Summary of text [comment] page 83
[In the interscope, the categorical transition of obligation goes with the content level nested form:
Thought experiment3a( something2,a( __1a))
One type of obligation is responsibility. The other type is words.
Here is the arena where freedom in God or bondage in Satan plays out.
Once an obligation illuminates the mirror of the world3a, then (what Schoonenberg called) “service” follows.]
[Once the contradictions within the single actuality of the heart2 are resolved, the mandala of the heart becomes an icon, rather than a lived experience.
The intersection reverts to interscope.]
[The general term ‘obligations’ contains both ‘responsibility’ and ‘words’.
Responsibility stands in contrast to words.
Both are categorical transitions within the intersection.
Both go with the horizontal nested form:
Thought experiment3H(my choice2V and something2H(__1H))
Here is the arena of free choice, for good or evil.
Here is where the obligation is forged as either responsibility or delusion.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The previous blog leads me to what Schoonenberg wrote next:]
The free choice, for good or evil, always implies some obligation. We exercise our freedom in serving God or Satan.
[What does that mean for the mandala of the heart?]
[Even stranger, do the terms ‘responsibility versus words’ coincide with the terms ‘lawacceptance versus lawdenial’?]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Obligations parallel the horizontal axis pair:
Lawessential3H( human thoughts2V and human actions2H(_1H))
Or:
Lawessential3H( what is good and what is bad2( _1H))
Do these look compatible?
Do obligations parallel the essence of the law?]
[Let me compare this to ‘the message underlying the word ‘religion’‘.]
