0053 What does Domning have to say about the evolution of self?
Chapter eight is called, “Evolution and human behavior”.
0054 Richard Dawkins writes a book, titled The Selfish Gene, where the organism is reduced to gene expression. A living creature’s diverse features are really I-myselves of a self, composed of chromosomes (and its package, the cell).
Here, Dawkins projects the human term, “selfish”, which means, “to be preoccupied with one’s self”, onto an organism’s DNA, so that the organism itself is merely phenomena of a genetic noumenon.
Dawkin’s analogy is both counterintuitive and entertaining. It gives rise to a competition to demonstrate one’s intellectual prowess by reading and discussing its quackery with other self-identified “public intellectuals”, thereby joining highly educated elites who disdain the morons who have no interest in such postmodern wizardry.
0055 But hey, isn’t the term, “original selfishness”, also a projection?
Well, yes, imitation is the highest form of flattery.
0056 However, unlike the selfish gene, the selfish organism manifests psychological traits that express I, myself (A). Thus, original selfishness (pre-A) can be explicitly defined and used as a model for behavioral traits.
So, Domning has that going for him.
0057 Of course, the problem is that the term, selfish (C), introduces a moral seed that blossoms when the adjective becomes the noun, selfishness (D). Morals imply judgments. Animals make judgments, but they do not make moral judgments.
Really, animals perform judgments. Humans deliberate judgments. Both make judgments. But, the former does not dwell on the triadic structure of judgment. The latter does.
0058 What exactly is a judgment?
A judgment is a triadic structure with three elements, relation, what is, and what ought to be. A judgment brings what ought to be into relation with what is. When Peirce’s categories are assigned to each element, the judgment becomes actionable. Otherwise, the judgment is contemplative. An actionable judgment unfolds into a category-based nested form.
0062 When I re-articulate Domning’s foundational diagram (figure 10.1) using the development of the term, “selfishness”; I end up making the same points that Domning makes.
Figure 18
0063 When I re-articulate Domning’s foundational diagram using the components of the term, “concupiscence”; I end up with a scenario that is completely different.
Figure 19
0064 In fact, my technical definitions of cupid (B’), concupiditas (C’) and concupiscence (D’) appear to be inversions of traditional definitions of the same words.
More on that, later.
0065 Right now, I want to dwell on the idea that the self is what ought to be, imbued with secondness, in an innate judgment. Because what ought to be is assigned to the category of secondness, it becomes an actuality, the internal self (B) and the external cupid (B’).
0066 Domning warns against reductionism in chapter eight, on evolution and human behavior.
0067 For example, the claim that our somatic selves exist only to perpetuate our “selfish” DNA is a contemporary popular reduction. It is technically correct, since our somatic selves are adaptations into the niche of perpetuating DNA through self-preservation and reproductive success.
But, this reduction is misleading, since this reduction is used to veil later ultimate niches, such as the one that encourages the adaptations of sea cows and the one that encourages the adaptations of hominins.
0068 Similarly, my claim that our somatic selves are really adaptations intothe niche of triadic relations and that our perceptions of our own somatic selves are adaptations into the potential of judgment, is also reductionist and technically correct.
But, this reduction is revealing, because it shows that original selfishness does not “evolve” into the self. Rather, original selfishness is what is, the self is what ought to be, and consolidation is the relation.
The word, “consolidation”, is composed of “con-” (with), “solid” (a state of matter) and “-ation” (the process of becoming). Consolidation3 transforms the potential of diverse exhibitions of the emphatic, I-myself1 (A), into the solidity of a unitary self2 (B).
0069 In human evolution, the ability to make this judgment increases self-preservation and enhances reproductive success.
But, the ability does not derive from self-preservation and reproductive success, per se.
The ability derives from the realness of immaterial triadic relations.
0070 The masterwork, The Human Niche, changes the landscape beneath Domning’s argument.
Domning separates the universal and moral realities of original sin, using terminology that supports a re-conceptualization of original sin.
Here, I repeat Domning’s procedure with different terminology and end up supporting a re-conceptualization of Aquinas’s notion of original justice.
To wit, Aquinas comes up with the notion of original justice as the state of Adam before the Fall. Correspondingly, this notion should apply to humans in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
0072 Domning is an evolutionary biologist who is interested in theology.
To wit, Domning has read the Jesuit paleontologist, theologian and mastermind, Teilhard de Chardin. De Chardin is profoundly influenced by evolutionary theory and concludes that the stories of Adam and Eve are highly problematic. There is no way that Adam and Eve are the parents of all humans, which is the universal reality in the doctrine of Original Sin.
So, if the universal reality of Original Sin is scientifically incorrect, what does that imply?
