0059 Okay, back to the is-it-still-living turtle.  It has yet to start um… becoming less fresh.

It is on the table, but no one in our current Lebenswelt knows what to do with it.

Back in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, I suspect that we would just eat it without delay.  Or, we would take it back to camp and throw it in the fire.  Then, everyone would eat it.

Sharing food is one of the hominin’s adaptations.

0060 At this juncture, two interscopes are presented.  Human subjectivity ends the previous section.  Divine suprasubjectivity starts this section.  Or, is it the other way around?

Here is a picture of what I know so far, as it applies to prelapsarian Adam and the images of God in the Creation Story,associating to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0061 When I open the scroll of Genesis, I first encounter the Creation Story.  The Creation Story ends at Genesis 2.3.  Then, I read into the story of the Garden of Eden, starting at Genesis 2.4.  Adam and Eve are specially created in the Garden of Eden.  Should I suppose they must be the Creation Story people who come forth as images of God?

Saint Augustine presumes this to be the case.  Adam and Eve are the first humans.  That means that all humans are direct descendants of this original pair.  Augustine’s construction of original sin currently comes under fire by evolutionary biologists, because there is no evidence for a genetic bottleneck of the magnitude expected from a species arising from two individuals, male and female.

Of course, biological research cannot hold a candle to Augustine’s literary flame.  So, they rely on the oxygen-deprivation of scientific respectability.

Augustine is the first theologian to propose a mechanism for the transmission of original sin.  Technically speaking, that mechanism is not plausible, given modern science.  Surely, Augustine’s words capture the imagination.  But, in the era of science… gasp… they cannot breathe.

0062 That is not all.  Despite the asphyxiation of scientific discourse, I have my own petty criticisms.  Here is one.  The Creation Story says that God created them, male and female.  Adam and Eve are not “they”.

The Story of the Garden of Eden cleverly starts with “them”.  The name, “Adam”, means (more or less), “Earthman”.  “Adamah” is a general term for “humanity”.  But, the drama ends up with the eviction of two pathetic individuals from the presence of the tree of life.  So, Adam and Eve turn out to be real people, who are remembered in a fairy tale.

0063 Back to the previous figure.

From the God-eye point of view, the human niche_1a virtually underlies the potential for appreciating humans as images of God_1b.  For biologists, the human niche_1a consists of the potential of triadic relations_1a.  Triadic relations are actualities that exist independently of the adapting species.  The human niche_1a is not material.

Human sensations and feelings_2a are adaptations that exploit the human niche_1a.  Our active bodies and sensate souls_2aserve as instruments for detecting and taking advantage of triadic relations, such as signs.

Biologists may be satisfied with this content-level nested form, as long as the metaphysical terminology is kept in check.

0064 That check is immediately set aside upon entering the situation level.

What is another word for the potential of situating our evolved sensations and feelings_2a?

One word is “creation”.  Another term is “creation of humans in the image of God”.

In the normal context of the first chapter of Genesis_3b, a phantasm_2b, where a human perceptive soul [informs] its reactive body_2b, emerges from (and situates) creation_1b.  Creation_1b is the potential_1b of situating our evolved sensations and feelings_2a.  Genesis portrays humans as images of God.

0065 The phantasm_2b is virtually contextualized by original justice_2c.

Now the picture is adjusted to fit.

0066 The bare-bones image of the human, where phantasm_2b virtually situates sensation_2a, seems to arrive from two separate sources, one natural and one divine.

The natural source associates to the content level.  The natural source is preternatural.  It includes nature’s (as well as our own) significations.  The natural source is immaterial, even though it entangles the material world.  Our evolved nature is tuned to signs.

Our hominin ancestors talk in manual-brachial gestures, which image and indicate their referents.  Word-gestures of hand talk picture and point to their referents.  Our hand talk has the same iconic and indexal semiotic qualities as nature’s significations.  Our hand talk joins nature’s significations.  So, it is only sensible to imagine that nature’s signs are like manual-brachial word gestures.  “Someone” sign-talks nature.

The divine source associates to the situation level.  This is where God calls His creation, “good”.  The Creation Story belongs to our current Lebenswelt.  The people who live before the start of our current Lebenswelt do not know this story.  They know their phantasms, built on an awareness that signs mean something to me.  There is a certain grace that flows into us, allowing us to imagine that “someone” talks to us in the signs of nature.

0067 Sensations and feelings_2a are both subjective and universal.

Phantasms_2b are objective.  They are judged according to their intelligibility.

Original justice_2c brings these two into relation.

0068 Judgement has a triadic structure, consisting of three elements: relation, what is, and what ought to be.

Original justice_2c names a judgment, where original justice (relation) brings the intelligibility of phantasms (what ought to be) into relation with the universality of sensations (what is).

Uh-oh, “original justice” also labels the relation.

