10/5/24

Looking at N. J. Enfield’s Book (2022) “Language vs. Reality” (Part 23 of 23)

1060 Chapter eleven completes Part III. This chapter concerns sense making.

How am I to make sense of the inverted interscope that arrives after the story of Adam and Eve enters into Enfield’s science-inspired interscope?

1061 How do I capture the Gestalt shift in speech-alone talk?

For Enfield’s scientific frame, the perspective-level contiguity is [translates into].

For the inverted frame, the perspective-level contiguity is [transubstantiates into].

Does this suffice?

The Gestalt switches from one to the other interscope.

1062 What else?

The change of Gestalts reconfigures the title.

1063 What Enfield cannot say is this.

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

In 2022, he simply is not aware of the hypothesis of the first singularity.

1064 What Enfield cannot say may be formulated in terms of science, as an evolutionarily recent cultural transition from hand-speech talk to speech-alone talk, starting with the emergence of the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia, nominally 7824 years ago.

One day, science may present how hand and hand-speech talk potentiates constrained social complexity and speech-alone talk potentiates unconstrained social complexity.

Science may investigate how hand and hand-speech talk facilitates implicit abstraction and how speech-alone talk has a unique ability to label anything, even referents that cannot be pictured or pointed to, even referents that are quite fantastic and alluring and that exist only in the realm of possibility.

1065 Perhaps, explicit abstraction is more cunning than any animal that the Lord God creates.

Like sin, it couches at our door. It is our job to tame it.

1066 In conclusion, Enfield’s well-written book testifies to what he is not aware of.

The background Gestalt of his scientific discourse is a story, and this story steps forward in this examination of Part III, entitled “Reality Made By Language”. But, the inversion does not manifest a full Gestalt shift, because that is precisely what Enfield wants to avoid. He wants to remain a scientist, speaking the disciplinary languages of linguistics and cognitive psychology, as if they could warn us about the near impossibility of practicing Wittgenstein’s rule, because our kind evolves the trait of ‘agreeability’_1a, so that our ‘imaginations’_1b may align in the virtual normal context of ‘coordination’_1c.

1067 Enfield’s interscope is beautiful to behold.

His interscope appears in the mirror of science. I say this while casting a glance at Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2024) by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues. Portions appear in Razie Mah’s blogs for April through June, 2024. When a theologian looks at Enfield’s interscope, shimmering in the mirror of science, he responds with a theological question, asking, “What is this image revealing?”

The answer cries out for a Gestalt inversion.

One Gestalt hinges on the contiguity, “translates”.

The other Gestalt hinges on the contiguity, “transubstantiates”.

1068 The invert interscope is a wonder to behold.

Saint Thomas Aquinas might chuckle. Aquinas coined the word, “transubstantiates”.

Note how a physical reality, as simple as water, poured over the head of a baby or a child or a repenting adult,transubstantiates into the social reality of washing away the stain of original sin_2c. Water is more than physical reality. Washing the stain of original sin is more than social reality.

1069 This is what the theologian projects into the mirror of theology, standing in the jurisdiction of science, as he contemplates the implications of what Enfield has written.

1070 In the sacrament of baptism, everyone in the ritual co-ordinates, in one particular recitation, starting with an answer to the question, “Do you reject Satan?”

Lucifer is an angel of light. Everything that Lucifer says tells more about Lucifer than the referent that Lucifer’s words conjure. Indeed, the referent that Lucifer’s words conjure is a lie. Just look at the seven of cups in a deck of illustrated Tarot cards and tell me that Lucifer’s words do not conjure this image in the mind of poor, unsuspecting Eve, who, after all, is only trying to be agreeable.

1071 Perhaps, this examination is an invitation for Dr. Enfield and other linguists and cognitive psychologists, to realize that their science has isolated us in rigid containers of empirio-schematic thought. We are creatures who evolved to live as images of God, not as subjects for the psychometric sciences.

Do not let your scientific commitments get in the way of an origin story of the ancient Near East_2a, rising through the observable and measurable use of spoken words_2b, and blossoming into a sacrament instituted during the most amazing revelation coming from the promised land_2c.

When John the Baptist pours the waters of the Jordan over the head of Jesus, the heavens rejoice.

Here is what we evolved to be, standing at the confluence of language and reality.

1072 John Deely, the author of Four Ages of Understanding (2001), offers a label for this new world view. Welcome to the Age of Triadic Relations.

1073 My thanks to Dr. N. J. Enfield for his book, written at the cusp (yet without awareness that there is a cusp) of a new age of understanding.

09/30/24

Looking at Michelle Stiles’s Book (2022) “One Idea to Rule Them All” (Part 1 of 23)

0495 A note on blog protocol.

In the strange world of blogs, the most recent blog appears first, so the first blog in a sequence must be placed last in any given month, in order for the blogs to be read from top to bottom.

0496 A note on timing and points.

The blog for July 2024 examines a book by British sociologist, Steve Fuller. This examination introduces the interscope for the post-truth condition, along with its embedded interventional sign-relation.

The blog for August 2024 tests the relevance of the post-truth interscope, by applying the purely relational structure to a reading of a book by American entrepreneur and um… politician (?)… Vivek Ramaswamy. Battles among enlightenment gods shape modern history.

