10/26/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 4 of 21)

0024 The first singularity_2H is a hypothesis in human evolution_2H.

The hypothesis explains why our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

The hypothesis pertains to the start of our current Lebenswelt.

The hypothesis is plainly stated in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

The hypothesis_2H is dramatically portrayed, in tandem with originating sin_2V, in the fiction, An Archaeology of the Fall.

This produces a balanced intersection.

0025 With this in mind, I digress, in order to discuss two complementarities between the contributing actualities (2H and 2V).

0026 The first complementarity matches the construction of what is in the Positivist’s judgment, as developed in Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy. What is presents itself as an actuality, composed of two contiguous real elements, characteristic of Peirce’s category of secondness. But, this presentation is an illusion, because the two elements are really the same thing, regarded from two different vantage points.

The real elements are a noumenon (the thing itself) and its phenomena (the observable and measurable facets of the noumenon). According to Kant, a noumenon cannot be objectified as its phenomena. So, the contiguity is [cannot be objectified as].

The two contributing actualities complement one another in the following manner.

The Fall is like a noumenon. The first singularity models its corresponding phenomena.

0027 The second complementarity matches the distinction between primary and secondary causation, which plays a role in Comments on Armand Maurer’s Essay (2004) “Darwin, Thomists and Secondary Causality” (see July 2020 of Razie Mah’s blog).

Secondary causation describes what goes on in the Peirce’s category of secondness, the realm of actuality₂. Primary causation describes what goes on in Peirce’s categories of thirdness and firstness, the realms of normal context₃ and potential₁.

The two contributing actualities complement one another as follows.

0029 This digression into the complementarity between the two contributing actualities reinforces the idea that they should balance.

In chapter four, Haarsma discusses human evolution_2H, as configured before the hypothesis of the first singularity. Indeed, he does not place any importance to the start of civilization, which is potentiated by the first singularity.

Does he realize that almost all of human evolution predates the stories of Adam and Eve?

I wonder.

Plus, I chuckle.

0030 Why?

Saint Thomas Aquinas, the great medieval philosopher, argues that original sin is the lack of original justice.

So, the long period of human evolution_2H is joined to original justice_2H in the single actuality₂ of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

Here is a picture.

0031 Wow. The size of the contributions match.

Plus, just as original sin_2V asks theorists in modern Anthropology about a recent (and immaterial) natural transition in human evolution_2H, which turns out to be the hypothesis of the first singularity_2H, original justice_2V challenges theorists in modern Anthropology concerning the nature of the ultimate human niche_2H.

0032 At present, modern Anthropology has not confronted the concept of an ultimate niche in human evolution, now elucidated in the e-masterwork, The Human Niche. The ultimate human niche is not defined by material conditions. It is defined by an immaterial condition: The realness of triadic relations.

0033 The modern scientific community follows a rule: Actuality is all there is. Models are built from observations and measurements of material actualities. These models are couched in various disciplinary languages. In the empirio-schematic judgment, disciplinary language brings mathematic and mechanical models into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena.

0034 The problem?

Material actuality is not all there is.

0035 This point is obvious in the category-based nested form, derived from the semiotics-friendly philosophy of Charles Peirce. The category-based nested form manifests the realness of triadic relations.

In the nested form, a normal context₃ bring an actuality₂ into relation with the possibility of ‘something’₁. The subscripts refer to Peirce’s categories of thirdness, secondness and firstness.

Material actuality₂ is real.

Immaterial normal contexts₃ and potentials₁ are also real.

But, don’t tell that to modern anthropologists.

As soon as the hear, they will become “postmodern”.

0036 When a human encounters an actuality, the human does not understand. The human can observe and measure the phenomena associated with the actuality. The human may model these observations and measurements. The human may discuss the model using well-defined disciplinary language. But, understanding is not modeling.

Understanding is a triadic relation. Modeling is a dyadic formulation.

0037 Understanding concerns the noumenon, the thing itself. Actuality₂ demands a normal context₃ and potential₁. Figuring out the normal context₃ and potential₁ leads to understanding.

Humans evolve to understand. Modeling things is only part of understanding.

10/25/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 5 of 21)

0038 I summarize.

Chapter four covers human evolution.

