Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 R

Summary of text [comment] page 80

[In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, our hand talk was both referential and symbolic. Referential iconic and indexal sign-qualities belonged to the perspective level. The symbolic sign-qualities belonged to the content and situation levels.

Grammar was powered by the symbolic operations. It allowed two symbolic orders.

One made intuitive and sensual sense.

The other did not make intuitive and sensual sense.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 Q

[In our current Lebenswelt, an adult encounters a diversity of symbolic orders unmoored from a clear sense of reference.

This poses a question:

What if we were adults in a world with a clear sense of reference?

What if we were adults who never saw a symbolic order that differed from our band’s symbolic order?

Would we be like children, as innocent as Adam and Eve?

Would our minds operate smoothly according to evolution’s manual?]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 P

Summary of text [comment] page 80

[When a child adopts the religion of his parents and folk, this adoption is developmentally different from what follows childhood.

The child executes developmental stages that belong to ‘the Lebenswelt that we evolved in’.

Under most circumstances, recognition and participation interscope.

When they do not, the child must ‘grow up’.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 O

Summary of text [comment] page 80

[When religious institutions look at the person, they see a person who needs to be repaired. Two normal contexts and two potentials intersect in a single actor.

When religions interpellate the actor, they provide a symbolic order (or specialized language) through which the person may construct “himself”. This construction may build character (as in a suprasovereign religion) or impose organization (as in a infrasovereign religion).

Either way, conversion reduces contradictions between human thought and action.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 N

Summary of text [comment] page 80

[Freud’s model describes the human psyche in a fashion that matches an intersection.

What does this imply?

Maybe, once upon a time, the id, superego and ego worked like a functioning engine. The ego was the perspective that brought the situation-based superego (conforming to social rules and traditions) into relation with the possibility of the id (expressing the desires of the individual).

Now, we are broken. We do not operate according to our evolutionary manual. Our evolutionary trajectory has been derailed.]