Okay, to remove the redundancy, I will substitute the term, “holistic intellect”, into the slot for relation.

0069 Here is a picture.

0070 In a contemplative judgment, each element is not imbued with a Peircean category.

In order for the contemplative judgment to become actionable, categories must be assigned.  There are three elements.  There are three categories.  The assignment of two elements determines the third.

0071 To me, the holistic intellect (relation) goes with thirdness.  Thirdness is the category for triadic relations.  

This is not the only option.  If the holistic intellect is fixed, unwavering, unbending and so forth, then original justice (relation) would be assigned to the category of secondness, the realm of actuality.  If the holistic intellect (relation) is not fixed, and also vague, then it could be associated with firstness, the realm of possibility.

0072 An example of the latter is an “extra-credit” question that I put on the final exam in my most difficult courses: “For 10 points: Guess what I’m thinking.”

Of course, flummoxed students complain, but that is because they would rather not think in terms of judgment.  Oh, they want justice, but they have no judgment.

Take a look at the question.  “Guess” (relation) brings “what” (what is) into relation with “I’m thinking” (what ought to be).  “Guess” is a relation that belongs to firstness, the realm of possibility, because it is indeterminate.  That leaves the other two categories.

“What” (what is) is imbued either with thirdness (the realm of normal contexts, whose logic exhibits exclusion) or secondness (the realm of actuality, whose logic endorses the elimination of contradictions).  Once “what” (what is) is assigned to either thirdness or secondness, then “I’m thinking” (what ought to be) gets the last remaining categorical assignment.

So, the question has two correct answers.

To which many students respond, “That question is evil.”

Evil is a privation of a good.

0073 Now, I return to the challenge at hand.  If the holistic intellect (relation) associates to thirdness, then what about the categorical assignments to what ought to be and what is.

Well, since I expect sensation and feeling to be open to nature’s significations, as well as our own manual-brachial hand talk, what is should go with firstness.  The assignment fits the iconic and indexal semiotic properties of natural signs and hand talk.  The match also fits the notion that what is is weighed on the basis of universality.

0074 That leaves what ought to be with the category of secondness.  This assignment means that phantasms are so imbued with actuality that they are subject to the logic of noncontradiction.  In other words, phantasms are subject to correction.  What ought to be is weighed on the basis on intelligibility.

0075 These assignments circle back to the relation, in thirdness, called “the holistic intellect”.  A holistic intellect parallels a rational intellect, which also weighs intelligibility and universality.  At the same time, this parallel-to-rational intellectis more than rational, because intelligibility comes with grace and universality is preternatural.

A holistic intellect is greater than the sum of its parts.

Plus, I am no longer using the term, “original justice”, twice.

How does that smell?

My nose tells me that the turtle is starting to rot.

Maybe, it just pooped.

0076 Here is a picture of original justice_2c, as formulated in this discussion.

0077 Original justice_2c is a judgment, appearing in a divine, suprasubjective interscope.

Do I have that correct?

Is original justice_2c also a judgment characterizing human subjectivity?

The perspective-level actuality_2c seems to go into both boxes.

0078 It_2c is sort of scientific.  Evolutionary psychology depends on cognitive psychology’s observations and measurements of sensations and feelings_2a in response to stimuli.

In these experiments, stimuli act as sign-vehicles, then sensations and feelings_2a constitute sign-objects.  We humans are attuned to sign-relations.

Can scientists study human responses to signs?  Cognitive psychologists can observe and measure our sensations and feelings_2a, but they cannot detect our phantasms_2b.  They cannot use stimuli to trigger our imaginations_1b.  

0079 In addition, phantasms_2b are real and depend on the situation.  The suprasubjective Genesis Creation Story_3b offers a setting to address the question, “What does human evolution mean to me?”  It offers creation_1b as the potential of our evolutionary history_1b.

0080 The medieval theologians who come up with the idea of original justice perform a great service.  They offer us an avenue to appreciate a facet of human evolution that psychologists cannot directly investigate.  A situation-level actuality, perceptive soul [informs] reactive body_2b co-evolves with the content-level actuality, active body [substantiates] sensate soul_2a.

Still, phantasms_2b are problematic.

Why?

They are supposed to be intelligible.

But, phantasms_2b associate to opinion (in Greek, doxa), which, to me, seem intelligible, until I have a conversation with Socrates.  Once Socrates starts asking questions, then my opinion does not seem intelligible at all.

Medieval theologians want to use their philosophy to transcend phantasms_2b.  For good reason, phantasms are mind-dependent beings.  They are emotional.  They are often crazy and always subject to correction.  They can be associated with wanton desires and ambitious flights of fancy.

Avoiding phantasms is no solution.  Indeed, medieval scholastics keep running into questions about phantasms throughout their centuries of inquiry.

0081 The questions remain alive today.  The situation-level of the interscope of divine suprasubjectivity places them_2bfront and center.