These constitute Part One of Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

Also, in August, the post-truth interscope is shown to be much older than one would suspect. The sophists of ancient Greece run the same game as the modern post-truth condition. That implies that the post-truth condition may trace to the beginning of our current Lebenswelt. A review of an essay by Josef Pieper is the second examination in Part Two.

Now, in September 2024, the post-truth interscope is applied to a book by a physical therapist with an excellent sense of what is happening, Michelle Stiles. Decode this book in order to find out the potential of ‘something’ happening. This review is the first examination in Part Two.

Finally, in October 2024, an encore. Looking at N. J. Enfield’s Book (2022) Language vs. Reality constitutes Part Three of Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition.

0497 Here is a look at the examination of the post-truth condition and its relation to original sin.

0498 Let me sound my notes once again.

The end of Fuller’s book predicts what happens when a person in the thralls of an empirio-normative judgment_2c is sacrificed to an enlightenment deity, such as the one of scientism_3c. The scrappy player_3a discovers that the system’s definition of “success_2c“ is not what he calls “success_2a“. For the scientismist one_3c, “success_2c” is not the scrappy player’s “getting ahead_2a“. Rather, “success_2c” is an exercise of an empirio-normative judgment_2c.

0499 Here is a picture of the contemporary post-truth interscope.

0500 Vivek Ramaswamy’s book is a testimony to the character of expert-driven_3b psychometric values_2b as formalizations_1b that distort what people are willing to say_2a.

Oh… I did not mean to use the word, “distort”… I meant to use the word, “model”.

Psychometric studies_2b demonstrate that what people are willing to say_2a can be modeled according to postmodern formulations_2b that encourage_1c those who “trust the science”_3c to render an empirio-normative judgment_2c that stands for how what people think and what people say is hurtful and objectionable_2b, according to criteria_2b established by those_3brepresenting the most vulnerable in society_1b.

0501 What is a person who thinks that “success_2a” means “to get ahead by hard work and an attitude of cooperation_2a“supposed to do, when thwarted by the accusation_2b that such speech is euro-centric and ethno-supremacist? Keep working hard and acting agreeably? A panel of experts_3b will formalize_1b whatever this scrappy player says_2a and does_2ainto an accusation_2b that stands in the way of getting ahead.

The scrappy player is tempted to say, “Screw it. The empirio-normative judgment wins. I am outta here.”

0502 As soon as the scrappy player lays flat and looks up, the sky offers an opportunity, a screen to paint the One who Signifies, without Us Knowing Why.

This implicit abstraction is more primordial than anything that our current Lebenswelt can offer as a perspective_c-level reality₂. The originating source of the interventional sign-relation is a sign-vehicle (SV_i) that cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted or smelled. How so? The interventional sign-vehicle_2c (SV_i) stands for what can be seen, heard, touched, tasted or smelled_2a, including the odors of frustration, failure and fear_2a (SO_i), according to an intellect that recognizes signs_3a contextualizing a will that appreciates a gift in what is being encountered_1a (SI_i).

This is the type of mental behavior that we (humans) evolved to perform. Humans recognize signs. Humans appreciate gifts. After all, both involve triadic relations. The human niche is the potential of triadic relations.

0503 The trick (SI_i) for the interventional sign-relation comes from the fact that we experience the sign-object (SO_i) and then must figure out the sign-vehicle (SV_i) . Our experiences of things in the world_2a (SO_i) testifies to an actuality in the mind of a perspective-level being_2c (SV_i).

0504 Fuller, at the end of his practical guide, contemplates the SO_i of himself [proposing] an account of how the post-truth condition comes to be_2a. Simultaneously, the One Who Signifies_3c weaves the notion of original sin_2c (SV_i) into Fuller’s narrative.

Original sin_2c (SV_i) stands for Fuller telling an origin story for the post-truth condition_2a (SO_i) in regards to an interpretant that is within, yet transcending, Fuller’s intellect_3a and will_1a (SI_i).

0505 Here is a picture of the interventional sign-relation residing within chapter fourteen of Fuller’s text, following Fuller’s definition of metalepsis.

0506 Does Fuller merely relate a historical account of how the post-truth condition comes to be?

Or, is he also is making a discovery?

Or, should I say… revealing an insight?

0507 On January 2, 2024, in his blog, Razie Mah proposes that the doctrine of original sin needs to be reformulated in light of a fact. The science of genetics disproves Saint Augustine’s claim that Adam’s transgression passes from Adam to all humans through direct descent, without modification. Genetics establishes, beyond doubt, that there is no bottleneck in human evolution that would correspond to an original human pair, unless that pair exists hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Consider Looking at William Lane Craig’s Book (2021) “In Quest of the Historical Adam” and Looking at Andrew Ter Ern Loke’s Book (2022) “The Origin of Humanity and Evolution”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog in September, 2022, and November, 2023, respectively. These examinations show the futility of regarding Adam and Eve as the originators of our species, Homo sapiens.

