0081 Mark Smith points out other links between Genesis 3 and 4.
When God rebukes Adam, He curses the ground.
When God confronts Cain, He says, “…now you are cursed from the ground…”
God expels Adam and Eve from Eden.
Cain replies to God, saying, “…you have driven me out…”
Adam and Eve settle east of Eden.
Cain goes to live in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
0082 Genesis 4 does not elaborate on the crouching sin. I suppose Abel’s murder is plain enough.
Smith notes that Abel’s offering is pleasing to the Lord.
Smith adds that God does not punish Cain for murdering Abel.
Smith does not say what happens next. He is tracking two words, “sin” and “evil”.
0083 However, what happens next provides insight into the author-ity of Genesis 4. After the murder, God gives Cain a mark, deterring others from killing Cain. Cain founds a city. Within a few generations, another murder occurs. Lamech, who has two wives, murders a man with none.
0084 Here is a critique of the social conditions of the Ubaid. Increasing labor and social specializations lead to greater wealth and power. The haves learn to take from the have nots.
0085 In chapter six, Mark Smith asks, “Where does human evil begin in Genesis?”
In Genesis 3, Eve takes the fruit.
In Genesis 6, divine sons take beautiful daughters.
0086 Genesis 6:2 describes divine males commandeering human females.
What does this mean?
An extrapolation from Lamech offers an answer. These men are “divine” in name only. These wealthy and powerful “gods” have designs on women who attract their attention.
Does this sound vaguely contemporary?
0087 Then, there is the word for design, “yester”.
In Genesis 6:5, God admits that every design of the thoughts of civilized hearts is only evil, continually.
In Genesis 8:21, God, having let loose the civilization-destroying flood, regrets the act, but does not change the diagnosis. The design (yester) of the human heart is to evil from its youth.
Its youth?
Think of the start of the Ubaid.
Unconstrained social complexity is a condiiton2H.
0088 Yes, evil in Genesis, associates to design.
The same word, “yester”, appears in Genesis 2:7, when God designs a man from earthen materials.
Smith notes that “yester”, design, typically applies to craftsmanship. With the story of Noah, craftsmanship applies to thoughts. So I ask, “What tool shapes thought?” The answer is spoken words. This is an insight2V.
0089 Various origin myths of the ancient Near East mention the Great Flood of Mesopotamia as a civilization-changing event. By the time of the flood, evil and design are already joined. Everyone knows it.
0090 As far as Mark Smith is concerned, by the end of chapter six, he covers the genesis of “evil”, “sin” and the fall(out). He has only “good” and “original sin” left.
0001 Josh Hammer authors an opinion piece for The Epoch Times. Zerohedge reprints the opinion on Friday, June 4, 2021 at 9:00 p.m. The full title is “Covid-19 Has Forever Destroyed America’s Trust in Ruling Class ‘Experts'”.
0002 I only want to look at the first paragraph.
0003 I will look at this paragraph in two ways.
First, I will use the Greimas Square. The Greimas Square is introduced in Comments On Philip Marey’s Post (2021) “Insurrection”, appearing in this blog in January 2021. To date, no series has been generated for the Greimas Square in smashwords.
Second, I will use the first two levels of the society tier. The two-level interscope is introduced in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (available at smashwords). The society tier is posited in the masterwork How To Define the Word “Religion” (also available at smashwords).
The two-level interscope recently appears in this blog with Saturn-Jupiter Conjunction in Aquarius (Jan. 2021), Be Little Men (Sept. 2020) and Comments on Yoran Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Sept. 2020).
0004 Here is the first paragraph of Josh Hammer’s opinion piece, reproduced for examination in the following two blogs. There are three sentences in this paragraph. I present them in sequence.
Hammer writes, “As even many casual observers of America’s fractious politics are aware, the overwhelming majority of lawmaking at the federal level no longer takes place in Congress as the Constitution’s framers intended.
“Instead, the vast majority of the ‘rulemaking’ governing Americans’ day-to-day lives now takes place behind closed doors, deep in the bowels of the administrative state’s sprawling bureaucracy.”The brainchild of progressive President Woodrow Wilson, arguments on behalf of the administrative state are ultimately rooted in, among other factors, a disdain for the messy give-and-take of republican politics and an epistemological preference for rule by enlightened clerisy.”
0005 First, I ask the question, “How does the term, ‘expert’, distinguish itself in spoken language, defined by Ferdinand de Saussure as two arbitrarily related systems of differences?”
Or, more briefly, how does the spoken word, “expert”, hold a place in a finite system of differences?
0006 An answer: The word, “expert”, has a unique Greimas Square, a configuration of four elements (A1, B1, A2 and B2). Each element forms a corner in a square.
Here is a picture.