In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, hominin cultures discover techniques for channeling the imagination_1b, so that the perceptive soul_2b trains the reactive body_2b within the normal context of a traditional discipline or team activity_3b.

The recitation of the Genesis Creation Story_3b is a good example.  It_3b channels the imagination_1b.  My perceptive soul_2bsynthesizes the words that I hear_2a into a message that trains my body_2b to react in a disciplined manner.  Here is a grace-filled technique_2b for situating my preternatural sensations and feelings_2a.

0082 Medieval theologians do not have today’s advantages.  They struggle to figure out the nature of original justice.  Yet, they offer insights not available from modern archaeologists, who have no convincing theories for interpreting religious symbols of the Upper Paleolithic and the Neolithic.

0083 According to Houck, prelapsarian Adam could have lived under original justice_2c in two ways (A and B).

The first way (A) is through natural original justice, offering three benefits (A1-A3).  The first benefit (A1) is that prelapsarian Adam’s higher power of reason is subject to God.  The second benefit (A2) is the soul’s lower powers are subject to reason.  The third benefit (A3) is that the body is subjected to the soul.

Aquinas notes that these natural benefits are given to the human species.

0084 In order to appreciate these natural benefits, I unfold the actionable judgment of original justice_2c into a category-based nested form.  A judgment “unfolds” into a category-based nested form on the basis of assigned categories.  Thirdness enters the slot for normal context₃.  Secondness goes to actuality₂.  Firstness becomes possibility₁.

I label the resulting category-based nested form with the term, “commitment_2c“.

0085 How does this cohere to the scholastic insight into the natural benefits of original justice_2c?

First (A1), prelapsarian Adam’s higher power of reason associates to formal causation.  Formal cause pertains to the normal context₃ contextualizing the actuality₂.  Our holistic intellect₃ is characterized by God’s original justice.  Our holistic intellect₃ harmonizes with intelligible phantasms₂, but not with unintelligible phantasms₂.

Second (A2), prelapsarian Adam’s soul (sensate and perceptive) are subject to reason.  That is reason, not philosophy,because philosophy requires speech-alone talk.  The reason of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in practices implicit abstraction.

So, the second benefit goes with final causality.  The entire nested form of commitment_2c is built into the human body and soul as adaptations to the potential of triadic relations.  Our sensations and feelings₁ must be attuned to recognize sign-vehicles from nature and from our own manual-brachial gestures. Our perceptions₂ must intelligibly address the question, “What does this mean to me?”  But, phantasm₂ depends on the normal context₃, an intellect₃ that is holistic, not analytic.

Holistic contexts₃ characterize constrained social complexity.  Individuals within a social circle enter into the same holistic context₃.  This event-space₃ encourages particular sensations and feelings₁, guiding awareness in the perceptive soul₂, which informs and trains the reactive body₂.  The roles of social circles in human evolution is found in Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big.

Third (A3), prelapsarian Adam’s body is subject to his soul.  This keys into the way that instrumental causality binds actuality₂ to potential₁.  The instrumental causality becomes apparent in the interscope of human subjectivity when the body and the soul appear on both the content and situation levels.  Plus, instrumental causality is brought to completion with its incorporation into the final causality that includes a holistic intellect₃.

0086 The second way (B) that prelapsarian Adam lived under original justice_2c is due to sanctifying grace.  Aquinas waffles on this claim, eventually coming down in favor of the presence of sanctifying grace.

0087 Does this resonate with original justice_2c as actionable judgment?

Commitment_2c is how original justice_2c manifests in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  Original justice_2c unfolds into commitment_2c.  Hand talk cannot image or point to commitment_2c.  Nevertheless, one’s commitment_2c guides behavior.  One’s behavior can be tracked by others.  The resulting feelings_2a give rise to phantasms_2b.  Feelings_2a and phantasms_2bare implicitly abstracted in original justice_2c, inspiring commitments_2c in others.

This looks like a feedback loop to me.  Plus, there is something interesting about this feedback loop.  It originates in divine suprasubjectivity.  Yet, it describes a loop within human subjectivity.

What does this imply?

Perhaps, sanctifying grace demands a comparison of the interscopes of human subjectivity and divine suprasubjectivity.

0088 Here is a picture of human subjectivity, with commitment_2c as the nested form derived from the judgment of original justice.

0089 Here is a picture of divine suprasubjectivity, with original justice_2c as a judgment.

0090 The first comparison to be made concerns the perspective levels.

0091 How does grace operate?

Grace inflows nature.

Here, original justice_2c is a grace that sanctifies (makes holy, sets aside for the divine) human judgment_2c.  The human intellect (relation, thirdness) holistically weighs the intelligibility of perceptions (what ought to be, secondness) and the universality of sensations (what is, firstness).