0508 Mah’s proposal launches a strange and serious enterprise.

At this moment in history, psychometric experts_3b testify that their analysis_2b of what people say_2a shows no need for the doctrine of original sin, except for the problem that people do not understand how the system works_2c. “Religion”, once attributed to “Christian factions”, no longer has relevance compared to bureaucratic rationalizations_2b that narrow formal knowledge_1b into two tranches, one capitalist and one socialist, which combine into a mystery, an intersection, that is far more salient to modern society than so-called “religion”. Value_2b is a single actuality constituted by the actualities of financial transaction_2H and organizational objective_2V. Or, shall I say, money and politics?

0509 Some of the more intellectually inclined scrappy players go so far as to call America’s government-occupying secular bureaucracy a “religion”. And, it is. But, it is not “religion” defined as “a Christian faction”.

Yes, it depends on how one defines the word, “religion”.

0510 Sophistication aside, the one of scientism_3c, who rules this “system”, may well be a manifestation of… yes… original sin. How does one account for scientism_3c as a person writ large, possessing the minds of apparently regular people, as institutions writ small, turning them into advocates for the scientismist one_3c?

0511 Augustine focuses on disordered desires. Does a doctrine of disordered desires suffice to account for the disoriented minds that justify the deranged valuations_2b of psychometric experts_3b? Or, are disordered desires and disoriented minds both symptoms of an evolution-twisting cultural trajectory that is portrayed in the Genesis stories of Adam and Eve, all the way to the Tower of Babel? An affirmative answer to the second question opens the door to a second doctrine of original sin.

0512 If the early chapters of Genesis are fairy tales concerning the instigation of unconstrained social complexity during the Ubaid and the Uruk archaeological periods of southern Mesopotamia, and if the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia is the first culture to practice speech-alone talk, at a time when all other cultures practice hand-speech talk,then theologians should weave the hypothesis of the first singularity into the fabric of a second doctrine of original sin.

0513 A second doctrine?

Yes, a second doctrine must account for Augustine’s first doctrine as a special application, in the same way that quantum mechanics accounts for Newtonian physics as a special application.

Inquiry into the post-truth condition may open the portal to a second doctrine of original sin.

So, I begin.

The book before me is by Michelle Stiles, the full title is One Idea to Rule Them All: Reverse Engineering American Propaganda. The book is copyrighted in 2022 and published by the author.

0514 The cover photo depicts a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Yes, experts_3b are human, just like scrappy players_3a.

So, they could be the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

It is the scientismist one_3c that I am not sure about.

09/4/24

Looking at Michelle Stiles’s Book (2022) “One Idea to Rule Them All” (Part 23 of 23)

0749 What about domination?

Chapters eleven and twelve conclude the book with suggestions for how to proceed, now that Stiles’s own manuscript testifies to the necessity for operation spider web to engage in as many operation sheepskins as possible. The scrappy players are becoming aware that what they regard as reason_3a,1a is actually an interventional sign-interpretant (SI_i) declaring that an operation sheepskin_2c executed by the scientismist one_3c (SV_i) stands for what people are thinking [and] what people are saying_2a (SO_i). Experts_3b cannot reduce this awareness to capitalist and socialist ideations_2b and remain intelligible.

More research is required.

One of the operation sheepskins has got to dominate the scrappy players that deny the post-truth interscope.

0750 The scrappy player needs only to watch corporate broadcast media for the latest operation.

The money and power required to sustain operation spider web is enormous.

After the system_3c burns through its cash, then it_3c will ask the oligarchs and the federal government to appropriate more funds for their private-public partnerships.

The laboratory of expertise strives for an effective formulation.

Will they configure a final solution?

0751 Meanwhile, scrappy players_a are coming to terms with the nature of domination by the ones of scientism_3c.

The scientismist one’s_3c interventional sign-objects_2a (SO_i) trigger the scrappy player to imagine_2a a perspective-level interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i), a hidden agenda_2c, that can only be recognized when the intellect_3a contextualizes a potential greater than the will_1a (SI_i).

In order to do so, the scrappy player must recognize that what he has been thinking_2a and what he has been expected to say_2a are no longer intellectually_3a satisfying.

Something greater than “our” intellect_3a is required.

Then, what the scrappy player discovers_2a is that humans are adapted to recognize interventional sign-relations.

The ones of scientism_3c use that adaptation against the scrappy players_2a.

The ones of scientism_3c dominate by pretending to be the divine source of interventional sign-vehicles (SV_i).

They do so by limiting reason_3a,1ato the intellect_3a contextualizing the will_1a, as if the will_1a does not seek perfection (completion) in transcendentals, such a truth.

Yes, they are using a human adaptation against us. But, they are triggering the adaptation as well.

0752 Hence, there is a practical conundrum facing the scrappy player.

To speak of a hidden agenda_2a is counterproductive, because to posit that events_2a are scripted by operation-sheepskin empirio-normative judgments_2c is to talk in terms of formal and final causalities, which are the very statements-phenomena_2a that cannot regarded as worthy of observation and measurement by psychometric experts_3c. Psychometric experts_3b base their models_2b on truncated material and efficient causalities (shorn of formal and final causation).

Speech about hidden agendas_2a cannot be regarded as phenomena_2a worth attending to.