Domning follows de Chardin in drawing the obvious conclusion. The universal reality of Original Sin must be found in the evolution of selfishness. So, selfishness must be the moral reality underlying Original Sin.
0073 But, this is not the case.
Why?
The self (B) is an adaptation to the niche of the triadic structure of judgment. The self (B) is also cupid (B’), which is a self among selves. Concupiditas (C’) is not selfish (C). Rather, it is the desire to be a self among selves, which turns into a competition to belong to a flourishing social circle (that is, concupiscence (D’), the state of competing to cooperate). Performance counts.
Cooperation within various social circles increases self-preservation and reproductive success, which in turn are adaptations into the niche of natural selection and genetics.
0074 The topic of social circles appears in Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) “Thinking Big”, available at smashwords and other e-book venues. These researchers discuss human evolution in terms of various social circles, including family (5), intimates (5), team (15), bands (50), communities (150) and later, megabands (500) and tribes (1500). As it turns out, the relative size of the mammalian brain correlates to group size. The hominins start with brain sizes typical for bands and end up with brain sizes typical of communities. The typical person keeps track of 150 other people.
Surely, the evolution of self plays a role. Perhaps, the coincidence of self (B) and cupid (B’) plays a role in the formalization of personal relations, especially in regards to larger groups, which meet seasonally (mega-band) or on rare occasions (tribe). More importantly, the realization of self (B) as relational (cupid (B’)) sets the stage for the competition to perform well in a social circle (D’).
0075 What does this mean for a freshman, who tries to keep up with hardened seniors, drinking beer at a college bar?
Surely, the freshman is trying to impress his superiors, the seniors, who are really his colleagues.
But, there is something more. The freshman is dying (figuratively, and occasionally literally) to join the team or the band.
The freshman is a cupid, saying I-myself, all the way to the porcelain throne.
0076 Would Domning regard such excess as selfish behavior on the part of the seniors (who should know better) as well as the freshman (whose mother warned him about this)?
I suppose so.
But, it is also more. The competition (to drink one more pint) stands at the threshold of a cooperative reaction (oh shit! he is about to barf! let’s get him to the can!). The competition triggers cooperation. Cooperation is the tree of life, ever fruitful, productive, innovative and challenging. Performance counts in the competition to cooperate.
0077 How is the evolution of self (B) different from the evolution of cupid (B’)?
Clearly, the freshman and the seniors are motivated by concupiditas (C’). The drinking game is an arena for expressing the desire to be among other selves. The drinking game has rules. The game has ethics. These ethics associate to concupiscence (D’).
So, the self (B) is an adaptation into the potential of the triadic structure of judgment. The self (B) is also an actuality, a self among others, a cupid (B’), who has the capacity to desire to work and belong and create with other selves (C’). Concupiditas (C’) is an adaptation that introduces culture, rules, social expectations and so forth. Concupiditas (C’) serves as the gateway to concupiscence (D’), where cooperation produces tangible results in terms of self-preservation and reproductive success.
0078 At this point, a theologian in the back of the room, yells, “Those are not the traditional definitions of cupid,concupiditas and concupiscence! This is insane. Your alternate definitions have the words precisely backwards!”
To which I reply, “Oh, you are correct. What does that imply?”
0079 Domning is on target, even while completely missing his intended endpoint. Evolution is red in tooth and claw. Evolution is also the most economic means to an end, the glory of God, in the abundance and diversity of life on Earth. One cannot pick and choose. God creates the world. God calls it “good”.
But, one can misread the creativity of natural selection, by insisting that all niches are potentials of material things. There is one niche that is the potential of an immaterial thing, the triadic relation. That is the human niche.
When I consider this unique niche, then the evolution of concupiscence (D’) produces a definition that inverts the traditional theological term.
0080 There is a reason for this inversion of meaning.
These alternative definitions apply to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Here is a list.
Figure 20
0081 What does this imply?
The traditional definitions apply to our current Lebenswelt.
Here is a list.
Figure 21
0082 The alternate definitions describe original justice.
The traditional definitions describe original sin.
0083 What else does this imply?
Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
0084 Of course, there is an explanation for why our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The explanation is called the hypothesis of the first singularity.
The hypothesis is plainly laid out in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace.
The hypothesis is dramatically rendered in An Archaeology of the Fall.
The hypothesis is reflected upon in Comments on Original Sin and Original Death: Romans 5:12-19.
0085 Here is a snapshot.
Figure 22
0086 There is a reason why all the origin myths of the ancient Near East depict recent creations of humans. The myth tellers cannot see beyond the time horizon set by the first singularity. In particular, the people of the Ubaid, then Uruk, then Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods in southern Mesopotamia could not remember the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The Creation Story is the sole exception. But, it does not stand alone. The creation of Adam and Eve immediately follows the first chapter of Genesis, giving the impression that Adam and Eve are the first humans.