The evolutionary anthropologist may claim that human commitment_2c has nothing to do with the revelations that are written into the Bible (both Old and New Testaments).  But, that ignores the fact that the Bible exists.  The Creation Story stands at the opening of the first scroll.

0092 The second comparison to be made concerns the situation levels.

The situation level of human subjectivity is an adaptation into the human niche.  The situation-level normal context_3b and potential_1b of divine suprasubjectivity pours grace into the actuality_2b. Grace inflows nature.  The situation level is like consecrated bread and wine.

0093 The third comparison to be made concerns the content levels.

Does this fit the character sanctifying grace?  The content level is like bread and wine before consecration.

The evolutionary scenario_3a and the human niche_1a is the stuff of science.  A direct comparison to the content-level of human psychology is telling.  Ask any biologist about the normal context.  Evolution_3a is what is happening_3a.  But, think again, when it comes to potential_1a.  Ask a biologist about the human niche_1a and the answer will sound like, “We do not use the word ‘niche’ anymore.”

0094 Why?

Scientists feel comfortable with actuality.  Adaptations are actualities.  Ask why an adaptation evolves, and the biologist hesitates.  The answer deals with potential.  A niche is the potential of an actuality independent of the adapting species.  How can one identify that underlying actuality along with its potential?

0095 In summary, original justice_2c in divine suprasubjectivity unfolds into commitment_2c in human subjectivity.  This unfolding calls to mind a boundary-crossing intrinsic to the notion of sanctifying grace.

But there is something missing.

The normal context_3c and possibility of ‘something’_1c for the perspective levels of both interscopes remain veiled.  In the figures, they appear in the lightest of colors.  The faint labels are my humble guesses.

0096 What is the primary cause_3c,1c for the secondary cause_2c that is original justice_2c in divine suprasubjectivity?

I suspect that the normal context is Gods Will_3c and the potential is God’s Presence_1c.

What is the primary cause_3c,1c for the secondary cause_2c that is commitment_2c in human subjectivity?

Perhaps, the normal context is a question_3c, “does this make sense_3c“, and the potential is consilience_1c.  What is consilience?  It is the hope_1c that all situations can be contextualized.

0097 In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, our ancestors adapt to the niche of triadic relations.

What are the sources of these signs and mediations?

One source is nature.  Nature broadcasts significations.

Another source, working in tandem with nature, are intentional manual-brachial gestures (which I call, “hand talk”).

Another source is our behavior, which signifies our commitments_1c.  Prelapsarian commitments_2c cannot be broken down into beliefs, intentions, practices and so on.  They are holistically conceived and experienced, just like nature’s signs and hand talk.

0098 Finally, there is another source, which is not a source, but built into our (human) adaptation to triadic relations, especially signs.  Whenever someone reads signs, there is always the presumption of ‘someone’ who generates sign-vehicles.  This ‘someone’ is obvious for hand talk, less obvious for committed behaviors (because the ‘someone’ is actually an actionable judgment) and obscure for natural signs.

0099 Well, maybe an interlude is called for.

Two interscopes are in play.  In the last section, I start with divine suprasubjectivity and end with human subjectivity.  One interscope swerves into another.

0100 Once again, here is the working interscope for divine suprasubjectivity.

0101 Clearly, I use the theology of Thomas Aquinas in a manner that does not appear um… theological. Nor is it scientific.  It is both.  It is neither.

I know intellectuals.  Surely, they desire to attach the proper label to whatever goes on.  To name it is to know it, as they say.  Once the intellectual grasps the desired label, then no more mental labor is required.

So, here is a word for you: “The approach is noumenal.”

0102 Science studies phenomena.  Scholastics contemplate noumena.

The two are related in the style of Peirce’s secondness.  They are two contiguous real elements.

A noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena.

The contiguity is [cannot be objectified as].   A noumenon cannot be turned into its suite of phenomenal objects, such as size, color, shape, properties, motions, responses to stimuli and so forth.  Nor can a suite of phenomenal objects be translated into their noumenon.

0103 Maybe, this boils down to word-play.

What other options do I have besides the term, “object”?

How about “subject”?

A noumenon may be considered the subject of an inquiry.

Its phenomena are objects for scientific investigation.

But, what is the subject?

Human subjectivity?  Divine suprasubjectivity?

0104 For the content-level of human subjectivity, the subject is active body [substantiates] sensate soul_2a.  The discipline of cognitive psychology investigates phenomena related to this noumenon.  Psychologists apply stimuli and observe bodily responses. The stimuli correspond to ‘something’_1a in the normal context of what is happening_3a.  Cognitive psychologists correlate their technical observations to self-reports of sensations and feelings_2a.

Human subjectivity cannot be not objectified by the phenomena studied by cognitive psychology.

But, don’t tell the cognitive psychologists.

