What about this vision of Original Sin as a reification of our own interpretations of the ‘what is real’. Once reified, a “serpent” inspires us to actions that produce results that differ from expectations (i.e. what is defined to be ‘real’). How do we deal with those results? Examples? And how does this picture resonate with traditional interpretations of these chapters of Genesis. This topic is addressed in chapters 11,12 and 13.
0227 The book before me is Semiotic Agency: Science Beyond Mechanism, by biosemioticians Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnnessen. The book is published in 2021 by Springer and logs in at volume 25 of Springer’s Series in Biosemiotics. The editors of this series have Razie Mah’s permission for use of following disquisition, with attribution of said blogger.
The psychometric sciences have already been introduced in points 0159 through 0173 of this examination.
0228 The titular question is crucial, since biosemiotics culminates a century-long development, starting with Edmund Husserl developing a phenomenological method for intuitively articulating what the noumenon must be, for a wide variety of phenomena, where the noumenon is not absolutely obvious. Biosemiotics stands within the tradition of science as a search for truth.
0229 Similarly, the psychometric sciences constitute a century-long development, starting with Sigmund Freud discovering a psychoanalytic method capable of bringing unconscious wishes to consciousness in order that they may influence choices. The label, “psychometric sciences”, is coined by Joseph Farrell, and further fleshed out by Razie Mah in Looking at Joseph Farrell’s Book (2020) “The Tower of Babel Moment” (appearing in Razie Mah’s blog at the end of December 2023). The psychometric sciences stands within the tradition of science as a will to know… or is it… power?
0230 Both of these traditions lay claim to the Positivist’s judgment.
Judgment?
A judgment is a triadic relation containing three elements: relation, what ought to be and what is. When each of these elements is assigned to one of Peirce’s categories, the judgment becomes actionable. Actionable judgments unfold into category-based nested forms.
Here is a picture of the Positivist’s judgment for the natural sciences.
0231 As for what is, a noumenon is the thing itself. The thing itself cannot be fully objectified as its observable and measurable facets. A noumenon cannot be objectified as its phenomena.
As for what ought to be, disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness). This is called the “empirio-schematic judgment”.
0232 Triumphalist scientists advocate that a noumenon be replaced with its model. When a successful model substitutes for the noumenon, then the model (overlaying the noumenon) can be objectified as its phenomena. In short, the tension within Kant’s slogan is mitigated when a model substitutes for its noumenon.
0233 As for the relation, the positivist intellect has a rule. Metaphysics is not allowed.
Of course, when investigating human behavior, metaphysics is necessary for models. Metaphysics includes formal and final causalities. Formal causes pertain to designs and their requirements. Final causes pertain to intentions, aims, goals, and the like.
I suppose that metaphysics (in the sense of two of Aristotle’s four causes) may be allowed in biosemiotics and the psychometric sciences, if they are not “metaphysical terms” (in the sense that theologians are always talking about “metaphysical” or “religious” stuff).
So, both biosemiotics and the psychometric sciences play word games. Metaphysics is okay as long as formal and final causes are regarded as material and efficient causes. Metaphysics is okay as long as it is not “religious”.
0234 Biosemioticians Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnessen propose a noumenon that is derived from the specifying sign-relation. The triadic sign-relation is simplified into a dyadic formula. Dyads are characteristic of Peirce’s category of secondness. Secondness is the realm of actuality.
If I look at what is for the Positivist’s judgment, I notice that a dyadic structure is assigned to the category of firstness. Why is that so? The noumenon and its phenomena may be considered real elements. The issue is whether the two elements are really the same thing. A noumenon and its phenomena are not like matter and form, where matter is not the same as form. The thing itself and its observable and measurable facets are the same entity.
0235 This explains Kant’s slogan, reminding the scientist that the thing itself cannot be objectified as its observable and measurable facets, even though both labels apply to the same entity.
0236 So, what is for the Positivist’s judgment belongs to the category of firstness (the realm of possibility) because phenomena have the potential to be observed and measured and their noumenon has the potential of being the thing responsible for the phenomena.
What ought to be for the Positivist’s judgment belongs to the category of secondness (the realm of actuality).
0237 Triumphalist scientists propose to substitute a successful model for the noumenon because the substitution increases the potential that there is something real that is responsible for the phenomena. Indeed, to a laboratory scientist, the model (overlaying the noumenon) is objectified by its phenomena. Yes, the model is more “real” than its noumenon.
