03/10/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AG

[A particular sinful act may be forgotten, but sinful attitudes remain. The sinful act substantiates the sinner’s normal context. The act habituates the sinner’s potential.

This will be reflected in the way the person recites what is good and what is bad.

As the human acts and thinks, the entire intersecting nested form alters.

As actions and thoughts emerge from and situate possibilities, the possibilities become more and more pronounced.

The dispositions become trained.

The conscience becomes more specified. I label this consciencespecified.

Murder emerges from and situates the attitude of hatred.

Impurity emerges from and situates the attitude of narcissism.]

03/8/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AF-1

Summary of text [comment] page 80

Schoonenberg claimed that actions are always more than their external manifestations. They are more than their limited content.

Each external manifestation passes away, but not completely. A long lasting disposition or attitude remains.

After murder, hatred lingers. After impurity, egoistic desire agitates.

[How to say this in terms of nested forms?

Consider the intersection describing the message underlying the word ‘religion’.

The intersection of two nested forms yields a single actuality: What is virtue and what is sin.

This single actuality is the fusion of two: human action and human thoughts.

Human acts and human thoughts are always contextualized by justifications (thinkgroup_or_divine) and admissions (lawaccept_or_deny). Human acts always situate both conscience and dispositions.]

03/6/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AD

[Come to think of it, sensible construction based on private or closely shared social constructions comes in handy for taking advantage of the ideological frameworks of others.

Hey, I can use widely held social constructions in order to cultivate my own wealth or status.

For example, consider the ambitions of state academics.

They pretend that their sensible constructions are not built on social constructions. They pretend that they are ‘not religious’, because that is the current opiate of the masses. Plus, their closely shared religious beliefs are unlikely to be challenged.

They can proselytize without risk.]

03/3/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AC

[Infrasovereign thinkpro-objects permeate this Age, interpellating adherents of the Zeitgeist and denigrating thinkdivine.

Adding to the confusion, we rely on the our ability to make sense of language. We fall back on our apparently sensical sensible constructions and ignore the apparently nonsensical social constructions underlying any contemporary ideology.

We treat the words of contemporary ideologies as if they referred to things (and they do, but those actualities are themselves social constructions).

Our innate ability to respond to ‘talk as if it made sense’ cannot confront ‘the underlying nonsense that, once presumed, supports sensible construction’.]

03/2/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AB-2

[Which social construction will contradict our (human) self-centered and selfish sensible attitudes.

In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, the few contenders were family, band and tribal traditions.

In our current Lebenswelt, we are faced with a wide variety of contenders.

After the Incarnation, we are faced with the thinkgroups of our Zietgeist and the thinkdivine of the Way.

Deception is everywhere. Thinkgroups pretend to provide the Way.]

02/28/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 AA

[In our current Lebenswelt, all word reference is socially constructed.

This poses a hidden weakness for people who think they are rational, sensible, practical, pragmatic, and so on. These are the people who think that they are right because they make sense.

What is their weakness?

Their stance does not allow them to see below their feet.

They cannot see (or even admit) that they stand on a social construction.

These are the useful idiots of every revolution.]