[So maybe there is a clue to death in the interscoping form.
Repetition disorders both consolidate the gains made by death and block further progression towards death.
The interscope consolidates gains.
The intersection prevents further deterioration.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[What about death?
Death could pervade the interscoping form as a repetition disorder. Sins as words (content level) and laws as thoughts (situation level) seems to describe exactly that.
Repetition disorders were accounted for, in Freudian psychoanalysis, as a death wish. In contrast, Jung saw them as actions standing in the way of one’s demise.
Note how Freud and Jung contradict. Contradictions imply the intersection.]
[Words3a(2a go with sin.
Thoughts3b(2b go with law.]
[On the situation level:
Thoughts3b(2b are in co-opposition to deeds2b(1b)).]
[Let me break this down further.
The mirror of the world3a(something2a()) corresponds to either responsibility3a(2a or words3a(2a depending on how something2a situates the potential inherent in me1a.
Something2a situates the potential inherent in me1a as either freedom2a(1a)) or bondage2a(1a)).
So, Schoonenberg’s term “under” could correspond to the mirror of the world3a, or the thought experiment3a, that brings something2a into relation with the potential in me1a.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[How does the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’ fit the three kinds of servitude?
Let me start with the interscoping forms:
On the content level:
Responsibilities and freedom are in co-opposition.
Words are in co-opposition to bondage.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
There are three kinds of servitude that corresponds to bondage
1. under sin
2. under law
3. under death
[The thought experiment where ‘I choose ‘something’ serves as a categorical tool for investigating Schoonenberg’s passage on responsibility and freedom.
What Schoonenberg expressed, the text itself, stands within the shell of Modernism.
What Schoonenberg was required to express as a Jesuit theologian included the husk of pre-modern Scholasticism.
Perhaps, only by dying in the cryptotheology of Modernism (with its complete fixation on the realm of actuality) and by cracking the coat of pre-modern Scholasticism (with its reliance on signs, without knowing ‘what signs are’), could this text germinate into an exercise in postmodern Scholasticism.]