0238 The biosemioticians Sharov and Tonnessen propose to substitute their noumenal overlay, with similar results. Phenomena objectify their noumenal overlay.
0239 Notice how the noumenal overlay has a dyadic structure. Since the dyad characterizes the category of secondnessand since secondness is the realm of actuality, the dyadic structure increases the feeling that the the noumenal overlay is actual. Indeed, the dyad is so actual that Kant’s slogan seems to apply. This overlay has the feel that it is more than what it appears to be.
This is precisely what Sharov and Tonnessen claim. Their noumenal overlay is what all noumena in the biological sciences have in common. If the diverse noumena of the biological sciences (like the leaves on a tree) have one thing in common, it is the biosemiotic noumenal overlay (like the tree that bears the leaves).
0240 This includes the noumenon of the psychometric sciences.
Or, I should say, this applies to the model that the psychometric sciences aim to substitute for Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay.
After all, their model is a simplification of the S&T noumenal overlay.
The human intellect3 contextualizes the potential of the human will1. Does this normal context3 and potential1 describe human reason? What actuality2 does human reason3,1 support? How about what I think [is manifested by] what I say2.
This nested form allows me to imagine that the above dyad may serve as a content-level actuality2.
0242 Here is a picture.
0243 The content-level nested form belongs to the scrappy player. The scrappy player will be situated by experts. The experts provide opportunities for the one who relativizes all the jurisdictions of the experts. I call the perspective level normal context, “the relativist one3c“.
0244 The full three-level interscope is developed in Looking at Steve Fuller’s Book (2020) “A Player’s Guide To the Post-Truth Condition”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog for July 2024, as well as in Part I of the e-book, Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0245 Ah, does that mean that the psychometric sciences are implicated in the current post-truth condition?
You bet.
The next move is to construct an expert level that situates the scrappy player.
0246 Note how what I say2a has been modified to phenomena2a available to postmodern expert1b. Experts3bformalize1b phenomena2a in the process of constructing psychometric models of value2b. Various disciplinary languages3b (relation, thirdness) are used in turning the phenomena of what people say2a (what is, firstness) into observations and measurements1b suitable to modeling as value2b (what ought to be, secondness).
These disciplinary languages derive from capitalist and socialist ideologies, reformatted to sound like the natural and the social sciences.
Yes, capitalist and socialist theorists learn to speak in the style of the empirio-schematic judgment. These advocatessound like natural scientists and they define their academic turf as “scientific”. Perhaps, it is only make believe. But, the empirio-normative judgment2c takes it to be real1c.
Compare the expert level with the empirio-schematic judgment, unfolded into a situation-level nested form.
Indeed, the comparison is fecund. Both capitalist and socialist theorists speak the same style of scientific disciplinary discourse. No wonder that the proposed models2b never really make sense to the scrappy player3a. Capitalism3b and socialism3b come from different theoretical possibilities1b.
0247 What do capitalist and socialist ideologies3b have in common?
During the Third Battle among the Enlightenment Gods, the Cold War among Materialist Ideologies, capitalism and socialism fight over the same noumenon,the thing itself that can be modeled as value. Now, in the Fourth Battle with the Enlightenment Gods, Empirio-Normative Domination of Subject Populations, capitalist and socialist theorists unite in the production of value2b. They do so in the imitation of natural science. And, that is what they have in common.
0248 Here is the interscope for the post-truth condition.
Take a look at the above figure and see whether you can identify what the noumenon must be.
Yes, the noumenon must be what I think2a.
0249 In the following figure, the noumenon is in red.
Its phenomena appear in green.
The resulting models appear in light blue.
0250 This raises a question, “How does a system, where experts3b situate scrappy players3a, substitute expert-determined values2b for the noumenon2a?”
Sharov and Tonnessen answer in the first sentence of the abstract for chapter two of Semiotic Agency. Signs are semiotic tools.
In this instance, a sign-vehicle residing on the perspective level (SVi) stands for a content-level sign-object (SOi) in regards to a content-level sign-interpretant (SIi).
Specifically, a system-generated empirio-normative judgment2c (SVi) stands for what I think2a (SOi) in regards to my (the scrappy player’s) intellect3a operating on my will1a (SIi).
0251 Here is a picture.
0251 What does this imply?
Well, a system-generated empirio-normative judgment2c (SVi) influences my reason3a,1a (SIi) in such a fashion as to impact my wishes, my habits and my choices2a (SOi).