Therefore, it must be ignored.

0753 The impasse is palpable, because (look at the third row).

0754 The crisis is about to begin.

0755 My thanks to Michelle Stiles for daring to publish a manuscript worthy of examination in regards to the post-truth condition.

02/5/24

Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (2014) “A Natural History of Human Thinking” (Part 22 of 22)

0383 Chapter five is titled “Human Thinking as Cooperation”.

Tomasello considers other theories of human cognitive evolution (but not including Razie Mah’s masterwork, The Human Niche, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

He draws four general propositions.

0384 One, for the era of individual intentionality, competition with groupmates leads to sophisticated forms of primate social and practical cognition, characteristic of great apes.

Two, for the era of joint intentionality, obligate collaborative foraging favors the evolution of new forms of hominin social coordination and thinking, without (what a modern anthropologist would label) culture.

Three, for the era of collective intentionality, intergroup competition, exploration of novel ecologies and environments, and larger group size favors the evolution of conventionalized culture.

Fourth, in regards to whatever may be missing in the first, second and third points, culture accumulates and allows specializations that cultivate a wide variety of cognitive skills and types of thinking.

0385 This examination demonstrates that each of these four general propositions coheres with the hypothesis contained in The Human Niche.

This may not be a surprise, since Razie Mah’s masterwork summarizes commentaries on four works in evolutionary anthropology, published within the past three decades.

0386 Here is a list of the four commentaries.

Comments on Steven Mithen’s Book (1996) The Prehistory of The Mind

Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big

Comments on Derek Bickerton’s Book (2014) More Than Nature Needs

Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) Why Only Us?

0387 Along with A Primer on Natural Signs and the masterwork, The Human Niche, these four commentaries constitute A Course on The Human Niche, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0388 But, that is not all.

This examination of Tomasello’s arc of inquiry continues.

01/4/24

Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (2008) “Origins of Human Communication” (Part 12 of 12)

0176 Once again, here is Tomasello’s adjustment to the scholastic interscope.

Is this the [substance] of Tomasello’s research?

The exemplar sign is foregrounded.

A hominin perception_2b (SV_e) stands for a judgment_2c (SO_e) in regards to a common conceptual ground_3c operating on the potential of ‘mutual expectations’_1c (SI_e).

0177 Here is the original scholastic interscope for how humans think.

The exemplar sign is foregrounded.

A species expressa_2b (SV_e) stands for a species intelligibilis_2c (SO_e) in regards to what makes sense_3c operating on the potential of ‘contextualizing the situation’_1c (SI_e).

0178 With these two signs in juxtaposition, consider the three processes that Tomasello identifies as basic to the evolution of hominin cooperation: informing, requesting and sharing.

All three processes associate to the exemplar sign.

0179 So, chapter five invites a question, asking, “What are the conditions where exercising the exemplar sign increases reproductive success?”

The answer must be cooperative activities that increase reproductive success.

That is the topic of the next book in this series.

0180 But, before I leave this examination, I would like to return to prior expositions of the three steps of hominin evolution (points 0097 and 0132).

0181 The adaptations of joint attention and mutual intentionality associate to step one in the origins of hominin communication.

0182 The zeroth period stretches from the last common ancestor to the start of the Pliocene, where the first bipedal apesappear in the fossil record. Bipedalism is an adaptation away from tropical forest and into mixed forest and savannah. In these new conditions, collaborative foraging pays off. As soon as cooperation in foraging activities increases reproductive success, the niche of sociogenesis opens up. The team is the first social circle to benefit from joint attention and mutual intentionality.

The last common ancestor dates to around 7Myr (million of years ago). The earliest bipedal apes appear around 4.2Myr. So, I give an additional 0.7 million years for these walking creatures to start to realize that collaboration pays off.

0183 The first period nominally starts at 3.5Myr. During the next 1.7 million years, natural selection explores the adaptive spaces generated by joint attention. This includes the space for the evolution of hand talk within collaborating teams. The Homo genus appears in the fossil record around 1.8Myr. The expansion of the hominin neocortex is testimony to an increasing number of successful teams. For each team tradition that increases reproductive success, subsequent adaptations routinize that success. More common grounds and styles of mutual intentionality are programmed into an expanding brain. Each hominin team becomes better and better at what it does.

The second period begins around 0.8Myr. Homo erectus has already migrated out of Africa and into Eurasia. The domestication of fire ensues. This is the beginning of the next phase, where hominin hand talk becomes fully linguistic.

0184 Even though Tomasello proposes a significantly different timeline, the following list expresses this examiner’s opinion of what Tomasello’s timeline should be.

The discrepancy between Tomasello’s proposed timeline and this examiner’s list needs to be accounted for.

0185 This commentary is not a substitute for Tomasello’s text. It is a complement to his explorations. Tomasello is an excellent, well-organized writer. My examination may be scattered and disorganized, but it adds value by re-articulating his arguments in a semiotic framework.

