Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UE
[What does this observation imply?
Did the word “free” shift within a changing symbolic order?]
03/28/19
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.
03/27/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UD
Is there a difference between the terms free will and free choice?
Augustine wrote of a free will in contrast to a slave will, even though both retained free choice.
Anselm contrasted simple choice (arbitrium) and Christian liberty (libertas). This does not quite fit Augustine’s opposition of free and slave wills.
03/26/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UC
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
Scriptures tell of the ‘heart’. Church doctrine tells of ‘free will’.
In the pagan Greek and Roman world, the ‘heart’ had ‘free choice’ (libertum arbitrium).
So, the terms became confused.
03/22/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 UA
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[What about the potentials underlying the heart2?
‘Free will’ associates with the something that I may choose1V (and by comparison, with consciencespecified1V).
Does ‘free will’ also associate to the grounds of the exercises of the heart2H(1H)) (and by comparison, with ‘the potential inherent in me1H’)?
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”.]
03/8/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TQ
[Despite the inadequate wording, what a resonance imply?
Maybe, what is good and what is bad2( free will1V)) complements heart2(free will1V)).
Would this fit Schoonenberg’s claim that free will becomes liberty when deeds are bound to God and becomes servitude when deeds are bound to sin, law or death?]
02/21/19
02/18/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TC
[In scholastic terms, the thinker–container belongs to ens reale (mind-independent realness) even though ‘thinking itself’ goes with ens rationis (mind-dependent realness).
Yet, the mind-independent-ness of the thinker as container is different than what the scholastics understood ‘ens reale’ to be.]
02/15/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TB
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[The prior blog reminds me of the quandry posed by Decartes’ formula, “I think, therefore I am”.
“I think” goes with ideas inside of me. “Therefore, I am” asserts the existence of the thinker (as a container of I think).]