Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 ON

[What I want on the basis of reason2V conflicts with what used to make me happy2H.

This contradiction is contextualized by I, seat of choice3V.

Since I, seat of choice3V is attuned to reason, a true conversion may occur.

I, seat of choice3V may begin to influence my desire1H.

True conversion increases responsibility and freedom.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 OM

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[How would true conversion work in this example?

The health claims in the mirror of the world3H are rational. They contrast with what I desire1H. Yet, they adhere to my choice2V, because value1V is rational. As a result, I can envision my not smoking3V addressing a potential value1V, even though my habit2H continues to light up.

My choice2V to light up may come from the potential of something itself. I may value a ritual halt to negative thought sequences1V.

Lighting up originally connected to a potential inherent in me1a (in the interscoping form) and still does, but not so exclusively.

I am becoming more reasonable1V.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 OL

[If a sovereign power forbids me from smoking tobacco cigarettes, then my responsibilities and my freedom decrease.

My ‘I, seat of choice3V’ is overthrown. My ‘mirror of the world3H’ narrows.

My entire heart grows smaller.

The forced cessation of smoking constitutes a pathetic parody of responsibility and freedom.

It increases words and bondage.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 OI

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[What does my heart2 see in I, seat of choice3V?

My heart2 registers that my choice2V has been limited. My heart2 must realize only one something2H that I may choose1V. There is desire underlying my freedom.

I, seat of choice3V, has been dethroned.

I must submit to what the religioninfrasov has chosen for me.]