Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XI
[Theologians struggled to clearly articulate how heretical distortions were wrong. In the process, they constructed the ideas that Schoonenberg retells in his book ‘Man and Sin’.]
07/22/19
Category Archives: Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in
Human psychology evolved under in the social milieu of constrained complexity. Currently, humans live in unconstrained complexity. What has this done to our minds? These topics are addressed in various parts of An Archaeology of the Fall, particularly in chapters 8C and 11B.
07/19/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XH
[Throughout history, Christian believers wrestled with heresies that focused on certain relational elements while ignoring the other elements. These heresies distorted the big picture.
Impressions that something was lacking were confirmed by subsequent events.
For example, many heresies often have a way of making some people look better and others look less.
Subsequent events confirm these impressions.]
07/18/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XG
[Heresies tend to separate one element in these nested forms from other elements.
In doing so, they misrepresent the relationality that is inherent in virtue, grace, Christian liberty and other theological terms.]
07/17/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XF
[A good example is found in my work:
Comments on Wayne Proudfoot’s Book (1986) Religious Experience
Dr. Proudfoot (writing in the 1980s) eagerly takes Schleiermacher (writing in the 1800s) to task. In order to demonstrate cause and effect in the religious experience, Proudfoot inadvertently selects a few elements out of a three-level interscope. He neglects all other elements.
Of course, if I selected any two elements in the nine-element matrix, I could declare that one element caused the other (provided that the seven other elements remained constant). This is not false. However, this would be deceptive. My selection would neglect all the other elements in the interscope.
Dr. Proudfoot was awarded a book award from the American Academy for Religion for his efforts.]
07/16/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XE
Summary of text [comment] pages 86 and 87
[Each of these models exhibits a simple relational structure.
The relational structure illustrates how difficult discussions of various topics, such as freedom, can be.
Imagine a thinker focusing on one structural element to the exclusion of other elements.
This is especially easy to imagine when the one thinker is trying to show how another thinker is wrong.]
07/9/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 WZ
[I proposed 2 two-level interscopes so far:
- The psychology of the person created in the image of God
- The thought experiment where ‘I choose something’
The concept of co-oppositions first appears with this model.]
07/1/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 WT
Summary of text [comment] pages 86 and 87
Schoonenberg recounted various heresies that seized upon some aspect of the heart, to the exclusion of others.
The Church struggled for balance among apparently disparate and unrelated issues.
Freedom, bondage, obligation, words, responsibility, thoughts, and deeds were related.
But how?
06/28/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 WS
[In the gnostic paradigm, secret knowledge may alter the fate of a person. Secret incantations permit the soul to perform the proper actions in order to return to the source.
Can I, seat of choice3V, compare to someone who holds secret knowledge?
Or does the acquisition of secret knowledge compare to a thought experiment3H?]
06/26/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 WQ
Summary of text [comment] page 85
[In the astrological fixation, the fate of the person is determined by the alignment of the planets and stars.
Does this sound like a deterministic thought experiment3H or a contender for I, seat of choice3V?]
06/21/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 WN
Summary of text [comment] page 85
[The questions in the previous blogs correlate with the normal contexts of the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’.
Consider the two-level interscope, then the intersection.]