Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 RK

Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84

[The co-opposition of responsibility and freedom allows us to appreciate Schoonenberg ‘s text more fully.

Schoonenberg’s key opposition is between bondage and freedom.

Bondage is in co-opposition with words (expressions and impositions of organizationalobjectives and thinkgroup).

Freedom is in co-opposition to responsibility.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 RG

Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84

Schoonenberg wrote that we exercise freedom in serving either God or Satan.

[The previous round of blogs show that “freedom” is defined as the capacity to enter into responsibilities. Greater freedom means greater responsibility.

The modern opposition between “freedom” and “responsibility” conceals pre- and postmodern concepts of the co-opposition of freedom and responsibility.

The true oppositions are between freedom and bondage and between words and responsibilities.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 RF

[The camps of America may be instituted on the basis of class action lawsuits, brought by the sovereign central government, toward particular individuals or classes of individuals.

Since no individual can afford the cost of litigation, the individual must plea bargain.

As part of the plea bargain, the individual is sent to a camp.

Thus, the court system, created to serve justice, may be bent to serve the sovereign’s social justice.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 RE

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[While America has not instituted camp, yet, attempts to destroy individuals through legal assault intimate the future.

Political enemies of the Progressives have been subject to intimidating and costly lawsuits. Progressive prosecutors do not seem to pay any cost for these show trials. They build a repertoire of legal assaults to launch at anyone who becomes identified as a ‘bad one’.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 RD

[In the camp, the ones who are able to maintain the interscope are more likely to survive. They accept the perspective level, including the insane capricious rules, for what they are. Life is reduced to practical considerations: How do I survive?

The ones who process the camp as an intersection do not survive. The ones who do not survive realize that the something that I may choose1V no longer corresponds to the potentials inherent in me1H.

They realize that they have hearts. Broken hearts. Then they die.]