Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Of the two arrangements, only one makes sense.
Desire goes with the content level. Value goes with the situation level.
Perhaps, for certain circumstances, desire situates value.
But, in those circumstances, nothing makes sense.]
[OK, that was the intersection for the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’.
Now, I want to go backwards.
I want to go from interscope to intersection.
There are two ways to resolve an intersection.
In both, one nested form goes into the content level and the other goes into the situation level.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The intersection portrays a single actuality composed of two conflicting actualities. One actuality reveals values. The other reveals desires.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[A nugget of wisdom appears.
The integrity of the individual may be formulated as an if…then statement.
IF the person’s mirror of the world reflects YHWH,
THEN freedom describes the potentials inherent in the person.
The individual becomes responsible and free.
IF the person’s mirror of the world does not reflect YHWH,
THEN bondage describes the potentials inherent in the person.
The individual loses responsibility (words) and becomes a slave (bondage).]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[What does this model of ‘my heart2’ reveal?
When ‘the normal context of responsibility’ mirrors ‘Yahweh’, then responsibility is co-opposed to freedom.
When ‘the normal context of words’ mirrors ‘Satan’, words are co-opposed to bondage.
The next blog puts it in a visual manner.]
[The single actuality consisting of ‘something2H and my choice2V’ is ‘my heart2’.
The intersection dramatically displays two co-oppositions:
The vertical co-opposition:
Thoughts3V(2V and deeds2V(1V))
The vertical nested form:
I, seat of choice3V( my choice2V and something2H( something1V))
The horizontal co-opposition:
Obligations3H(2H and exercises of the heart2H(1H))
The horizontal nested form:
Thought experiment3H( something2H and my choice2V( me1H))]