0007 Here are the rules: A1 is the focal word. B1 contrasts with A1. A2 contradicts B1 and complements A1. B2 contrasts with A2, contradicts A1 and complements B1.
0008 The term, “expert” goes into A1.
What contrasts with A1?
How about the word, “bureaucrat”?
“Bureaucrat” goes into B1.
0009 What contradicts the bureaucrat?
Expert discourse focuses on the subject-matter and does not take into account other issues. Subject-matter discourse (A2) is content-oriented.
0010 What contrasts with subject-matter discourse (A2)?
0012 From the prior blog, I construct the following Greimas square.
0013 Each word is a placeholder in a system of differences. Clearly, the word, “expert”, is not the same as the word, “bureaucrat”. But, the words are entangled, and therefore, the distinction is subject to manipulation.
0014 What are the key relational features of this distinction?
0015 The first contrast involves rules (A:B contrast in 1 and 2).
The expert knows the rules. The expert does not make the rules. The expert is rule-bound.
The bureaucrat makes and enforces rules. The bureaucrat is rule-following.
Hammer reinforces this contrast by saying that the vast majority of rules governing the everyday lives of Americans are made behind closed doors, by federal bureaucrats. This governance fulfills the vision of progressive President Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924, President 1913-1921). The administrative state has grown for over a century.
0016 The second pair of contradictions (A2 to B1 and B2 to A1) involves performance and discourse.
Expert discourse is bound to subject-matter. The expert knows the rules of the subject-matter. Personal and organizational circumstances are not supposed to influence the expert’s advice. The expert is supposed to be objective (and, ideally, suprasubjective).
Administrative discourse is bound to rule-making and rule-enforcing. The bureaucrat engages in ministerial operations. Bureaucrats tend to be subjective, while pretending to be objective, and intersubjective, while feigning to be suprasubjective. Hammer highlights these points by saying that bureaucrats disdain give-and-take political wranglingand prefer the ministrations of an enlightened clerisy.
0017 What does this imply?
The use of the word, “expert”, by the federal government, for a person in its employ, is misleading.
The word, “bureaucrat”, is not misleading.
0018 Does the slogan, “Trust the experts”, sound as convincing as “Trust the bureaucrats.”?
Here is a good example of deception through the manipulative use of spoken words.
0019 Second, I look at the confounding of the sovereign and institution levels of the society tier, implicit in Josh Hammer’s opinion piece, and intrinsic to BG(il)L corporate media’s use of the word, “expert”, in reference to a federal bureaucrat.
0020 The following two-level interscope portrays the first two levels of the society tier. The interscope for the society tieris developed in the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”, available at smashwords.
0021 Here is a diagram.
0022 According to the first paragraph of Josh Hammer’s opinion piece, bureaucrats exercise federal power2b within the “bowels” of the administrative state3bC. They do so by filling in legislative ambiguities and authorizations2bC. Bureaucratic decrees2bC establish the order1bC that vague legislation2bC mandates.
0023 How do federal bureaucrats develop their rule-based protocols?
They follow their “guts”… I mean… their “experts”.
0024 Of course, the metaphors of bowels and guts point to digestion. Digestion nourishes the body. What body? The administrative state?
0025 So, I ask, “What if the administrative state is a body?”
Well, the body is animated by a soul.
What is the soul of the administrative state?
0026 Well, why do the legislators pass vague laws2bC that authorize federal bureaucracies to do what they deem appropriate in order1bC to achieve certain organizational objectives2aC?
They do so on the basis of righteousness1aC.
0027 Does this imply that the Congress confounds the potential for order1bC with the potential for righteousness1aC?
Yes, for the past century, Congress establishes institutions3a within the federal government3bC on the basis of righteousness1aC, leaving the (federal) institutions themselves3aC to fill in the details of the authorizations2bC.
0028 This confounding constitutes one of two types of religion. Infrasovereign religions are institutions3aC arising out of righteousness1aC and bounded by the necessity of order1bC. Sovereign religions are institutions3aC that require (and exercise) sovereign power3bC in order to implement their organizational objectives2aC.
The other type of religion is suprasovereign3cC.
0029 While Josh Hammer’s point concerns the manipulative use of the word, “expert”, to refer to a federal bureaucrat, there is a deeper current in his opinion. Vaguely-wordedlegislation authorizing bureaucracies to fill in the details2bCconfounds order1bC and righteousness1aC and constitutes the formation of a sovereign religion3aC. Such legislation2bCviolates the first amendment of the Constitution, forbidding the federal government from establishing a religion.
It is worthy of financial support by people of good will.
Reality is the only journal, to date, closing the gap between Thomistic philosophy and Peircean semiotics.