The term, “semiotics”, does not appear in the index of Tomasello’s book. But, that is not a drawback. That is an opportunity for me, a semiotician, to demonstrate a deep correspondence between Tomasello’s arc of inquiry and Razie Mah’s masterwork, The Human Niche (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

0186 Sociogenesis is the potential of triadic relations.

12/23/23

Looking at Daniel Dennett’s Book (2017) “From Bacteria To Bach and Back” (Part 1 of 20)

0001 Let me start with an admission. In this particular examination, I am not myself. I am someone who I am not. I own a dog named, “Daisy”.

The book before me is by Daniel C. Dennett and is titled, “From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds”. The book is published by W.W. Norton (New York, London). The book wrestles with issues both philosophical and scientific. How does our world come to be? How do we come to be?

Who are we? We are people with minds. Minds intelligently design artifacts using tools of production and tools of the intellect. The first tools are handy. The second are… well… not exactly the same as “handy”.

0002 The hand grasps a tool then uses it to manipulate things. The word, “prehensile” applies. Our hands are full of prehensions. We are aware of the heft and feel of material instruments.

The mind grasps an intellectual tool with its… um… brain. Is there such a word as “comprehensile”? How about the term, “comprehension”? Once we become competent using an intellectual tool, we comprehend. We become familiar with its heft and feel.

0003 The hand is unlike the appendages of other mammals.

For example, cats and dogs only have feet. The cat uses its front feet as “paws”, in a manner similar to the way humans use their hands. Not really, because the cat’s paws cannot hold anything. The cat cannot pick up a tool. May I say that the cat’s front paws are part of the feline toolkit? Evolution builds tools right into the cat’s body. Most mammals are fashioned this way. Tools are part of their bodies.

0004 The mind serves as a metaphorical appendage, because it grasps ‘something’, and in doing so, may manipulate it. The dog, whose practical toolkit includes feet and a formidable mouth, has an advantage over the cat, in this respect. The dog’s mind grasps ‘something’ and, in doing so, manipulates humans into serving as the leader of its pack.

To me, the dog is testimony to the inhospitality of wolf “culture”, in general, and the inadequacy of wolf “leadership”, in particular. Wolf pack-leaders often behave like aristocrats, always expecting deferential treatment. They are often filled with paranoia and treachery. Yet, their followers know that they need a leader. Otherwise, there is no pack. Without the pack, there is only death.

0005 Surely, a reasonable human would serve as a more hospitable leader, especially since humans know how to get food in surprising ways. Humans give dogs food. Until, of course, starvation fills the land.

12/22/23

Looking at Daniel Dennett’s Book (2017) “From Bacteria To Bach and Back” (Part 2 of 20)

0006 Unlike the cat, the dog has a tool of the intellect, whose application is so relevant that it fashions the ways that the species adapts into its niche. This raises the question, “What is a niche?”

0007 First, an aside. The interscope for the Darwinian paradigm is developed in Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome and is represented in other e-books and blogs by Razie Mah. The two-level interscope is presented in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0008 Second, an answer to the question.

A niche is the (situation-level) potential_1b of a (content-level) actuality that is independent of the adapting species_2a. As such, the niche_1b underlies the actuality of adaptation_2b in the normal context of natural selection_3b. Here is a picture.

0009 On the situation level, the normal context of natural selection_3b brings the actuality of an adaptation_2b into relation with its niche_1b, which is the potential_1b of an actuality independent of the adapting species_2a.

As mentioned earlier, the dog has a tool of the intellect and this tool must be an adaptation_2b. What is the dog’s niche_1b? It must be us, humans, of course. We are the actuality independent of the adapting species_2a. When we look at the dog’s adaptations_2b from our point of view, we call the result, “domestication”. The dog finds a pack in the human household.

0010 Of course, the dog’s domestication is a recent process.

How did it happen?

Certain wolves, empowered by humans, learn to identify the human as a candidate for a pack leader. Surely, humans are more… um… humane, depending on how one defines the word, “humane”. When a dog is treated like a member of the family, more or less, its descent from wolves serves it well, since a wolf knows that it belongs to a pack. A lone wolf is unlikely to survive on its own. Dogs know this and therefore, accept the leash.

0011 I wonder whether Dennett would call the dog’s affection for its new-found pack leader “an evolved user illusion”. Whatever label one wants to apply, the dog’s affection serves as a conviction, or rather, a judgment. A judgment is a triadic relation with three elements: relation, what is and what ought to be. A relation (in the dog’s being) brings what is(a human, especially when it provides food and family) into relation to what ought to be (a pack leader for the domesticate).

The dog signifies its joy, as well as its distress, through its tail.

What a tale the dog’s tail tells!

0012 No matter what the content-level normal context_3a or potential_1a, the dog’s tail specifies its consciousness of whether its gambit_2b is working.

But, with that said, I seem to have entered a different paradigm. This paradigm belongs to old-fashioned Latin schoolmen, called “scholastics”, who prospered between say, 800 to 1700 AD, from the very end of the Roman empire to the start of the modern era.

0013 If I say that the canine’s tail tells me something about what is going on in the dog’s mind, irrespective of what is happening_3a and the potential of ‘something’ happening’_1a, then I may conclude whether the dog is happy or not_2b, by situating a dog’s tail action_1b in the normal context of what it means to me_3b.

