Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 RR
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Obligations tend to be unavoidable.
Responsibilities tend to be character building.
Words tend to be deceptive.]
12/26/18
Category Archives: Unveiling words
The first task or group concerns the semiotics of speech-alone talk. One of these would be about unveiling the hidden history of a word. This topic is addressed in chapters 2 and 12.
08/31/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 OP
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[True conversion occurs when a feature in the mirror of the world offers the truth. The something2H that appeals to a potential in me1H does not contain value1V.
Value1V conflicts with desire1H.
This discrepancy calls for a choice2V.]
07/24/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 NO
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[What happens to the tobacco smoker?
The mirror of the world (including the progressive regulatory zeitgeist)3a no longer allows value1b to coincide with desire1a.
The following diagram shows the interscope restricted to sensible construction (a two-level interscope.
The next diagram shows the intersection, occurring under the influence of the thinkpro-object of citizen health.]
07/9/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 NC
[The technical term is ‘reciprocity’
Each of us intuitively knows that nothing is truly free. To accept a gift is to accept the responsibilities of reciprocity.
This raises a fascinating sociological question:
How does one engage in reciprocity with an institution?]
06/27/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 MV
Summary of text [comment] page 83
Schoonenberg wrote that we exercise freedom in serving either God or Satan.
[The claim, “I am not responsible.”, touches base with the modern definition of the word “freedom” as lack of obligations, especially impositions by family, tribe and religious cultural institutions.
The irony is that this assertion, rather than achieving a lack of obligations, merely transfers one’s obligations to institutions that declare themselves to be responsible.
How clever the Progressives can be.]
06/25/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 MT
[… that obligations3H(2 for the intersecting nested forms, corresponds to:
Mirror of the world3H(my heart2
In the intersection, my heart2 is the single actuality of my choice2V and ‘something’ contextualized by the mirror of the world2H.
Words3H(2H, excuses3H(2H and resentments3H(2H correspond to the latter actuality.
They still cry out, “I am not responsible.”
But how irresponsible is that?
In my heart, I know that the values that I have been choosing1V no longer represent the desires inherent in me1H.
In our heart, I know the truth that I cannot accept:
My resentments are co-opposed to bondage.]
06/7/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 MH
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The elite’s desire to blame others for whatever bothers them2a is the ‘something2a’ that holds Americans in bondage.
Progressive experts thrive on representing the good ones and identifying and destroying the bad ones.]
06/6/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 MG
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[My own inadequacy in understanding how to fulfill God’s laws2a was the ‘something2a’ that held first century common-folk Jews in bondage.
Paul, on the other hand, originally felt that he counted among the elites.
He knew how to fulfill God’s laws:
Persecute the followers of Jesus.]
06/5/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 MF
[In the above examples, what do I desire?
I want to get along.
Therefore, the elites must never be satisfied with me.
They will always be morally superior in order to force me to pretend to desire things that I would never would desire on my own.
I desire to be left alone.
What I do to accomplish that desire validates the values that valorize elite moral superiority.]
06/4/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 ME
[How did we get this way?
It started with the first singularity.
Humans adopted a new way of talking, speech alone talk, leaving behind the referential world of hand speech talk.
Speech alone talk allows us to create purely symbolic orders3a, specialized languages3a, thought experiments3a and mirrors of the world3a, whose unintended consequences (lawessential) can be ignored, and therefore must be ignored, by the elites who benefit from the ‘something2a’ that emerges and situates the possibilities inherent in me1a.]