Then, evolutionary psychologists propose how the correlations observed by cognitive psychologists might serve as hominin adaptations to a Pleistocene environment.  Presumably, natural selection solves problems in the environment of evolutionary adaptation.  Since these problems can be inferred from archaeological data, they may be considered phenomena.  So proposed hominin adaptations are models, accounting for what cognitive psychologists observe, in terms of Neodarwinian evolutionary theory.

0105 Divine suprasubjectivity cannot be objectified by the phenomena studied by evolutionary psychology.

But, don’t tell the evolutionary psychologists.

0106 In short, the study of phenomena associated to the content-levels of human subjectivity and divine suprasubjectivitybelongs to cognitive and evolutionary psychology, respectively.  Plus, these content-level actualities_2a cannot be objectified as the phenomena that these two sciences study.  They_1a must be identified as noumena.

But, don’t tell this to the scientists.

They cannot see that empirio-schematics of their disciplines somehow resonate with the two noumenal content-levels, but do not compose them.

0107 The situation level of divine suprasubjectivity presents a worse conundrum for science.  The revelation in the Genesis Creation Story presents a normal context_3b and potential_1b for a phantasm_2b.

Phantasms_2b are associated with opinion.  Opinion, in Greek, “doxa“, is precisely what ancient philosophers try to transcend.   Socrates does such a good job of dispatching doxa that he ends up wildly popular among the Athenian youth.  Socrates uses the symbolizing power of speech-alone words with such a flair that every opinion flounders in its own contradictions.

Why do they flounder?

Spoken words generate their referents, rather than the other way around.  Once one begins to critically examine the referent of any spoken word, the magical spell is broken and the word, ideal, slogan, curse, omen, promise and rhetorical position falls into contradiction.  A (mind-independent) referent does not define the spoken word.  Instead, a word is only as good as the symbolic order that it belongs to.

This is the condition of our current Lebenswelt.

0108 This is not the condition of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  Hand talk words are icons and indexes.  They are symbols, too, because they are linguistic.  But, they are effective because they image and indicate their referents.  There are no contradictions within hominin word-gestures, because the referent defines the word, not the other way around.

With hand talk, gesture-words_2a are encountered in the same way as nature’s signfications_2a.  Sensations and feelings_2aalign.  Then, when a phantasm_2b virtually situates sensations and feelings_2a, it_2b seems to be true_1c, rather than an opinion_1c.  Plus, that truth_2b is tested in the crucible of a commitment_2c, an actionable judgment.

0109 Currently, is there a science that corresponds to the noumenon that is presented in the situation level of divine suprasubjectivity?  Or… human subjectivity?

Sociology?  Anthropology?  Cultural studies?

Shall I mention that the turtle has stopped moving and may be decomposing?

Here, it becomes apparent that the stimuli imposed by cognitive psychology mimics nature’s significations and hand talk.  The quizzical implication is that these signs are generated by a suprasensible being.

The corresponding sensations and feelings_2a should be adaptive.

Then, the imagination_1b attempts to situate these sensations and feelings_2a, in the normal context of what does this mean to me_3b.

0110 Does cognitive psychology apply?

Can cognitive psychology manipulate a situation well enough as to observe reproducible phantasms?

Or, do experimental psychologists only succeed in producing, in human subjects, the phantasms that they expect to see?

If this is the case, then do they act in the place of the hypothetical suprasensible being, mentioned above?

Hmmm.

Or, do they illuminate innate operations of the imagination_1b in response to particular sensations and feelings_2a in conditions_3a,1a mimicking the environment of evolutionary adaptation?

However one answers these questions, those productions, actions and illuminations highlight the revelatory nature of the situation level of divine suprasubjectivity.

0111 The situation level of divine suprasubjectivity poses an amazing challenge for Sociology, Anthropology and Cultural Studies.

I observe the turtle.  It seems dead.  I can conduct an experiment.  I can place it in a body of water, like the pond outside.

The normal context of the Creation Story_3b and the potential that is creation_1b appear as primary causation to a secondary causation that changes dramatically when humans pass from the Lebenswelt that we evolved in to our current Lebenswelt.  Phantasms_2b in our current Lebenswelt are not the same as those in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0112 Why?

Our current phantasms_2b are not virtually contextualized by original justice_2c.

The phantasms_2b of the prelapsarian Adam, as well as those who live in the world of hand-speech talk, are.

These phantasms express the same hylomorphe, perceptive soul [informs] reactive body_2b.

0113 Surely, phantasms_2b have facets that can be observed and measured.  These noumena should have corresponding phenomena.  Is there an academic discipline that observes and measures these phenomena, builds models and discusses the topic in its own specialized language?

Personally, I do not think that any social science that adheres to the Positivist’s judgment satisfies this expectation.

0114 Here, I close the interlude with a sigh.

Aquinas and Peirce defy the rules of the positivist intellect and offer unexpected insights into who we are.