0002 John Deely (1942-2017) finds the loops through which a thread of reality now runs. The two loops? A thread of reality? John Poinsot (1589-1644), a Baroque scholastic in the tradition of Thomism, and Charles Peirce (1839-1914), an American philosopher, chemist and intellectual voyager, formulate the same definition of sign. One marks the end of the Latin Age, the second age of understanding. The other starts the Age of Triadic Relations, the fourth age of understanding. The thread is the realness of sign-relations.
Reality is the only journal, to date, running more threads through these loops.
0003 In contrast, Razie Mah builds little figures, illuminating triadic relations. He constructs a grand theodramatic narrative, The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How To Define the Word “Religion”, where these triadic diagrams shine. They glimmer in the darkness of the current Age of Ideas.
The same darkness shrouds Reality.
0004 With this said, I open the pages of Kirk Kanzelberger’s essay, titled, “Reality and the Meaning of Evil” published in the inaugural issue of Reality (volume 1(1) (2020) pages 146-204).
0005 I also have, in hand, A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.
Perhaps, these triadic structures will serve as guides.
0006 Section one of Kanzelberger’s article, “Reality and the Meaning of Evil“, opens with a conversation between a party animal and a graduate student.
The exchange begins with the idea that evil is privation. As such, evil does not make sense.
The discourse ends with the idea that evil is real and, as such, evil makes sense.
Clearly, the conversation starts on one level and ends on another. Plus, the conversation wrestles with a very important caveat.
If evil is a positive entity, then it must have been created by God. But if God is good, and His creation is called “good” in Genesis, then evil must be privation, a lack of good. God does not create evil. We do.
0007 Does this fit into a category-based nested form?
Yes, it fits two of them.
On a content levela, the level below morality, evil is privation and does not make sense.
On a situation levelb, the moral level, evil is real and makes sense.
0008 On the content levela, we ask, “What is happening?3a” This is the platform for things and events2a, situating the potential of ‘something’ subjective1a. Here, evil is privation and does not make sense because it is subjective.
On the situation levelb, we think, “What does it mean to me?3b” This is where phantasms2b emerge from the potential of constructing objects, mind-dependent beings1b. Here is where evil is real and sensible, because it is objective.
0009 Objective?
‘Something’ objective can also be shared. It can be intersubjective. In order to become intersubjective, the phantasm2bmust be actualized. Intersubjective beings are objective and subject to rational judgment by oneself and others.
0011 In section two, Kanzelberger follows Aquinas (who follows Aristotle) by starting with the content levela.
Nature is subjective. Good is the potential of a whole subject. Evil is a privation, a compromise of the whole. A bird’s wing is broken. Poor thing. Since each subject is good in itself, conflicts between perfections (wholenesses) may be seen as loss (for one subject) and success (for the other subject).
0012 A cat breaks the wing of a bird. In doing so, the cat (a subject) acts as if the bird is an object (here, a mind-independent actuality held as a mind-dependent being). Such is the cat’s perfection. If the cat cannot perform this way, it cannot track reality.
The content level buzzes with a hodge-podge of subjects, some of which may objectify other subjects. Evil, as privation, depends on each subject. Since all subjects are different, natural biological evil has no consistency, no potential for appearing intersubjective, and therefore, makes no sense.
0013 Or, does it?
We (humans) are watching, doesn’t that count for ‘something1b’?
0014 The human, Kanzelberger writes, “aspires to know more and more of the being of nature in its natural constitution.” Humans are always busy trying to figure out what is happening3a. What does it mean to me3b?Our objective potential1btries to make sense of each subjective potential1a, resulting in our fallible phantasms2b.
The human sees the cat strike the bird2a, witnessing perfection in the cat and privation in the bird.
The cat subjectively1a wants to objectively1b wound the bird.
The human throws a guess2b as surely as the cat throws its paw.
0015 A phantasm2b does not gain the full potential of its objectivity1b until it becomes intersubjective1b. In order to become intersubjective, it must be constellated2b.
0016 An objective phantasm2b can become intersubjective1b, in two, non-exclusive ways, through judgment2c and through discourse2a.
In the first option, the intersubjective1b stands at the gates of the suprasubjective1c. Passage leads to a judgment2c.
In the second option, the object2b stands at the gates of human blather1a.
0017 Blather?
An event2a gives rise to a phantasm2b, in the mind of a beholder, who, without delay, decides to release that phantasm2bfor someone else to hear2a. The decision3c casts the phantasm2b down, like a bolt of lightning, into an event2a, born of human subjectivity1a.
0018 The observer says, “Did you see that? That cat broke the bird’s wing.”
To which the graduate student replies, “Say what?”
“That cat is evil!”, the observer declares.
“Oh no, God made all cats in His goodness. But, still, the cat’s action may be a symbol of an evil, murderous and immoral spirit. The symbol doesn’t apply to the cat. The cat becomes a symbol to us.”
