Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 YR
09/11/19
Category Archives: Interscope & Intersection
09/10/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 YQ
Summary of text [comment] pages 87 and 88
[To me, it seems that concupiscence (literally, ‘the state of being with Cupid’) resonates with bondage. Disintegration goes with words.
Imprisoning, disintegrating words are co-opposed to bondage-inducing concupiscence.]
09/9/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 YP
[Responsibility and freedom are open to grace.
Words and bondage are not open to grace.]
09/6/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 YO
[Note how Schoonenberg echoes the previous co-oppositions.
Obligation is co-opposed to exercises of the heart.
Responsibility is co-opposed to freedom.
Words are co-opposed to bondage.]
09/3/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 YL
Summary of text [comment] pages 87 and 88
[On one hand, the realm of actuality does not like contradictions.
It obeys the laws of non-contradiction.
On the other hand, if there is a contradiction, then there is actuality.
This is why the person knows “he” has a heart2 only when it is broken (filled with contradictions).]
08/30/19
08/29/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 YJ
Summary of text [comment] pages 87 and 88
[For the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’, the interscope does not have a heart.
The intersection has a heart and that heart is broken. My heart2 is the single actuality containing my choice2V and something that situates my potential2H.
The imposition of a psychological experiment generates contradictions within these two actualities.]
08/28/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 YI
[Obviously, the interscope and intersection are exclusive.
The nested forms go either one way or the other.]
08/27/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 YH
[When can a researcher know whether the interscope or intersection applies to the conditions of the survey?]
08/26/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 YG
Summary of text [comment] pages 87 and 88
[What about surveys where the intersection applies?
What about surveys where ‘the something that I may choose1V’ does not correspond to ‘the something that emerges from and situates me2H’?]