The specifying sign is a triadic relation where a sign-vehicle (SV) stands for a sign-object (SO) in regards to a sign-interpretant (SI).

My dog’s tail action_2a (SV_s) is the sign-vehicle for a specificative sign-relation.

The happiness or unhappiness of my dog_2b is the sign-object (SO_s).

What it means to me_3b and the potential of ‘situating content_1b is the specifying sign’s interpretant (SI_s).

If my dog wags its tail (SV_s), then I know that my dog is happy (SO_s).

If my dog tucks its tail between its back legs (SV_s), then I know that my dog is not happy (SO_s).

0014 I wonder whether one dog notices the tail-action of other dogs. After all, for all dogs, only content and situation levels matter. So, I suppose that they do. The tail-wagging and tail-tucking business may have been enhanced because humans are receptive to such signals.

0015 Would Dennett call a dog’s tail action a “meme”?

I suspect that he would.

0016 Meanwhile, premodern scholastics call the above two-level interscope, “specificative extrinsic formal causality”. I call it “a specifying sign”.

Tail-action_2a is the sign-vehicle (SV_s). My dog’s apparent attitude_2b is the sign-object (SO_s). The normal context of what it means to me_3b, operating on the potential of ‘situating content’_1b is the sign-interpretant (SI_s). The subscript stands for “specifying”.

The sign-relation is discussed in detail in Razie Mah’s blog for November 2023, Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) Semiotic Animal, as well as A Primer on Natural Signs and related e-articles available for sale at smashwords and other e-book venues.

12/19/23

Looking at Daniel Dennett’s Book (2017) “From Bacteria To Bach and Back” (Part 5 of 20)

0033 Where does this notion of specificative extrinsic formal causality come from?

Comments on John Deely’s Book (1994) New Beginnings is a good place to start.

The specifying sign is embedded in a formula for sensible construction, arrived at by Latin schoolmen during the later Middle Ages.

Obviously, the scholastics did not know that. The discovery of the triadic nature of the sign-relation comes towards the end of centuries of philosophical inquiry and debate (say nothing of political intrigue), during a period labeled, “Baroque scholasticism”. Baroque scholars witness the end of the Latin Age at the same time that mechanical philosophers usher in the beginning of the Age of Ideas (that is, the modern period). This terminology comes from John Deely (1942-2017 AD) and appears in his massive tome, The Four Ages (2001). The four ages are the Greek Age, the Latin Age, the Age of Ideasand the forthcoming Age of Triadic Relations.

0034 The category-based nested form comes in handy when portraying sensible construction. Here is a picture for how humans think.

0035 There are several items to note.

First, the actualities are Latin terms. “Species” (say it with an Italian accent, with lots of cheese) means “type of”. “Impressa” means impression or sensation or feeling. “Expressa” means perception or phantasm or emotional reaction.

Second, the situation level emerges from (and virtually situates) the content level. The vertical elements are nested. Species expressa_2b virtually situates species impressa_1a. The qualifier, “virtual”, means “in virtue”, for the mind, and “in simulation”, for the brain.

Third, Aristotle’s four causes allow me to appreciate normal context₃ and potential₁. The four causes allow me to comprehend an actuality₂. Material, instrumental, final and formal causes elucidate a category-based form that incorporates the actuality at hand.

0036 Say what?

At the start of chapter three in Dennett’s book, titled “On the Origins of Reasons”, the author lists Aristotle’s four causes. Two of the four causes are familiar to scientists. These are the material and efficient (or instrumental) causes. The other two causes are ruled out by the positivist intellect. These are formal and final causes. Today, formal and final causalities are not regarded as “scientific” at all.

0037 What does this imply?

Without all of Aristotle’s four causes, only actualities are relevant. The normal contexts and potentials cannot be considered, much less appreciated. A species impressa_2a and a species expressa_2b constitute a manifest image of sensible construction. The following figure is the corresponding scientific image.

0038 Well, there goes the whole discussion on how Darwin’s paradigm and the specifying sign may be analogies of one another.

Indeed, there goes the specifying sign, along with comprehension.

0039 The scientific picture only allows for material and instrumental causation.

Yet, we cannot comprehend any actuality without final and formal causation.

What can we do if we cannot comprehend?

We can assess competence.

0040 We can measure phenomena of perceptions in response to particular sensations.

How does a human brain come to recognize that the dog is happy because it wags its tail?

Can I fashion a mechanical or mathematical model, using a disciplinary language, describing neurons selecting for synapses which either exploit or avoid an affordance?

How does one build a model on observations and measurements of species impressa_1b and species expressa_2b?

One scientific model would be like a giant betting parlor filled with neocortical neurons, where each successful bet raises the stakes. A perception, a species expressa_2b, is like a winner_2b, in this regard. A phantasm_2b depends on the survival and demise of synapses, so the qualia of the species impressa_2a (those impressions, sensations and feelings) constitute the “winnings’ that perception_2b rakes in (and must use to bet again).

0041 In many respects, the survival and demise of synapses_1b corresponds to what psychologists might call “priming” or “training”. Neurons perform natural selection_3b on synapses_2b. The result is not comprehension. The result is competence.