Haarsma engages in a discussion of human evolution_2H as if it does not intersect with original sin_2V. Yet it does, otherwise Haarsma would not write a book about it.

Haarsma’s titular question_2V, “When did sin begin?”, should place the hypothesis of the first singularity_2H side by side with the doctrine of original sin_2V.

But, since Haarsma is not aware of the hypothesis of the first singularity, the term, “human evolution”, goes into the slot for actuality_2H for the normal context of natural change_3H.

This does not work, of course, and leads to a winding path, back to the crucial intersection between the first singularity_2Vand original sin_2H.

0039 The path starts by asking, “What contributing actuality_2V, in a theological framework_3V, corresponds to human evolution, as Haarsma discusses the topic?”

The answer comes from Thomas Aquinas’s suggestion that original sin is the lack of original justice. Original justice is entangled with human evolution.

0040 If human evolution_2H is one of the actualities in an intersection, the corresponding actuality is not original sin_2H. The corresponding actuality is really the stuff of the Creation Story_2V.

The structure of Haarsma’s text validates this suggestion.

Chapter four, titled, “Human Evolution”, is preceded by chapter three, “Suffering and Death Before Humans”, and followed by chapter five, “The Soul, the Imago Dei and Special Divine Action”. Chapters three and five point to Genesis 1:26-31.

10/24/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 6 of 21)

0041 Chapter three asks about the phenomena of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Does natural evil exist? Do the characteristics of natural evil change at the start of our current Lebenswelt?

00428 The answer is yes, to both questions.

If the single actuality₂ is our current Lebenswelt, then the natural transition_3H entails leaving the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

Genesis 2:4-11 provides no evidence for the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Adam and Eve are depicted as ab initiocreations in the Garden of Eden.

0043 Does the Garden of Eden contain something that associates to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

Well, it seems to me that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil associates to our current Lebenswelt.

Perhaps, the tree of life associates to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

The idea pops up in Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) The Genesis of Good and Evil, appearing in the Razie Mah blog in January 2022.

0044 The tree of life is not in the middle of the Garden. It is somewhere in the Garden. Perhaps, it is everywhere in the Garden. This gives me a hint about the character of life in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

If the tree of life is anywhere, then it is everywhere. I can imagine a world where people are alive because they have access to the tree of life. I look at the life of the people of the Developed Neolithic (Genesis 1:29-31) and the Upper Paleolithic (Genesis 1:28), stretching back through the creation of man (Genesis 1:27) and even the intention of man (Genesis 1:26) and I wonder, “If the tree of life is a metaphor for living in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, then what would its roots and its branches be?”

Well, it must be ourselves, both dead and living.

0045 The tree of life is a metaphor for the creation of humans as the images of God.

Thomas Aquinas offers a term for the state of human nature before the Fall. That term is “original justice”.

What does this imply?

Theologians may one day speculate how the tree of life, the image of God, and original justice complement one another as metaphor, evocation and philosophical attribution.

But, for Haarsma’s intersection, these theological images_2V belong to a single actuality along with the long course of human evolution_2H.

0046 Here is a picture.

0047 Are we the tree of life? Or does the tree of life bring us all into relation?

The Australian Aborigines talk of dreamtime. Dreamtime brings us all into relation, dead and living. The North American Plains Indians dance in circles. Circles bring us all into relation, including the living and the dead. Is the tree of life similar to dreamtime and dance circles?

0048 Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big conveys the importance of social circles in human evolution. Hominins adapt to the realness of triadic relations within social circles, such as family and intimates (5), teams (15), bands (50), communities (150) and (eventually) mega-bands (500) and tribes (1500). Each social circle offers adaptive advantages to certain sets of triadic relations.

Natural evil always threatens. Social circles keep us alive. The tree of life is rooted in our ancestors. The tree of lifebranches into our social circles, moving from present into future.

10/18/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 10 of 21)

0070 Chapter six is titled, “Adam and Eve in Scripture”.

Haarsma asks (more or less), “What is the best way to understand the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 2-3?”

0071 Surely, this is a question that humans evolve to ask. Humans want to understand.

We encounter an actuality. We then ask, “What normal context₃ and potential₁ applies to this actuality₂?”

This is the start of understanding. We understand when we construct a category-based nested form.