Consequently, humans are created twice in Genesis 1-4. In Genesis 1, humans are created as images of God in an evolutionary framework. In Genesis 2.4-3, the preamble to the creation of Adam clearly places the Garden of Eden at the confluence of four rivers, including the Tigris and Euphrates, during the Wet Neolithic of southwestern Asia.
0087 In conclusion, I would like to conduct a point-by-point comparison of the alt- and trad- definitions of the terms that compound into “concupiscence”. The alt definitions correspond to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in and original justice. The trad definitions correspond to our current Lebenswelt and original sin.
0088 Here is the first comparison
Figure 23
0089 In the alt-definition, the self (B) is a psychological actuality produced by an innate judgment, where consolidation (relation, thirdness) brings the self (B) (what ought to be, secondness) out of various psychological expressions of I-myself (A) (what is, firstness).
Cupid (B’) expresses the sociological realities of the self (B).
These realities are implicit abstractions. They cannot be pictured or pointed to in hand talk, so they cannot be subject for discussion by our hominin ancestors. Instead, they are held in mind as judgments, fed by experiences of other selves in action.
0090 In the trad-definition, Cupid is a passion-child of the goddess of cooperation and god of competition. There is no hint of triadic relations or implicit abstraction. The abstractions are explicit. Cupid is a selfish thing.
0091 Here is the second comparison.
Figure 24
0092 In the alt-definition, concupiditas (C’) is the desire to belong with others in a social circle. The desire entails performance, not analysis. Not analysis? In hand talk, one cannot image or indicate an explicit abstraction, such as “desire” or “performance”. Instead, one performs desire through actions, just like the animals, who also have no means to arrive at explicit abstractions. The desire is real. The performance is real. They are so real that we innately anticipate suffering for the well being of others and accepting the ministrations of others with humility. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
0093 In the trad-definition, concupiditas (C) is like selfish (C), a parody of belonging. Selfish attitudes aim for conditional (or better, forced) acceptance. Belonging is conditioned by my desires and my desires are not oriented to others. The balance of give and take is always off kilter. What appears to be fair play carries a dangerous edge. In Greek myth, Cupid tips his arrows with poisonous desires.
0094 Here is the third comparison.
Figure 25
0095 In the alt-definition, concupiscence (D’) is what humans evolved to do, compete to cooperate. We strive to bond with one another, according to the traditions of each social circle, which itself adapts to encourage human flourishing, as opposed to immediate gratification.
Indeed, our most addictive pleasures evolve under cultural traditions that forbid the full expression of the addictive behavior, if that makes sense. For example, if we could give our lives for others over and over again, we would. But, that cannot be done, because we are flesh and blood. The tree of life forbids unconstrained courage and self-immolation, while offering the fruits of its abundance. We flourish when we are willing to sacrifice ourselves for others, not when we get carried away and go too far. Courage can become addictive. Courage must be weighed by prudence.
The alt-definition of concupiscence (D’) denotes the presence of original justice.
0096 In the trad-definition, concupiscence (D) is the state of being with Cupid. Cupid is a shallow twit of a god, the mischievous passion-child of Venus and Mars. Cupid’s arrows are tipped with poisons that carry us too far. For example, one poison conveys a desire to haveothers desire to sacrifice for me. Seduction is a type of fixation. One can get addicted to one’s own power of seduction, demanding that others sacrifice for one’s own preoccupations.
Concupiscence (D) is unhinged selfishness (D). Concupiscence asks to be justified. Speech-alone words are willing servants. After all, a spoken word does not directly image or indicate its referent. A spoken word means whatever I want it to mean, in the presence of my fixation.
Surely, the trad-definition of concupiscence (D) denotes the presence of original sin.
0097 Original sin is the absence of original justice.
That is what Saint Thomas Aquinas claims.
The association between original justice, the state of Adam before the Fall, and the Lebenswelt that we evolved in is developed in Comments on Daniel Houck’s Book (2020) “Aquinas, Original Sin and the Challenge of Evolution”.
0098 This examination of Daryl Domning’s book adds depth to that commentary.
By separating the universal (descent from common ancestor) and moral (the traditional definition of concupiscence) realities of original sin, Domning offers me a path to discover one of features of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, as well as one of the features of our current Lebenswelt.
0099 What games we play with words.
My thanks to Daryl Domning and Monica Hellwig for their speculative effort, trying to reconcile evolutionary science and Christian doctrine. Original Selfishness: Original Sin and Evil in Light of Evolution is first published in 2006 by Ashgate. My copy is published in 2016 by Routledge. The first edition in paperback is issued in 2021. ISBN is 978-1-03-224358-0.
0009 The actualities of human evolution2 and original sin2 intersect.
Here is the diagram of the intersection for this example.
