Summary of text [comment] page 83
[How is this seen in Scripture?
In the Old Testament, God chooses2b Abraham, revealing God’s desire1a and value1b.
Abraham, in response, chooses2b God, revealing his values1b.
Abraham desires1a God.
All the strange tests that Abraham faces (including circumcision and almost sacrificing his son) reveals and tests Abraham’s desire1a.]
[The exercise of the heart2a(1a)) is the general term for freedom2a(1a)) or bondage2a(1a)).
“Service” seems to go with my choice2b.
‘Either God or Satan’ associates with ‘the thought experiment3a’ as well as ‘the potential within each person to establish a set of different habits in response to the experiment3a’.
These different habits are like ‘the person talking back to the experiment2a’, where ‘the utterances of the whole person2a’ image or point to ‘something2a that the person desires’.
The thought experiment3a interpellates desire1a.]
[The thought experiment where ‘I choose something’ models as two interscoping nested forms and provides an opportunity to explore Schoonenberg’s statement.]
We exercise our freedom in serving either God or Satan.
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Back to Schoonenberg’s text.]
We exercise our freedom in serving either God or Satan.
[The mirror of the world3a reflects a symbolic order3a.
Responsibilities and words express the character of ‘a system of…3a’.
Correspondingly, the potentials within me1a are already refined, cut into interpellations, finite in number, because they well up in response to the normal context configured as ‘a system of…3a’.
Freedom and bondage express the character of ‘… differences1a’.
Both obligations and exercises of the heart share an actuality2a that corresponds to an utterance, emerging from and situating the potentials inherent in me.]
[What is to be found in the thought experiment3a?
The thought experiment3a is the content-level normal context.
Like the system…3a in parole, the thought experiment3a seems to be referential.
We project referentiality into the thought experiment.
But, it also exists as a symbolic order.
The system…3a sets the normal context for the potentiation of …differences1a.
Parole2a exists as a system of differences3a-1a.]
[Have I arrived at another way to speculate about responsibility (in virtue) and words (in sin)? ]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Does the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’ have both referential and symbolic character, just like the symbolic order of parole?
Does the potential inherent in me1a compare to my potential of using manual brachial gestures for hand talk1a, consisting of a finite and habitual suite of different possibilities.]
