Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The previous blog leads me to what Schoonenberg wrote next:]
The free choice, for good or evil, always implies some obligation. We exercise our freedom in serving God or Satan.
[What does that mean for the mandala of the heart?]
[Even stranger, do the terms ‘responsibility versus words’ coincide with the terms ‘lawacceptance versus lawdenial’?]
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?]
[Let me compare this to ‘the message underlying the word ‘religion’‘.]
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))]
[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.]
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.]
