[My heart2 both emerges from and situates the potential in me1H and the potential in something (that I may choose)1V.
The first is desire. The second is value.
Even though the two actualities contradict one another, they both belong to one actuality. My heart2 is marked with contradictions that are not easily resolved.]
[The thought experiment3H or the mirror of the world3H brings the potential in me1H into relation to something situating the potential in me2H plus my choosing2V.
I, seat of choice3V, brings the potential in something (that I may choose)1V into relation to something situating the potential in me2H plus my choosing2V.
My heart2 is the single actuality constituted by two actualities of ‘something situating the potential in me 2H‘ plus ‘my choosing2V‘.]
[The thought experiment where ‘I choose something’ produces three models.
One is an interscope.
The other two are intersections.
Only one version of the intersections is considered. In this model, the interscope’s situation level became the vertical nested form. The interscope’s content level became the horizontal axis.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Some people do not like the word “Satan.
Perhaps another word for the perspective level is the German word: Zeitgeist.
“Zeit” means ‘of the times’.
“Geist” means ‘spirit’.
Perhaps, Zeitgeist could become a technical word:
geistProgressive]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[The previous blog raises an interesting question:
What puts ‘the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’‘ into perspective?
Note Schoonenberg’s refrain: In our freedom, we serve God or Satan.
Both perspectives appear in the mirror of the world.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[The thought experiment produced two models.
One of these models consisted of two interscoping nested forms, corresponding to content and situation. A third level, perspective, always available and influential, is never mentioned.
This arrangement indicates sensible construction, as opposed to social construction.
Man and Sin: A Theological View was originally published in 1962. The author was Dutch Jesuit theologian. He mimicked the contemporary social sciences by trying to be sensical. Sensical material is situated by sensible construction.
The irony of sensible construction is that it does not challenge the perspective level.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
Note Schoonenberg’s comment: In our freedom, we serve God or Satan.
[For the past few months, my blogs riffed off of page 83.
The thought experiment where I choose ‘something’ served as a tool for investigating Schoonenberg’s passage on responsibility and freedom.
Redemption is freely choosing to be responsible.]
[Normal contexts follow the logic of exclusion. However, exclusion is difficult to attain.
Sin enters through destructive ideas in the mirror of the world.
Law enters through the self-justification of I, seat of choice.]
[My associations show that the bondage of personal sin already reflects a normal context (the thought experiment, the mirror of the world) both beyond and within the person.
Perhaps, the bondage of sin and the bondage of a religionsovereign are not so different.]