I may not even realize that the interventional sign-relation is being used by some agent3c on the perspective level,taking the opportunity1c to project2can expert-fashioned psychometric value2b my way. I encounter the interventional sign-vehicle2c (SVi) without realizing that it is a semiotic tool, aiming to trigger my intellect3a and my will1a (SIi) in such a way as to alter what I think2a(SOi).
0252 How crazy is that?
But, that is not the implication that I am looking for.
The implication is this: What I think2a is a noumenon. The empirio-normative judgement2c aims to influence my intellect3a and will1a in order to alter my wishes, habits and choices2a. So, the dyad, choice [habit] wish, is a model that the perspective-level judgment2c tries to lay over what I think2a.
0253 The dyad, choice [habit] wish is a simplification of Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay. Its simplicity adds to its plausibility. If I make a habit of treating my wishes as if they are my choices, the the model successfully substitutes for what I think2a.
And, what I say2a serves as phenomena for the psychometric sciences to observe and measure.
0254 Clearly, the psychometric sciences use the interventional sign-relation as a tool.
Biosemiotics says that signs are tools.
0255 One science accounts for the other.
In the process, two features of science come to consciousness.
The psychometric sciences represent the tendency of science to manipulate and control the subject of inquiry.
Reason3a,1a is the normal context of the intellect3a operating on the will1a.
Biosemiotics represents the tendency of science to pursue the truth.
Reason3a,1a is the normal context of the intellect3a seeking the truth1a.
0001 The full title of the article before me is “St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John Paul II on the State of Original Innocence”. The work is published online by the journal Studia Gilsoniana 12(4) (October-December 2023), pages 617-634. The work is brief, a mere seventeen pages.
0002 Indeed, I suspect that this examination will be far more extravagant, in the same way that twentieth century American advertising transforms a winter celebration of the birth of Christ into a two month bazaar hawking any item that can be purchased and given to a loved one (who, praise God, will be too embarrassed to return it). Like scented body wash.
0003 Modern Americans already practice a theology of the gift.
Modern Americans already practice a theology of the body.
And, the enterprise makes even the angels laugh, because it is a parody of every grace that it proclaims, in the same way that original sin is a parody of original justice… or… as certain Protestants would have it… total depravity is a parody of total innocence. What is “original” in one Christian schema is “total” in another.
0004 In this thought-piece, theologian Brandon Wanless aims to demonstrate how Pope John Paul II, in his proclamation, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, takes the theology of Thomas Aquinas as a platform, a soap-box, if you will, to stand upon while formulating a judgment. An honest, contemplative, Christian intellect (relation) brings the what is of original innocence into relation with the what ought to be of the ethnos of the gift.
0005 Ethnos?
Is that the same as “ethos”?
“Ethnos” is a term that appears in the discipline of political theology, around 2006, the same time as when the English translation of John Paul II’s commentary on Humanae Vita (1968) is released for publication. The term is coined by Russian philosopher, Alexander Dugin. “Ethnos” is the people that we once were, but cannot return to being. “Ethnos” contrasts with the Russian word, “narod”, which is who we once were, before political theories turned us into a “people”.
0006 What does this imply?
The term, “ethnos”, is an element in a Greimas square. A Greimas square is a purely relational structure consisting of four terms. As it turns out, the Greimas square is useful in appreciating how one spoken word differs from other spoken words.
Here are the four elements, along with the rules of the Greimas square.
0007 Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…Dimensions of Dugin’s Populism”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog, February 16-28, 2023, elaborates the “ethnos” as an element in a Greimas square.
Here is a picture.
0008 The focal term (A), for political theology, is “the people“, as in the slogan, “We, the People…”.
0009 Various political theories (B) contrast with the people (A), even as they (B) try to define it (A) according to various explicit abstractions. These explicit abstractions become bound in a religion, of sorts. The label is awarded the postfix, “-ism”. “Communism” and “capitalism” are good examples.
0010 The being (C) that speaks against (literally “contra” and “diction”) B is difficult to define. It is pre-political, at least, pre-modern political theory. The narod is where where a man marries a woman and they have children. They live in villages, or maybe, towns. The “narod” reminds me of first title in John Paul II’s theology of the body. The relational nature of the family is addressed in the First and Second Primers on the Organization Tier and A Primer on the Family, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
The narod (C) belongs to our current Lebenswelt.
