Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 LD
04/25/18
Category Archives: The Evolution of Talk
The “evolution of talk” covers the evolution of the human capacity for language as well as the modes in which that capacity is expressed. Aspects are discussed in chapters 1,2 and 7 of An Archaeology of the Fall.
04/24/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 LC
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Paul served his own delusion in words and bondage.
In the mirror of his world3a, Paul desired1a to be recognized as morally superior to his inadequate peers2a.
When Paul spoke to himself, he addressed his mirror of the world3a.]
04/20/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 LA
[Plus, there are three types of desire: the desire to approach, the desire to avoid, and the desire to not be bothered.
I cannot approach my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.
I cannot avoid my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.
But, I can desire not to be bothered by it.
Weirdly, this supports the modern notion of “freedoms” as negative rights. The original American constitution establishes the freedom not to be constrained by the state (religion).]
04/19/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KZ
[What does this mean?
‘Something2a’ was my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.
What does that have to do with desire1a?
Desire1a is a possibility inherent in me1a, but it is not the only possibility.]
04/16/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KW
[Obligations went from responsibilities to words.
The words of the Law put the majority in bondage.
Common folk (the so-called “deplorables”) were required to meet traditional family and tribal obligations.
They were never adequate when it came to ritual purity. They were good people, but they were cast as losers
All they could hope for was to avoid accusations of thinkanti-object, that is, rumors that would ruin one’s life and relations.
Does that sound vaguely familiar for today’s (2017) America?]
04/11/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KT
[Also, the obligations of tribe and family are particular.
My particular tribe and family may have a tendency to micromanage. Petty demands add to time-honored expectations.
Plus, there will always be a slacker in the house.
Plus, the family and tribe may have a debilitating tendency to blame all their woes on one person. Everyone wants to be blameless, so nothing gets done.
The Law of Moses mitigated that.
The Law of Moses held out the possibility of reward (or, at least, not punishment) for the individual with initiative, despite family and tribal obligations.]
04/10/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KS
[In contrast, tribe and family may been trapped in their own word-games.
For example, the tribe is always at war with the rest of the world.
The 10 commandments do not encourage the universal thought experiments.]
04/4/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KO
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Here is an easy example.
A parent says to a child:
“You are free as long as you do your homework.”
Then the child does not fulfill “his” responsibility.
As soon as “he” turns on the TV, sitting and watching2a becomes the something2a that enslaves “him”.]
04/3/18
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 KN
[What is the actuality2a that fundamentally transforms freedom2a(1a) into bondage2a(1a)?
This ‘something2a’ emerges from and situates the possibilities inherent in me1a.
The mirror of the world3a or the thought experiment3a brings ‘something2a’ out of the possibilities inherent in me1a.
I may think that something2a enslaves me.
Actually, the relation3a enslaves me.]
03/19/18