0072 Here is a picture.

0073 The best way to understand the Adam and Eve story₂ is to locate the most productive normal context₃ and potential₁.

0074 Haarsma begins with the normal context₃ of historical scholarship of the Bible₃.

The corresponding ‘something’ resolves into implications of the words in the text₁.

For example, John Walton concludes that the names, Adam and Eve, are assigned names, not historical names. An assigned name is a name that is assigned by the storyteller. A historical name may be replaced by an assigned one.

Plus, the word, “Adam”, denotes “a man of the earth” as well as a person.

0075 Advocates for historical scholarship argue that Genesis 2:4-11 (unlike other origin stories of the ancient Near East) offers an unparalleled narrative theology. The issue is not whether Adam and Eve exist as historical persons. The issue is the clarity of theological meaning.

0076 The problem?

What about human evolution?

Well, if theologians appreciate the stories of Adam and Eve because of their theological clarity, in contrast to the other mythologies of the ancient Near East, then original sin must be a clear insight that situates the stories of Adam and Eve.

0077 This relationship may be diagrammed as a two-level interscope.

The doctrine of original sin_2b situates the potential of the stories of Adam and Eve_1b in the normal context of a theological transition to our current Lebenswelt_3b.

The situation level clarifies the content level.

The stories of Adam and Eve_2a situate the potential of origin myths, as investigated by historical scholarship_1a, in the normal context of the ancient Near East_3a.

0078 The situation-level is also the nested form that goes into the intersection of our current Lebenswelt. It constitutes the vertical axis.

0079 It makes me wonder, since the underlying content of original sin_2V touches base with the ancient Near East, does the twist in human evolution_2H potentiate the formation of civilization in southern Mesopotamia?

Consider Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

10/17/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 11 of 21)

0080 Chapters two and six, as B and B’, bookend the C:D:C’ pattern of chapters three, four and five. Combining chapter and signifier, 4D concerns human evolution. 3C and 5C’ concern natural evil and the imago dei in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. 2B and 6B’ concern the nature of mystery.

0081 Haarsma wrestles with three mysteries.

The first mystery is the intersection of all evolution_2H and God’s creation_2V. The single actuality is our world₂.

A second mystery resides within the first. The intersection of human evolution_2H and the intention, creation, blessing and feeding of humans (and his animals)_2V yields the single actuality of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in₂.

A third mystery marks a transition from the first mystery. The single actuality of our current Lebenswelt₂ binds a twist in human evolution_2H and the doctrine of original sin_2V.

0082 These three mysteries take this reader into an abduction.

The doctrine of original sin_2V emerges from (and situates) the noumenal stories of Adam and Eve_1V. By “noumenal”, I mean “pertaining to the thing itself”. The thing itself, the initiation of our current Lebenswelt, is captured in this one story that associates to all other origin stories of the ancient Near East.

Does that imply that the potential_1H that underlies the twist in human evolution_2H concerns the emergence of civilization in southern Mesopotamia?

What is the nature of the adaptive change_1H that potentiates the emergence of unconstrained social complexity?

0083 This is the question that frames the fictional narrative, An Archaeology of the Fall.

This e-book, like chapters one through seven of Haarsma’s book, exhibits a semitic textual structure. The greek textual structure strives to eliminate possibilities in order to arrive at an answer that is more correct than any other. The reader is led to the correct answer through the process of elimination. The semitic textual structure uses various tricks, patterns and word play in order to induce an awareness of a possibility. The semitic textual structure asks the reader to recognize a possibility.

The greek and semitic textual structures are discussed in An Instructor’s Guide To An Archaeology of the Fall.

10/14/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 12 of 21)

0084 Chapter one, titled, “Scripture, Science and the Holy Spirit”, and chapter seven, “The Doctrine of Original Sin through Church History”, may be labeled A and A’. Once again, combining numbers and signifiers, 1A and 7A’ bookend the 2B:3C:4D:5C’:6B’ pattern of chapters two through six.

0085 The introduction opens the topic of general and special revelation.

0086 Chapter one of Haarsma’s book (A) describes the difficulty of these two types of revelation in our modern age. Science cannot dictate how we interpret scripture. Theology cannot dictate how to conduct science. Nevertheless, theology and science investigate a single reality.

