Category Archives: Institutions and buttonholes

Do symbolic orders form “closed systems” that depend on a “buttonholed” meaning that may or may not veil its own history. Can an “institution” be defined as a symbolic order or “language” that rules out mapping onto other symbolic orders or “languages”? This topic is addressed in chapters 7, 8A, 11, 12 and 13.

11/18/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 DE-2

[For me, the situation level of the interscoping form for sensible construction contributes to the horizontal level of an intersection. The content level contributes to the vertical level of an intersection.

Participation occupies the horizontal (or hidden) axis.

Recognition occupies the vertical (visible) axis.

One single actuality accounts for the union of two actualities.

The single actuality is ‘the state of grace’ or ‘the state of self-destruction’.

In practice, the nested form containing this single actuality should not interscope with lower levels. It may interscope with higher levels.   It usually belongs to the content level of an interscope.]

11/17/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 DE-1

[Participation may be modeled with the slogan:

Our human nature is to participate in divine nature.

Recognition may be modeled with the slogan:

In order to be ‘who I am’, I must recognize ‘myself as an image of God’.

For the interscope, recognition belongs to the content level. Participation belongs to the situation level.

Sensible construction follows when participation (situation) coheres with recognition (content).

When recognition and participation become full of contradictions (as one might predict for any life change), they no longer interscope. Instead of separating as two distinct (yet coordinating) actualities (as one might expect), they congeal into an conflict-filled intersection.]

11/1/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CT

[Only by taking the perspective of the divine can we honestly assess good and evil.

Only by taking the perspective of the divine object can we honestly assess whether we are gaining grace or self-destruction.

The normal context that holds the single actuality of the intersection reflects some perspective.

But, that perspective cannot be articulated. It is in the Zeitgeist. The Scriptures are typically not excluded in the Zeitgeist. Sometimes they are.

The divine ordination calls us to thinkdivine.]

10/31/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CS-4

[This is a model, telling how a limiting and coercive normal context may sustain a contradiction-filled intersection in order to benefit from the conflict. The detractors are blamed for ‘the failure of the sovereign religion’s thoughts and actions’.

However, once the detractors (thinkdivine and consciencefree) are intimidated into silence, and the projection of thinkanti-object and conscienceanti-object onto innocents is obvious to all, then the inherent contradictions between the self-dealing moral system and its idolatrous actions become more and more undeniable.]

10/28/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CS-3

[The content-level nested form depicted in these two blogs is:

‘Sovereign self-empowerment3a’ brings the actuality that ‘programs of the Progressive religion are good’ and ‘the rational observations of detractors is bad’2a into relation with the possibilities inherent in the feelings of the citizens (such as the feeling of entitlement or disbelief) and of the authorities (such as feelings of strength and superiority)1a.

The above actuality is ‘an intersection of human intention and human action’.

The vertical nested form (of human intention) is:

ThinkProgressive3V brings the intentions of the bureaucratic elites2V into relation with the potential of the Progressive’s self-anointed conscience1V.

The alternates (of thinkdivine and consciencefree) are placed under suspicion and threat.

The horizontal nested form (of human action) is:

Explaining away the consequences3H brings the bureaucratic actions of welfare programs2H into relation with the potential of dispositions to trade freedom & responsibility for material benefits1H.]