Category Archives: Interscope & Intersection

08/11/21

Looking at Brian Kemple’s Essay (2020) “Signs and Reality” (Part 7 of 8)

0027  Comments on Brian Kemple’s Essay (2020) “Signs and Reality”, available at smashwords, includes a story of a rot consuming the Age of Ideas, the third age of understanding.  Modernism is frozen in its gaze upon a thing, an innocent thing.  Certain modern elites hunger to financialize and harvest such innocence.  Call it what you will.  The yearning goes by many names.

In time, the rot will run its course.

Modernism will fail.

However, in this theodrama, the premodern Thomism of the Latin Age, the second age of understanding, may transubstantiate into the postmodern Thomism of the Age of Triadic Relations, the fourth age of understanding.  Deely predicts it.  Kemple aims to manifest it.  Signs are real, just like things.

0028 This is not the only fissure to appear in the scholastic mirror of the world.

Shall I elaborate?

0029 Smashwords contains an entire series of commentaries devoted to the question, “Is Aristotle’s hylomorphism an expression of Peirce’s category of secondness?“

Another series is devoted to empirio-schematics, starting with Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) “Natural Philosophy” and Comments on Nicholas Berdyaev’s Book (1939) “Spirit and Reality”.

Several commentaries in the series, Reverberations of the Fall, expand on Aquinas’s breakthrough concept of original justice.

0030 These series are not anomalies.  They are features of what happens when Thomists take seriously the very topic that they struggle to avoid.

Kemple’s advocation leads the way.

08/10/21

Looking at Brian Kemple’s Essay (2020) “Signs and Reality” (Part 8 of 8)

0031 Look to Reality: A Journal of Philosophical Discourse.

Visit the website.

Donate to its flourishing.

Read the works.

Take a course.

0032 Most challenging of all, hire a budding scholar to compare and contrast Kemple’s article “Signs and Reality”, in the journal, Reality, and Razie Mah’s Comments on Brian Kemple’s Essay (2020) “Signs and Reality”.

The assignment will not disappoint.

11/12/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BAJ

[Reason itself does not require grace. Or does it?

Since I, seat of choice3V, contextualizes the heart2, and since the heart is contextualized by the mirror of the world3H, then reason may (inadvertently) open the person to the influence of grace through the horizontal normal context.

Reason may change the heart2 just enough that the person’s intuition1H may feel grace-filled inspiration.]

11/6/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BAF

Summary of text [comment] page 88

[The vertical axis is not unaffected.

The vertical axis intersects with the horizontal in the single actuality containing ‘my choice2V and something2H’.

The single actuality of ‘my heart2’ parallels ‘what I see2’.

‘I, seat of choice3V’, encounters new ‘possibilities inherent in something that I may choose1V’.]

11/4/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BAD

Summary of text [comment] page 88

[Or maybe, grace can directly influence the potential inherent in me.

The original Old Testament notion of the ‘flesh’ as opposed to the ‘blood and bones’ reminds me of this. The flesh may yearn for what is reflected in the mirror of the world. That yearning yields bondage.

But the blood and bones yearn for God. Their yearning is for freedom. They yearn for the warmth of the divine light. They yearn to stand before the Lord.]