The first task or group concerns the semiotics of speech-alone talk. One of these would be about unveiling the hidden history of a word. This topic is addressed in chapters 2 and 12.
[The materialist ideologies of the Cold Battle (1945-1989 AD; 7745-7789 U0’) desired to control this fundament of civilization.
However, if “property” cannot be smelled, tasted, touched, seen or heard, then what on earth is it?]
Summary of text [comment] page 82
[If Rousseau is correct, then the word “property” is a socially constructed term that allows the sensible construction of civilized economic and political systems.
If this coagulation of social and sensible construction did not have surviving power, then it would not exist today.
Civilization, an expression of unconstrained complexity, relies on the social construction of “property”. We project the referent “property” into our experience of the word “civilization”.]
[Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778 AD; 7512-7578 U0’) in his second discourse, proposes that civilization is founded on the idea of property.
The title of that discourse, by the way, is Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality.
Does that title sound vaguely familiar?]
Summary of text [comment] page 82
[How did speech-alone talk potentiate unconstrained complexity?
Consider the word “property”.
Property is not a thing. One cannot see, hear, touch, taste or smell the referent. The referent cannot be pictured or pointed to.
The purely symbolic word ‘property’ did not exist in hand-speech talk. Its referent cannot be imaged or indexed.
Speech-alone talk can label anything, even non-sensual things like “property”.
Real things and patterns no longer receive iconic and indexal words. Instead, we project iconic and indexal qualities into words that label things that we figure must be real, like the word “property”.]
[Of course, the hypothesis of the first singularity changes all that.]
Summary of text [comment] page 82
[At this point, ‘concupiscence’ is a word supported by two oppositions, one belonging to Church doctrine and one belonging to Schoonenberg.
The technical difference may be described, using the Greek opposition, as follows:
For Church doctrine, ‘flesh’ is different than ‘reason’. ‘Flesh’ is subject to ‘the state of being with Cupid (a pagan god of desire)’. The fancy word for this state is ‘concupiscence’.
For Schoonenberg’s speculation, ‘flesh and reason’ are distinct but inseparable. Both are different from ‘spirit’. Both ‘flesh and reason’ are subject to concupiscence. Concupiscence encompasses both material and immaterial desires, as well as personal and social conditions.]
Summary of text [comment] page 82
[Paul and John’s letters try to make sense of the mythos of Jesus the Christ.
Yet, I see another movement, another mythos, opening before me. First century Greek, Roman and (most likely) Aramaic languages were changing. Schoonenberg did not see that opening. But, he did see a crucial point.]
Schoonenberg noted that the oppositions between ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ and between ‘the world’ and ‘the Father’, in Paul and John respectively, called for a new theology.
This new theology saw concupiscence, not only in man’s material nature, but also in his whole human being, including his being among other human beings.
‘Concupiscence’ encompasses both our (post-first-singularity human) material and immaterial natures, as well as our personal and social natures.
[The mythos is this:
In speech-alone talk, the entire language may turn, like a flock of birds in flight or like a flock of birds over time.
This mythos touches base with two complementary insights, one from the evolution of talk and the other from a passage in Exodus.]
Summary of text [comment] page 82
[Both Paul and John’s letters endeavored to make sense of the mythos of Jesus the Christ. Each author tried to figure out the Logos. The question before them was:
What was meaning, guarantee and message underlying this revelation?]
