficient.
How about complements or resonates with?]
[Free will, consciencespecified1V, points to ideas inside of me.
From this potential, ‘what is good and what is bad2’ emerges. This actuality points to the world outside of me.]
[The object that underlies my choice1V points to the world outside of me.
From the other potential, my heart2 emerges. This actuality points to ideas inside of me.]
[The term “free will” appears to encompass the potentials inherent in something1V (that is, the potential of an object that I may choose1V) and consciencespecified1V.
The realm of possibility is monadic. Elements may be distinguished but not separated.]
