07/31/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XP

Summary of text [comment] pages 86 and 87

[Let me return to the interscope of the thought experiment of ‘I choose something’.

I, seat of choice3b, elevates and embodies the actuality of my choice2b, which, in turn, emerges from and situates the potentials inherent in something1b.

The possibilities inherent in me1a underlie something2a, which is then situated as a potential.

What is the normal context for something2a?

A thought experiment3a.]

07/17/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XF

[A good example is found in my work:

Comments on Wayne Proudfoot’s Book (1986) Religious Experience

Dr. Proudfoot (writing in the 1980s) eagerly takes Schleiermacher (writing in the 1800s) to task. In order to demonstrate cause and effect in the religious experience, Proudfoot inadvertently selects a few elements out of a three-level interscope. He neglects all other elements.

Of course, if I selected any two elements in the nine-element matrix, I could declare that one element caused the other (provided that the seven other elements remained constant). This is not false. However, this would be deceptive. My selection would neglect all the other elements in the interscope.

Dr. Proudfoot was awarded a book award from the American Academy for Religion for his efforts.]

03/7/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TP

Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84

[I compare the intersecting forms of the thought experiment where I choose ‘something’ and the message underlying the word “religion”.

I find that something that I may choose1V parallels consciencespecified1V.

I feel that I should label this parallel: Free will.

Perhaps the word “parallels” is insufficient.

How about complements or resonates with?]