Figure 03
0010 The intersection is a relational structure. The e-masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, available at smashwords and other e-book venues, introduces the intersection. This relational structure associates to the message underlying the term, “religion”.
0011 Note how all the items in Haarsma’s title are captured by elements in the above intersection.
Two transitions (3H and 3V) touch base with the question, “When?”.
Two actualities (2H and 2V) go with human evolution2H and the doctrine of original sin2V. These two actualities join into a single reality, which I currently label as one realness.
The potentials (1H and 1V) are implied. Let me examine each.
0012 The potential of adaptive change1H arises in response to a niche. Typically, the niche involves some material advantage (to be exploited) or disadvantage (to be ameliorated). For our lineage, the niche involves immaterial advantages and disadvantages. How so? The Homo lineage adapts into the niche of triadic relations, as discussed in the e-masterwork, The Human Niche.
0013 The potential of the start of sin1V is not so different than the potential of the Genesis Primeval History1V. For this reason, I enter the potential of the stories of Adam and Eve1V, as the possibility underlying original sin2V. I could also have entered the potential of the letters of Saint Paul1V.
At the same time, the mythological character of the Primeval History comes into play. The stories of Genesis 2:4-11 are set in the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods.This setting is discussed in the February 2022 blog series at www.raziemah.com, entitled, Looking at Carol Hill’s Article (2021) “Original Sin with respect to Science”.
0014 In the Introduction, Haarsma states that human evolution2H and the doctrine of original sin2V seem dissonant.
0015 All intersections seem dissonant.
Why?
Two apparently independent actualities constitute a single actuality.
0016 I call the single actuality, “one realness”.
What should I label this “one realness”?
0017 Maybe, the term, “our current Lebenswelt”, will do.
The word, “Lebenswelt”, is German for “living world”.
0018 Here is an initial picture of two actualities constituting a single actuality.
Figure 04
0019 The problem?
Original sin2V applies to our current Lebenswelt, the world after Adam and Eve.
Human evolution2H covers a much longer timeline than our current Lebenswelt.
This introduces a wrinkle to the fabric of Haarsma’s work.
The natural3H and theological transition3V marking the start of our current Lebenswelt2 involves only a fraction of the entirety of human evolution. It is like trying to fix one’s glasses with a tool kit designed for automobiles. It is like cutting a handkerchief from a bedsheet.
0020 Haarsma premises his book on the tenet that there are several possible ways to harmonize human evolution and the doctrine of original sin.
Plus, none of them are good.
Why?
None of them raise the following question, coming from the standpoint of original sin2V and addressing experts on human evolution2H.
Why is our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
0020 Clearly, a natural transition3H and a theological transition3V contextualize the start of our current Lebenswelt2.
Furthermore, our current Lebenswelt2 arises from two, apparently independent, potentials: an adaptive change in human prehistory1H and a cultural change that is captured in the stories of Adam and Eve1V.
As already noted, these two potentials point to the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods of southern Mesopotamia2.
According to the e-work, The First Singularity And Its Fairy Tale Trace, these two potentials pertain to a cultural change that potentiates civilization (specifically) and unconstrained social complexity (generally)2. This cultural change marks the start of our current Lebenswelt.
0022 In brief, the doctrine of original sin2V challenges the discipline of modern Anthropology2H, which currently proposes a litany of material causes for the potentiation of civilization, such as the birth of agriculture, or the use of irrigation, or population pressures, or this or that material condition.
0023 Original sin2V forces the Christian to ask the scientist, “What if the natural transition3H to our current Lebenswelt is not material?”
This is the location where Loren Haarsma cannot go, because he values the discoveries of natural history and genetics. For years, he has been working with human evolution writ large.
The result is that the initial intersection is lopsided.
Figure 05
On top of that, natural history and genetics cannot propose a scientific hypothesis for a cultural change in the way humans talk.
0024 The first singularity2H is a hypothesis inhuman evolution2H.
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 hypothesis2H is dramatically portrayed, in tandem with originating sin2V, in the fiction, An Archaeology of the Fall.
This produces a balanced intersection.
Figure 06
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.
Figure 07
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.
Figure 08
The two contributing actualities complement one another as follows.
Figure 09
0029 This digression into the complementarity between the two contributing actualities reinforces the idea that they should balance.
In chapter four, Haarsma discusses human evolution2H, 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 evolution2H is joined to original justice2H in the single actuality2 of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Here is a picture.
Figure 10
0031 Wow. The size of the contributions match.
Plus, just as original sin2V asks theorists in modern Anthropology about a recent (and immaterial) natural transition in human evolution2H, which turns out to be the hypothesis of the first singularity2H,original justice2V challenges theorists in modern Anthropology concerning the nature of the ultimate human niche2H.
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.