What is the potential₁ of a turtle₂?

It depends on the normal context₃.

0115 What is the structure of a sign?

A sign is a triadic relation, where a sign-vehicle stands for a sign-object in regards to a sign-interpretant.

0116 How does this correspond to Peirce’s categories?

As a first approximation, Peirce assigns the sign-vehicle to firstness, the sign-object to secondness, and the sign-interpretant to thirdness.

That is a good start.

0117 How do the elements of sign correspond to the category-based nested form?

First, both the sign-vehicle and the sign-object are actual₂.

This implies that the sign-relation entangles two category-based nested forms.

Peirce’s first two assignments suggests that the two nested forms are separated by one level.  One expects that the sign-vehicle is on level n and the sign-object is on level n+1.  There is one exception.  If n=3 then n+1=1, rather than 4.

Peirce’s third assignment suggests that the sign-interpretant belongs to categories that are different than the sign-vehicle and the sign object.  Both the sign-vehicle and the sign-object are actual₂.  They both belong to secondness.  This leaves the sign-interpretant encompassing both thirdness and firstness.

Consequently, the sign-interpretant corresponds to the remaining categories on level n+1.  The sign-interpretant consists of the normal context_n+1 and the potential_n+1 for the actuality_n+1 corresponding to the sign-object.

0118 Here is a diagram of the general pattern.

0119 I intend to apply this pattern to the interscope of human subjectivity.

However, I cannot start with human subjectivity.  I must start with southern apes walking in mixed forest and grasslands in Africa over two million years ago.  The australopithecines walk.  Their feet are enslaved and their hands are freed.  They are about to be drawn into the niche of triadic relations.

Why?

They can address one another with manual-brachial gestures.  They pantomime.  In doing so, they image and point to natural things and events.  Their gestures are not words, yet.  However, they join in nature’s broadcast of signs.

0120 Nature’s significations decide what is happening.  So, I call them “interventional signs”.  Nature intervenes.  Nature’s significations draw our attention.

0121 The process proceeds as follows.

First, things and events themselves_2c (SV_i, sign-vehicle) stand for sensations and feelings_2a (SO_i, sign-object) in the normal context of what is happening_3a (SI_i, sign-interpretant).  

Second, these events and things_2c (SV_i) have consequences.  Consequences mean ‘something’_1a (SI_i).  Roughly, ‘something’ corresponds to the meaning of a conjunction of sign-vehicle and sign-object.

0122 In sum, nature’s broadcasts_2c (SV_i) intervene to produce a particular state of active body [substance] sensate soul_2a(SO_i) that is bound by the normal context of what is happening_3a and the possibility of ‘meaning’_1a (SI_i).

0123 Here is a diagram of the interventional sign.

0124 What is included in nature’s broadcast?

Nature’s significations are included, first and foremost.

Body habitus of fellow walking southern apes, now clearly visualized because of posture, is a natural sign.  Apes track one another in team activities.

Manual-brachial gestures are natural significations because they picture and point to their referents.  The referent defines the gesture, not the other way around.  Even when manual-brachial gestures become routinized and increasingly distinct from one another, this principle holds.  Manual-brachial word-gestures are icons and indexes.

0125 Also, natural significations raise the question, “Who am I paying attention to?”

The southern apes do not know how to answer that question.  Early Homo cannot fathom a guess.  If nature is saying something, then who is talking?

Natural significations prepare our ancestors for sensible and social construction.  Events are full of signs.  Sometimes, a sign may be sensibly interpreted with a specifying sign-relation.  Sometimes, the signs demand social construction.  For example, there are a multitude of clues for when a flood is coming.

0126 What do our early ancestors know?

They can approach, avoid or safely ignore.  They can regard the habitus of other members of the team for clues as how to respond.  They can look to others for declarations of intent. They may conclude that the source of a natural sign has its own intentions.

Our ancestors also know that they must work together, in teams, in order to get enough food for every circle of family and friends to survive.  Michael Tomasello calls the strategy, “obligatory collaborative foraging”.  I call it teamwork.

0127 What does this imply about the evolution of the hominin’s active body [substance] sensate soul?

Our lineage adapts to nature’s significations (now broadly defined).  Our sensations (active body) and feelings (sensate soul) are attuned to natural signs.  In particular, we innately anticipate that our manual-brachial word-gestures are natural signs. Why?  Manual-brachial word-gestures are icons and indexes, just like the signs of nature.

0128 What else is implied?

On a deeper plane, natural signification is true, as opposed to false, and honest, as opposed to deceptive.  Even camouflage, designed to deceive, does so plainly.  A natural sign may fool the observer. But, it does so honestly.  Our ancestors learn this lesson early.  We have a sixth sense for danger, in this regard.  Our suspicions are aroused when ‘something’ does not seem quite right, especially in regards to significations.  I call that living world of significations, “Lebenswelt”.