My brain’s reading of my dog’s attitude_2b, my species expressa_2b, turns into an example of competence, stimulated by observations of my dog’s tail_2a. My brain is competent at conjuring a phantasm_2b that seems, upon subsequent reflection, to be perfectly sensible.

0042 My brain’s competence even extends to Daisy’s reaction to the neighbor’s cat.

Here is a diagram.

0043 At this juncture, I feel that I am on the verge of slipping from my brain to my mind.

Oh, I meant to say, “the user-illusion of my brain”.

0044 The first aspect of the slippage goes with chapter eight, titled “Brains Made of Brains”, more or less applying the Darwinian paradigm as a metaphor for the specifying sign. Neurons_3b selectively breed synapses_1b in order to participate in adaptive neural networks_2b.

0046 The second part of the slippage starts with chapter three, titled “The Origin of Reason”, and concerns the fact that, on the occasion of my reactionary dog encountering the neighbor’s revolutionary cat, the process of natural selection_3b of neural synapses_3b, provides me with a phantasm_2b, a manifest image_2b, a species expressa_2b, that avoids the affordance_1bimplied by my dog’s tail action_2a. I pull Daisy back on her leash in order to prevent her from engaging in an impetuous action.

Yes, my brain provides its user with an illusion. The phantasm_2b that occupies my mind is a solution to a challenge similar to the Turing test. The Turning test asks a question, “Can a human observer distinguish whether an action or behavior is in virtue or in simulation?” If the answer is no, then the action passes the test. My phantasm_2b is a human thought that passes Turing’s test. It has the virtue of being human. But, that does not mean that I created my phantasm.

0047 No, a specific application of the Darwinian paradigm “designed” my phantasm_2b.

I do not comprehend how I obtain the phantasm_2b in my mind, because it has been designed without a designer. It has been conjured by an evolutionary process.

Even more, the phantasm in my mind swarms with formal and final causalities, which cannot be recognized by a positivist intellect, er, I mean to say… a scientist.

The positivist intellect has a rule.

Metaphysics is not permitted.

12/6/23

Looking at Daniel Dennett’s Book (2017) “From Bacteria To Bach and Back” (Part 16 of 20)

0157 Now that I have arrived at a technical definition of the term, “meme”, within the framework of postmodern scholasticism, I may examine chapter nine of Dennett’s book (“The Role of Words in Cultural Evolution”) and chapter twelve (“The Origins of Language”).

0158 Dennett’s argument goes like this.

Words are a key ingredients to culture, because they belong to language. Spoken words make excellent examples of memes. Spoken words are like viruses.

But, I wonder, what about hand-talk words?

0159 Apparently, the idea that language evolves in the milieu of hand talk does not cross Dennett’s mind. Indeed, many evolutionary biologists treat culture, in general, and language, in particular, as the actuality independent of the adapting species_2a, rather than an adaptation_2b. Why? They are convinced that humans have no ultimate niche, only a blend of proximate niches, all of which offer material or instrumental advantages or challenges.

0160 Au contraire.

According to the masterwork, The Human Niche (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues), our lineage adapts to an ultimate niche_1b, the potential_1b of triadic relations_2a, as well as diverse proximate niches, including various Pliocene and Pleistocene ecologies and environments.

Practical language_2b is an adaptation to team activities and contributes to the expansion of the hominin neocortex between 2000kyr (thousands of years ago) and 800kyr. Hand talk evolves from pantomime to rudimentary (team-specific) grammars.

General language_2b is an adaptation that evolves within the milieu of hand talk, after the domestication of fire, around 800kyr (800 thousand years ago). Hand talk evolves from rudimentary team-specific languages to fully grammatical general languages.

Here is a picture of the latter step.

0161 What is language in the milieu of hand talk?

Hand-talk consists of manual-brachial gestures. Manual-brachial gestures work (that is, have the character of memes) because they picture or point to their referents. In terms of semiotics, manual-brachial gestures are icons and indexes.

When these are routinized, symbolic processing starts to occur, enhancing the distinctiveness of each gesture, and turning each into a word-gesture in a system of differences. The modern linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913 AD) defines “spoken language” as two arbitrarily related systems of differences, parole (speech) and langue (mental action). A finite system of differences (for Saussure) is a symbolic order (for Peirce). Grammar consists of operations within a symbolic order.

In hand talk, the relation between parole and langue is motivated by the natural sign characteristics of hand-talk words. Manual-brachial gestures are icons and indexes. Gestures image and indicate their referents. At the same time, hand talk also routinizes gestures into words. Words operate as symbols. They form a symbolic order. A symbolic order allows grammar. Grammar makes hand talk linguistic.

0162 Our ancestors never imagine that their gesture-words are icons, indexes or symbols.

Nevertheless, they become better and better at hand talk.

0163 How do manual-brachial word gestures fit the definition of meme?

A perspective-level actuality_2c may be a conviction that cannot be explicitly expressed using iconic and indexal signs. After all, how can a hand-talk word point to or picture a species impressa_2a, a species expressa_2b or a species intelligibilis_2c?

Nevertheless, the conviction_2c is real. Plus, if the hypothesis proposed in The Human Niche is credible, and if the scholastic interscope for how humans think describes what it claims to describe, then conviction_2c is an adaptation.

