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.
An expert in Medieval Philosophy, Armand Maurer, traces their history, backwards from Charles Darwin. He publishes an article in The Review of Metaphysics (volume 57(3), 2004, pages 506-511).
Darwin thinks that his theory of evolution endowed living beings with secondary causalities more profound and subtle than hitherto contemplated. Creatures have the ability to produce new substances on their own accord. That new substance is a new species or genus.
Before this, philosophers never confront the question of evolution. So, secondary causality belongs to creatures, in accordance to the Will and Presence of God, the primary cause. Secondary causes are living creatures getting on with their lives.
As it turns out, that is also what living creatures do according to Darwin’s theory of evolution. The difference is that their survival is subject to natural selection, especially in regards to exploiting their niche.
Surely, there must be consistency here, besides that both medieval philosophers and the educated folk of Darwin’s time use the terms, primary and secondary causes.
Maurer ends with Maritain, who publishes and exploration of the role of primary and secondary causes in Darwin’s schema.
The introduction and five parts follow the Maurer’s arguments, not point by point, but according to the timeframe that he articulates. The story begins with the Book of Causes, a Neoplatonic work written around Baghdad a few decades after the death of the Abbasid caliph, Al-Mamun.
This work comments on an article by an expert in medieval philosophy, Armand Maurer, published in The Review of Metaphysics (volume 57(3), 2004, Pages 506-511). My goal is to comment on this work using the category-based nested form and other relational models within the tradition of Charles Peirce.
‘Words that belong together’ are denoted by single quotes or italics.
Dates are in Ubaid Zero Prime. 0 U0’ equates to 5800 B.C., around 7800 years ago. 0 U0’ roughly marks the first appearance of the Ubaid culture in southern Mesopotamia.
Prerequisites: A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction
According to the gospel of Matthew, after Jesus is born, wise men arrive the East, following a “star”. Of course, the term, “star”, must be broadly construed, pertaining to the superlunary domes, as opposed to the sublunary planes. The motions of superlunary beings represent ‘something’ to the magi, corresponding to ‘something’ in their sublunary situation.
They read the “star” as a sign ofa birth of a king.
The magi are “magical” is so far as this: There is no direct cause whereby a divine superlunary being activates, moves, arranges or manipulates ‘something’ in our sublunary realm. Yet, causation appears to be present.
In Comments on Fr. Thomas White’s Essay (2019), “Thomism and the New Evangelization”, available at smashwords.com, one finds a parallel with primary and secondary causation. Primary causation entails God’s Will and Presence. Secondary causation pertains to God’s creatures. Creatures exhibit secondary causation, without compromising the primacy of God.
The “magic” at the heart of modern and premodern astrology re-articulates a foundational distinction in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas.
The indirect causality of astrology, as well as of primary and secondary causes, is captured by the four statements embedded in the category-based nested form.
Let me consider astrology.
An actuality2 occurs our sublunary world.
Its normal context3 and potential1 pertains to the superlunary sphere.Here is how that looks.
There are events on earth. There are events in the heavens.
One belongs to actuality2. The other is held by potential1.
So, how does the modern astrologer, like the magi of old, offer the newborn Christian a gift?
Recently, a particular set of celestial events unite modern and ancient astrologies. Modern astrology considers the influence of celestial bodies that cannot be viewed with the naked eye, such as the dwarf planet, Pluto. Premodern astrology considers planets visible to the unaided eye, from Mercury to Saturn.
The notable event is the conjunction of Pluto and Saturn in Capricorn on January 12, 2020. This particular conjunction is one step in a minuet involving Pluto, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, dancing on the dividing line between Capricorn and Aquarius.Here is the nested form for this celestial event.
The zodiac sign of Capricorn serves as a normal context3.
In the previous blog, I consider the imagery of Capricorn in light of the first singularity. Capricorn associates to the manifestation of civilization in southern Mesopotamia after the first singularity. Surely, such a claim fits with the standard mythic connection between Capricorn, sovereign power and order.
Several weeks have passed since the conjunction. I may now look back and assess how the sublunary realm2 appears to manifest the potential of this conjunction between Saturn and Pluto1. Saturn is the titanic god of time, itself. Pluto rules over the stark duality of death and rebirth, along with all its resonances, such as darkness and light.
I ask the following question in the middle of March 2020.
Is there an event that brings, to light, an incident that says, “Your time is up.”?
Such an incident would conform to the anticipated actuality2.
There is a candidate.
Earlier, doctors in the city of Wuhan sound warnings. On January 12, 2020, they are suppressed and ordered to sign self-effacing documents. Why? The city prepares for a pre-lunar new year banquet. The feast will be the send-off for millions of its citizens, who plan to return to their hometowns and villages to celebrate the new-year holidays. This is the year of the rat.
Nine days later, on January 21, 2020, government authorities place Wuhan and adjacent cities under lockdown. Wuhan surrenders to a plague. The disease rapidly spreads throughout the world. Eight weeks later, quarantines and lockdowns occur in South Korea, Italy, France, Spain and the United States of America.
Here is my assessment.
Figure 4. Dynamics of astrology
Surely, there is no instrumental or material cause acting between the normal context3 and actuality2, as well as between the potential1 and actuality2. Direct causality is the stuff of modern science. Disciplinary languages, mechanical and mathematical models, as well as measurement and observation are imbued with the character of actuality2. But, actuality2is not all there is.
I cannot smell, taste, touch, see and hear a normal context3 or its potential1. Yet, I sense their relevance. I cannot observe or measure them. Or can I?
I can observe and measure the Saturn-Pluto conjunction. Isn’t that real?
Yes, but I cannot bring the conjunction1 into relation with actuality2 without a triadic relation. A normal context3 is needed in order to bring the potential of the superlunary event1 into relation with the actuality of a sublunary event2. A sublunary event2 emerges from (and situates) the potential of the superlunary event1. The fall of Wuhan, and all its sequelae2, emerges from (and situates) the potential of the Pluto-Saturn conjunction1, in the normal context of the sign of Capricorn3.
This nested form belongs to modern astrology. It touches base with the views of ancient astrologers, such as the magi, the wise men in Matthew’s gospel. It parallels primary and secondary causation, familiar to medieval and modern scholastics. There is more to the world than the category of secondness, the realm of actuality. Humans cogitate in the way of the category-based nested form. Both modern and ancient astrologers offer the newborn Christian a gift, an insight that bears witness to a relational structure, common to all and endowed by our Creator.
The time has come for a sabbatical. 2020 is it. Will post various thoughts and curiosities for the next year. Passing thoughts. What a Qurious year on the horizon. Enjoy the show.
Two actualities were evident: the event of the choice2 and the actuality of something2.
Two actualities implied two nested forms: I choose something and a thought experiment where something forms in my mind. The former goes with the event. The latter goes with the actuality of something.
Thus, the idea of ‘I choose something’ became the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’.]