0129 What about the evolution of religion?

The evolution of spiritual traditions is discussed in the chapter on meaning in How To Define the Word “Religion”.  It is also mentioned in The Human Niche, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

Language evolves in the specialized hand-talk of team activities.  Language does not become its own specialized activity until the domestication of fire.  As fire is domesticated, opportunities for conversation arise.  Action-oriented specialized languages contribute to a general hand-talk language, complete with grammar.  Once grammar is habituated, then nonsensical statements can be constructed.

0130 A nonsensical statement in hand talk is a natural sign, because hand talk expresses icons and indexes.  At the same time, a modern anthropologist would call a nonsensical hand-talk sentence “symbolic”.

Why?

Not unlike the spookier instances of natural signs, nonsensical statements cannot be sensibly interpreted.  Social construction is required.  Social constructions create novel cognitive spaces, new niches for hominins to adapt to.

0131 Nonsensical “religious” hand-talk statements_2c (SV_i) trigger sensations and feelings_2a (SO_i) in the normal context of what is happening_3a (SI_i), coherent with ‘something that defies sensible construction’_1a (SI_i).  This ‘something’_1a may be a socially constructed meaning that cannot be explicitly pictured and pointed to with hand talk.

Yet, it (SI_i) can be consistently evoked with a sign-vehicle (SV_i).

0132 Does the interventional sign touch base with preternatural awareness?

If it does, then Aquinas’s formulation of original justice is relevant.

0133 The specifying sign begins where the interventional sign leaves off.

0134 A sensation_2a (SV_s, sign-vehicle) stands for a phantasm_2b (SO_s, sign-object) in regards to the potential of situating content_1b (SI_s, sign-interpretant) in the normal context of what this means to me_3b (SI_s, sign-interpretant).

0135 As discussed in Comments on John Deely’s Book (1994) New Beginnings, as well as in Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) “Semiotic Animal”, scholastics describe this situation-content mixing sign as specificative extrinsic formal causality.

Why?

I suppose that the sensation_2a (SV_s) appears to specify the phantasm_2b (SO_s), not from within the phantasm, but from the outside (extrinsic).  The conjuring of the phantasm_2b (SO) is formalized by a normal context_3b and its potential_1b (SI_s).  So, the single effect of the sign-object embodies two qualifications to its causality, an extrinsic and specifying sign-vehicleand a specifying and formal sign-interpretant.

0136 What about original justice?

Interventional and specifying signs are honed in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  They provide a conduit from nature’s broadcasts_2c to human phantasms_2b.  The interventional sign associates to preternatural awareness.  The specifying sign associates to grace.  After all, grace involves an openness to sign-relations.

Plus, I suppose that grace is active when hominins collaborate in teams.  Grace inspires the team to be productive.  Grace allows everyone on the team to have fun.  This grace is not adorned with the adjective, “sanctifying”, even though the prelapsarian Adam is apparently blessed with sanctifying grace.

0137 No, this use of the term, “grace”, recalls a use that precedes modernism.

Grace inflows nature.

I suspect that Henri de Lubac is correct in assessing that the prescholastic use of the term, “grace”, as a real element that flows into real nature, fades during the latter part of the Latin Age.

Typically, we now think of “grace” in terms of a normal context or a potential.  As normal context₃, the qualifier, “sanctifying” seems to apply.  As potential, the qualifier, “inspirational”, for some, and “bogus”, for others, might work.

0138 Yes, according to Houck, even 13th century Thomas Aquinas wrestles with the question of whether prelapsarian Adam is endowed with preternatural awareness or blessed with sanctifying grace.  The contiguity between the terms, “grace” and “nature”, already sublimates from the solidity of secondness.  A civilizational intellect declares, “Supernature and nature are distinct.“  This claim separates grace and nature.  This claim dominates the relation between grace and nature.

0139 What does this imply?

This relation of separation is one element in a judgment.  Plus, this element associates to secondness.

Nature goes with what is.  Grace associates to what ought to be.

Now, I start to see why the word “sanctifying” qualifies “grace”.  Sanctifying grace belongs to thirdness.

0140 The only category left is firstness.  Nature belongs to firstness.  Why?  Nature is contingent.

Here is a picture, following the template of original justice_2c.

0141 This judgment lasts for centuries.

The mechanical philosophers of the early 17^th century broadcast this judgment in their writings_3a,1a.  Galileo famously states that there are two books, the book of revelation and the book of nature.

0142 If I unfold this judgment into its category-based nested form, I get the following:

The normal context of sanctifying grace₃ brings the actuality of the distinction between the book of nature and the book of revelation₂ into relation with the potential of creation (that is, nature)₁.

Many scholastics of the late Latin Age would agree with this statement.

