03/13/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TT

Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84

[Is there a parallel between heart2 and what is good and what is bad2?

Yes, they both are modeled as an intersection.

No, they are supported by exclusive normal contexts. So, the actualities within each are different.

My choice2V and something (emerging from a potential in me)2H are not interchangeable with human thoughts2V and human actions2H, even though they may be compared.]

03/12/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TS

Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84

[I can now expand the locations where the terms “sin”, “law” and “death” apply.

The sites are:

“Law” goes with ‘I, seat of choice3V’. “Law” goes with ‘lawessential3H(2’.

“Sin” goes with ‘the mirror of the world3H’ and ‘thought experiment3H’. “Sin” goes with “think3V”.]

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?]

02/22/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TG

Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84

[My speculation, of course, stands outside of Descartes’ Age of Ideas.

Both something independent of what I think1V and myself as a container of thoughts1V belong to the realm of possibility.

That means that they are upwellings in a monadic sea.

These upwellings are like two ends of a string that tie together into a knot.]