0011 Finally, the ethnos (D) contrasts with the narod (C), because it is the narod before the first singularity.The ethnos is the narod in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. As such, it speaks against the people (A) who are framed by various political -isms (B). The people can never return to the ethnos. The ethnos is the condition of total innocence.
And yet, a return to the original innocence (D) is weirdly what every political theory (B) promises.
0106 In Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II proposes that original innocence entails a gift of holiness given to man and to woman, enabling them to participate in the inner life of God, through their radical giving of self to one another, in purity of heart.
He concludes that the ethos of the gift may serve as the basis for a truly adequate anthropology.
0107 To this examiner, Pope John Paul II stands on the soapbox of the theology of Thomas Aquinas. He proclaims biblical teaching.
At the same time, he points toward the prelapsarian Adam… or adamah… and subtly suggests that a truly adequate anthropology may be found in… an application of Aquinas’s metaphysics and biblical teaching to who we evolved to be.
0108 Male and female we evolved to be?
And more…
Male and female in mutual self-giving, we evolved to be.
0109 Here is a picture with another way to appreciate the relation between John Paul II’s specific application and the broad application that The Theology of the Body intimates.
This schema may be applied to all social circles.
0110 Adamah is “humanity”, when the hominin and the social circle may be distinguished but not separated. Adamah do not articulate triadic relations using explicit abstractions. Rather, adamah live them and, over generations, adapt to them. We live by implicit abstraction. Implicit abstractions are built into our souls and bodies. Adamah associates to the “image of God” of Genesis verses 1:26-31.
0111 The foundational social circles are family (5) and friends (5).
The social circle for obligatory collaborative foraging is the team (15). Here is where our lineage learns to be productive and have fun. Proto-linguistic hand talk is an adaptation to teams. Teams engage in sensible construction.
The social circle that provides safety in numbers in travel and at night is the band (50).
The social circle that brings harmony to diverse teams is the community (150). Here is where we learned to be more than productive and experience more than fun. Fully linguistic hand talk is an adaptation to community. Communities engage in social construction. Social construction is the meaning underlying the term, “religion”.
0112 The social circle that gathers bands and communities in seasonal celebrations is the mega-band (500). Here is where singing is first used for social synchronization. The gathering cannot last long, in order to avoid disease. So, rapid social synchronization is required.
Once the voice is under voluntary control due to social and sexual selection, the voice is exapted at the start of our own species, Homo sapiens, over 200,000 years ago. Humans practice hand-speech talk until the first singularity.
The social circle that calls for wisdom and offers deep witness to the signs of The One Who Hand Talks the World Itself is the tribe. The tribe is a linguistic community.
0113 Unbeknownst to Pope John Paul II, a theology of original innocence as a disposition towards interpersonal self-giving may be precisely the metaphysics needed to conceptually elucidate the dynamic harmonies within and among social circles that characterize hominin evolution.
0114 Man is not meant to be alone, as a radical individual, whose sexuality is a tool to satisfy “needs”, according to some theoretical -ismist construction.
Yet, man is alone, caught in a web of explicit abstractions promising to solve his alienation, by incorporating him into an idea, an “-ism”, concocted by some “Western Enlightenment inspired” political philosopher. If he buys into the agenda, then he may be a person, among an ideologically defined people.
Such theory may be technically correct, but it is wholly misleading. Now, -ismists are increasingly discredited.
0115 In our current Lebenswelt, we live in the state of original sin.
We are not alone in contemplating our condition.
Alexander Dugin calls for a fourth political theory.
Pope John Paul II offers a theology that complements Dugin’s vision.
Dugin offers a political theory that complements the pope’s theology.
0116 Just beyond Adam, representing our current Lebenswelt, there is adamah, prelapsarian humanity, representing the Lebenswelt that we evolved to be. Philosophical inquiry into biblical teaching may allow us to see that humans and social circles co-evolve, so man was never meant to be alone.
The people are beginning to realize that the -ismists are wrong, the narod is where we could be, and the ethnos is where we can never return to. We long to return. But, we cannot. So turn around and see what God has to offer.
0117 Perhaps, now, in a confused and exploratory fashion, we can modify our scientific interpretation of human evolutionand stand on Aquinas’s soapbox just like the the pope does, and greet the prelapsarian adamah, as who we evolved to be.
0118 My thanks to the author for publishing an article worthy of examination.
Surely, this examiner goes to places that the author never envisioned.