0143 Then, during the next three centuries, Galileo’s fig leaf gets torn to shreds.

Science marches during the 17^th, 18^th and 19^th centuries.

Now, in 2020, Daniel W. Houck publishes a book entitled, Aquinas, Original Sin and The Challenge of Evolution.

The power of science and technology imbues nature with thirdness.  Indeed, the rule of the positivist intellect within the Positivist’s judgment states, “Metaphysics is not allowed.”

0144 Nature becomes like a normal context.  Modernism inquires about nature excludes the divine.

What happens to grace?

Grace is whatever makes the universality of scientific discoveries intelligible… er… palatable.  How does one swallow science?  Some people can swallow science.  They fashion their own styles of grace, signaling the virtues of standing with science.  Some people refuse to give up on the primacy of sanctifying grace.  Society divides into two groups.  Those who abide by sanctifying grace and those who fashion their own, sanctimonious grace.

0145 Here is the modern judgment, dethroning sanctifying grace.  Note how the assignment of categories has changed.

0146 If I unfold this judgment into a category-based nested form, I obtain:

The normal context of nature, as revealed by science₃, brings the actuality of the distinction between the book of nature and the book of revelation₂ into relation with the potential of grace, fashioned in my own image₁.

This is a judgment that the academics of modernism would agree with.

0147 Over the course of eight centuries, a separation between nature and supernature is broadcast to our sensations_2a and re-constituted in our phantasms_2b.  The distinction between nature and supernature is an actuality that tears the curtain of Western civilization and exposes a cruel division.

Which is the boss, sanctifying grace or inevitable nature?

Those who raise the banner of sanctifying grace are called “ignorant”.

Those who gather under the banner of inevitable nature are called “educated”.

Hmmm, I wonder where this is trending?

0148 This digression offers a clue as to the nature of our current Lebenswelt.  The grace that inflows nature does not suffer elevation to thirdness or diminution to firstness.  This grace is neither sanctifying nor sanctimonious.  Rather, it belongs to secondness.  Secondness is the realm of actuality.  The grace of original justice finds its home in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0149 Is there another way to say this?

There is no distinction between nature and supernature.

Say what?

This is unfathomable.  Even Aristotle distinguishes physics from metaphysics.

0150 Yet, I can visualize grace, as a real element in contiguity with another real element, nature, by dissolving the separation between nature and supernature that is held dear by our current civilization.

Once we insist that nature and supernature are not only distinct, but independent, the judgment precipitates as a hypothetical actuality.

What ought to be [contiguity] what is.

0151 What word should I use to label the contiguity?

How about “inflows”?

All we have to do is let go of our intellectual fixation.

0152 In our postmodern civilization, the actuality, grace [inflows] nature, is hypothetical.

What is a hypothetical?

Hypo- means “under”.  -Thetical indicates “a placement or a proposition”.  So, a hypothesis underlies a thesis.

0153 What is that thesis?  What is that placement?  What is that proposition?

Ah, it must be a phantasm_2b.

0154 Grace [inflows] nature stands below the thesis, placement and proposition inherent to the phantasm_2b.

0155 Here is a picture of how grace applies to the sign-object of the specifying sign in human subjectivity.

0156 In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, grace [inflows] nature is a foundation for perceptive soul [informs] reactive body_2b.

In the normal context of natural selection₃, we adapt₂ into the niche of triadic relations₁.

0157 There are three actualities implicated in interventional and specifying signs.

Nature’s broadcasts_2c are sign-vehicles for interventional signs (SV_i).

Sensations and feelings_2a are sign-objects for interventional signs (SO_i) and sign-vehicles for specifying signs (SV_s).  The content-level actuality_2a evolves to capture nature’s significations through the active body and sensate soul.  Capturerequires preternatural awareness.

Phantasms_2b are sign-objects for specifying signs (SO_s).  Phantasms_2b consist of guesses, notions and propositions that virtually situate sensations and feelings_2a.  The reactive body_2b is trained by a perceptive soul_2b under the operations of both grace and nature.  The hylomorphic structure of the phantasm_2b parallels the actuality of grace [inflows] nature.

0158 These three actualities may be arranged into one interscope as interventional and specifying signs.

Behold, the interscope for human subjectivity as a sensorium of transcendence.

See Eric Voegelin’s book, The New Science of Politics, for that exoteric reference.

This diagram corresponds to signification in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  Clearly, there is a missing sign.  The exemplar sign binds the situation and perspective levels.  The exemplar sign-relation co-evolves with interventional and specifying sign-relations.  Yet, it is not required in this discussion of the hylomorphic realness of grace [inflows] nature.

0159 Now, I want to add two small, but insightful, substitutions.

On the content-level of this one interscope, I replace the normal context of what is happening_3a with the more evocative, mirror of the world_3a.  I replace the potential of ‘something’_1a with the possibility of ‘something in the mirror’_1a.