If science describes only actualities₂, then theology must be offering normal contexts₃ and potentials₁. If science only concerns phenomena, then theology must be offering insights into their noumenon. In this, theology crosses science.

0087 Science cannot situate revelation. Theology cannot situate science. Yet, both belong to a single actuality. This is why the relational structure of the intersection lies just below the surface of Haarsma’s work.

0088 In chapter one (A), Haarsma offers four principles for interpreting Scripture.

First, translate biblical words in their grammatical context. This steps into the second principle.

Second, consider each scriptural passage as part of the Biblical whole. The parts work in concert with the whole.

Third, figure out the literary genre of each passage. This elevates the fourth principle.

Fourth, look at the cultural and historical scope of the original author(s). All Biblical authors scope into the ancient Near East.

0089 The first two principles concern the elucidation of meaning, presence and message of the Biblical text.

The second two principles hold a mirror to the other actuality in the third intersection, the twist in human evolution_2H.

On the one hand, Genesis 2:4-11 holds something in common with all other origin stories of the ancient Near East.

It does not envision humans earlier than their recent creation in our current Lebenswelt.

It does not see the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

It cannot look beyond the first singularity.

0090 On the other hand, of all the currently known literature of the ancient Near East, only one pictures humankind in a setting earlier than the first singularity. That is the first chapter of Genesis, the Creation Story.

Many see the Creation Story as an anomaly.

Why?

Genesis 1 reads like an evolutionary progression, but it is really the building of the tent of the heavens and earth.

Hmmm.

0091 What does this imply?

Is there a reason why Genesis 2:4-11, along with all the other origin stories of the ancient Near East, cannot see past the start of our current Lebenswelt?

There is a twist in human evolution.

The twist corresponds to the start of original sin.

0092 Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

10/13/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 13 of 21)

0093 Chapter seven (A’) traces the history of original sin and completes the single actuality₂, knitting human evolution_2H(4D) to interpretation of Scripture_2V (1A) and the doctrine of original sin_2V (7A’).

0094 Here is a picture.

0095 Saint Paul, in his letters to the Corinthians and to the Romans, calls this interscope into being. The elements are fuzzy. The natural transition is not clear. It is implied.

0096 Saint Augustine clarifies the theological transition. In doing so, he posits a natural transition, whereby the rebellion of Adam and Eve passes to all humankind. Original sin passes to all humanity through direct descent from Adam and Eve. Why? Procreation is bound to desire. Desire is now subject (through Adam and Eve) to concupiscence, which transliterates into “being with Cupid, the love child of Mars, the god of war, and Venus, the goddess of love”.

Yes, that sounds a tad rebellious. With friends like Cupid, who need enemies? We can can get in trouble on our own, when we are subject to concupiscence.

Amazingly, Augustine’s position turns out to be unwittingly scientific. It is so scientific as to be debunked, sixteen centuries later, by modern genetics.

0097 So, the stories of Adam and Eve do not describe a de-novo creation of humans. Instead, the potential of these stories_1V underlies Augustine’s doctrine of original sin_2V as it is held, in the single actuality of our current Lebenswelt₂, in contact with a twist in human evolution_2H, that Haarsma is not aware of.

0098 In fact, at this moment, no modern anthropologist is aware of the hypothesis of the first singularity_2H, arising from the potential of a phenomenal change in one Neolithic culture, manifesting as the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia_1H.

Why?

Semiotics is not the same as science.

10/12/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 14 of 21)

0099 These comments frame the first seven chapters of Haarsma’s book as an exercise in semitic textual structure. The pattern is A:B:C:D:C’:B’:A’.

Haarsma asks the reader to recognize a possibility.

These comments show what that possibility might be.

That possibility is the intersection of our current Lebenswelt.

0100 The natural transition_3H is plainly laid out in The First Singularity And Its Fairy Tale Trace. Implications are discussed in Comments on Original Death and Original Sin: Roman 5:12-19.

0101 The hypothesis is dramatically rendered in An Archaeology of the Fall.

The novel begins with the daughter of an archaeologist recounting the differentiation of Sumerian Gods from a primordial dyad, the waters above and the waters below. The tale appears in Samuel Noah Kramer’s 1961 book, Sumerian Mythology.