So, how do our ancestors express their convictions_2c?

They express their convictions through hand-talk expressions_2a (SO_i) in the normal context of what is happening_3a and with the potential of ‘something’ happening_1a (SI_i).

Then, the hand-talk words_2a are linguistically decoded into an icon or index (SV_s).

0167 Here is a picture of hand-talk as a meme.

0168 Before general language, the practical hand-talk languages of each team activity are distinct and only occur within the normal context of each team activity. Many of the characteristics that we associate with spoken words remind me of how hand-talk languages adapt to the crucible of team activities.

During the team activity, conviction_2c judges whether the ongoing content-level normal context of what is happening_3asupports the ongoing situation-level normal context of what this means to me_3b. This conviction_2c (SV_i) substantiates hand-talk words (SO_i) that either maintain the situation-level potential_1b in the face of content-level potentials_1a or not.

0169 For example, we don’t gather mushrooms at locations where lions are known to prowl. Plus, when a lion is nearby, everyone wants to get back to the band. There are hand-talk words that convey these tidbits of semantic information. We expect that our words refer to things and states of things. We expect our words to be honest. We insist that certain words are used appropriately. We expect words to contribute to our awareness of the ongoing situation. We expect words to convey, sometimes with comic zeal, what is happening and what it means to me.

0170 So, is there a problem with this scenario?

Have you noticed that no one talks with their hands anymore?

According to the masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues), around 7800 years ago, the only culture on Earth practicing speech-alone talk is the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia. All other Epipaleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures practice hand-speech talk.

0171 Why?

For one, speech is added to hand talk at the start of our species, before 200kyr. Our human ancestors practice a dual mode of talking, hand-speech talk, for over 190 thousand years. Then, the first singularity occurs.

For two, the first singularity starts with the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia. Today, all civilizations practice speech-alone talk. In fact, every civilization throughout history practices speech-alone talk, raising the question, asking, “Did the adoption of speech-alone talk potentiate civilization?”

For three, the answer is yes.

0172 Here is a picture of speech-alone talk as a meme.

The difference between hand-talk words and speech-alone words may seem subtle. Nevertheless, the difference is substantial.

0173 Hand-talk and hand-speech talk facilitate constrained social complexity.

Speech-alone talk potentiates unconstrained social complexity.

08/30/23

Looking at Glenn Diesen’s Book (2019) “The Decay … And Resurgence…” (Part 2 of 21)

0007 Diesen builds his theory on two key terms, gemeinschaft and gesellschaft. These terms are distinct. These terms are separate. Both terms rely on the capacity of speech-alone talk to apply labels.

These terms cannot exist in the world of hand-speech talk. What is there to picture or point to in hand talk? Oh, the most elder woman in the band can carry the rod of tradition. The smartest young man in the band can carry the rod of complexity. Okay, but how does hand talk image and indicate the qualifiers, “tradition” and “complexity”? These terms cannot be articulated in hand talk, the semiotic foundation of hand-speech talk.

0008 So, what am I asking?

Does the distinction between these two terms precede the first singularity? Is the distinction present before our current Lebenswelt? How does the distinction express itself in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

0009 May I suggest that the distinction is built into the unity of hand-speech talk? One language manifests in two modalities. Here is way to appreciate hand-speech talk as it was most likely practiced by Homo sapiens before the first singularity.

0010 Hand talk pictures and points to its referents. In this way, the relation between parole (gesture) and langue (mental processing of signification) is motivated by the semiotic qualities of icons and indexes. Hand talk has been evolving since before the start of the Homo genus. Hand talk becomes linguistic when the semiotic qualities of symbols start to operate beneath the surface of the iconicity and indexality of hand talk. Language involves automatic symbolic sign processing.

Speech, in hand-speech talk, relies on the innate semiotic properties of hand talk. When speech talk is added to hand talk, it pairs with manual-brachial gestures as an adornment. A sing-along, so to speak, which Neanderthals and Denisovans can appreciate but not perform well. Slowly, but surely, since the advent of our species, speech talk becomes more and more independent of its manual-brachial counterpart. Spoken words start to take on a lives of their own, while remaining grounded in hand talk. Consider the paleolithic art of the Lascaux caves and tell me that the artists were not singing as well as gesturing, as they spit paint upon the fat-lamp lit walls?

Speech does not replace hand talk. Rather, the speech component of hand-speech talk expresses hand talk in a different register, conveying the situation in addition to word-content. It adds a musical accompaniment. It adds… how shall I say it?.. a variety of tones.

0011 The hand-talk component of hand-speech talk associates with content, tradition, and the physical presence of people in community.

The speech-talk component of hand-speech talk associates with situation, adornment, and the relational presence of people in community.

0012 Consequently, certain ironies about our current Lebenswelt become obvious when I draw the following associations.

0012 At present, gesellschaft is called, “rational” and gemeinschaft is called, “irrational”.

Yet, as Diesen points out over and over again, whenever the rational orders the irrational without appreciation of the irrational, a civilization enters its autumn season.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Category Archives: The Evolution of Talk