0102 The key is differentiation. Differentiation implies symbolization. Purely symbolic speech-alone talk allows the articulation of distinctions. These distinctions become real as artifacts (such as mythologies) are constructed. Artifacts validate speech-alone words. Artifacts validate the distinctions that speech-alone words symbolize.

I know that sounds circular. But, so does most everything else in our current Lebenswelt.

0103 The waters above and the waters below conjugate, and give birth to the air god. The air god separates the waters above and the waters below, before stealing everything they own. He makes their remains the ceiling and floor of his home.

Is this a picture of the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods?

Is differentiation intrinsic to increasing labor and social specializations?

0104 Is the deception, depicted in the stories of Adam and Eve, another picture of the same archaeological periods?

10/10/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 16 of 21)

0107 Is our current Lebenswelt a way to envision the Garden of Eden?

If so, then humans in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, created as the image of God, associate to a reification, the Tree of Life. The tree of life is rooted in our evolved relationality. The tree of life branches out in cultural practices that maximize the fruits of our evolved relationality.

0108 The term, image of God, offers a vision, where worship conjoins life. Yet, our ancestors could not picture or point either “image” or “God” with hand talk. Just as birds fly, without intellectual awareness of the abstraction of flight, hominins talk to one another with manual-brachial gestures, without intellectual awareness of the abstractions that can be drawn from their discourse. Hand talk does not permit explicit abstraction.

0109 The term, the tree of life, is an abstraction. The meaning, presence and message that we project into the term, the tree of life, produces an artifact that validates our projection. The tree of life is a symbol that validates the word-symbols that compose the term.

Welcome to our current Lebenswelt.

0110 How do we define₃ the tree of life₂? What meaning, presence and message₁ do we project into the actuality of the term₂?

In the epic of Gilgamesh, the reader finds one definition. Gilgamesh obtains, then loses, a plant that confers immortality.

In Genesis 3:22, the reader finds the a similar rendering, uttered by the Lord God.

The tree of life confers immortality, by definition.

0111 But, does this definition represent a projection that reinforces an artifact (a particular interpretation) that validates an abstraction inherent in the spoken term, “the tree of life”?

This circularity is characteristic of spoken words.

Does the tree of life confer immortality because it is composed of the spoken words, “tree” and “life”?

0111 It makes me wonder about the term, “immortality”.

Immortality is just a word.

“Immortality” is also an abstraction.

Can one die and still remain alive?

Are there other meanings, presences and messages underlying the actuality of the term, the tree of life?

10/7/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 17 of 21)

0112 Two nested forms intersect for our current Lebenswelt.

A theological transition_3V brings the doctrine of original sin_2V into relation with the noumenal potential of Genesis 2:4-11_1V.

A natural transition_3H brings a twist in human evolution_2H into relation with the phenomenal potential of an adaptive cultural change_1H.

0113 The twist in human evolution_2H is described in the hypothesis of the first singularity.

Here is a synopsis.

Language evolves in the milieu of hand talk. Speech talk is added to hand talk with the appearance of anatomically modern humans (over 200,000 years ago). Hand-speech talk is practiced through the Paleolithic and into the Neolithic. The semiotic qualities of hand-speech talk favor constrained social complexity.

The first culture to practice speech-alone talk is the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia (starting around 7,800 years ago). At the time, all other Neolithic, Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic cultures practice hand-speech talk. Because the semiotic qualities of speech-alone talk unconstrains social complexity, labor and social specialization prospers during the Ubaid. The surrounding (hand-speech talking) cultures see it. The Ubaid exhibits increasing wealth and power. Plus, all the surrounding cultures need to do, in order to imitate the Ubaid, is to drop the hand-talk component of their hand-speech talk.

Speech-alone talk spreads from the Ubaid through imitation.

0114 The twist in human evolution_2H permits increasing labor and social complexity_1H.

But, the semiotic qualities of speech-alone talk also makes the cultural adaptations of the Lebenswelt that we evolved innonsensical.

Even though we innately expect our (hand talk) words to image and point to their referents, in our current Lebenswelt, we project meaning, presence and message into our (spoken) words, then construct artifacts that validate those projections.

How can a tradition in hand-speech talk be translated into speech-alone talk?

It cannot.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Category Archives: An Archaeology of the Fall