Such is the way of scholastic inquiry. Commentaries follow commentaries. Then, everything changes.
0001 Daniel W. Houck juggles five challenges in his attempt to recover Thomas Aquinas’s teachings on original sin.
0002 One, Aquinas does not challenge Augustine’s mechanism of original sin. Original sin descends through Adam to all humans through human reproduction. Augustine’s speculation is now on the chopping block, because modern biologists observe no large genetic bottleneck, as required by Augustine’s proposed scenario. Concupiscence may be undeniable. But, it does not plague humans due to descent from a single ancestral pair.
On one hand, original sin cannot be accounted for as a sexually transmitted disease.
On the other hand, sexually transmitted diseases can, in part, be accounted for by original sin.
0003 Two, original sin is inextricably tied to a difficult conversation about the fate of the souls of infants and fetuses, who tragically die. Where do the souls of aborted fetuses go? To the city dump?
0004 Three, the doctrine of original sin does not appear in Scripture. Instead, original sin comes from interpreting Scripture. It’s like the smell of the rotting food. If one reads Scripture and follows the unfolding theodrama with care, one cannot help but conclude with Paul, in his notorious Letter to the Romans, that Adam and Christ are linked. The Scriptures stink of original sin. Yet, the fragrance of redemption overcomes the sordid aromas. That is the Good News. Jesus is a breath of fresh air.
0005 Four, despite recent attempts to revive the theology of Thomas Aquinas, his account of original sin remains neglected. There is a reason. Thomas never locks onto a clear and concise reckoning. A hundred years ago, Aquinas’s thoughts on the matter are debated. Jean Baptiste Kors publishes an in-depth examination under the title, La Justice primitive et le peche originel d’apres S. Thomas (1922). Now, it is crickets.
0006 Five, Houck consigns even the crickets to silence, because the crickets never considered Neodarwinism and how it puts Augustine’s speculation on the chopping block. In light of the shimmering axe of negation poised above the City of God, much less the City of Man, the crickets may silently snicker at Houck’s promise to tie together Aquinas’s account of original justice with other areas of the great medieval theologian’s thought. Does a synthesis matter? After the blade of scientific expertise comes down on the idea that Adam and Eve are the first humans, will the executioner call out, “Next, original justice.”?
0006 Already modern theologians slink away from the historicity of the Fall.
Can they do without this non-scientific nonsense?
Houck does not think so. No responsible Christian theologian thinks so.
Houck must juggle these five juggernauts, as if each does not have a life of its own. What is the secret that brings them into obedient motion, where one goes up while another comes down?
It is not to be found in his book.
0007 It is to be found in the hypothesis of the first singularity.
The stories of Adam and Eve, along with all currently known written origin stories of the ancient Near East, point to a recent time-horizon, beyond which civilization cannot see.
They point to the first singularity.
They cannot see beyond this event.
The ancient myths say, “Humans are made right before civilization starts.”
Now, archaeologists testify to humans before the time horizon of the first singularity.
Humans walk the earth long before the dawn of history.
0008 Is Adam the first human, as suggested by Augustine, as well as by the Genesis text?
If Adam is not the first human, then who is Adam?
Adam must be a figure in a fairy tale. The fairy tale may be about an event, or something like an event, hidden in time. We (moderns) do not know much about what came before this event. We know more than nothing. Neolithic stone tools that tell us that, after 12,000 years ago, plants become very important as food. The remains of sedentary villages tell us that we learned to give plants as food to the animals.
The Neolithic marks the invention of agriculture.
The Developed Neolithic combines stockbreeding and agriculture.
0009 There is an intimation, in Genesis 1:26-30, of a humanity before Adam. If that is the case, then why does the Story of the Garden of Eden start with God creating Adam from dust and Eve from Adam’s rib?
Oh yeah, the story of the Garden of Eden is a fairy tale. And, a fairy tale may be about an event, or something like an event, hidden in time. At the start of this event, Adam busies himself with the garden and names the animals. He gets to contribute a rib to make Eve. He is innocent. So is Eve. Together, they portray everything that the hominins evolved to be.
In the garden, there is the tree of life. This tree is a metaphor for Thomas Aquinas’s notion of original justice. It is also a metaphor for the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The tree of life is a metaphor for the Lebenswelt where humans are what they evolved to be.
0010 The noumenon of humans, like all animals, is hylomorphic.
The word, “hylomorphe”, combines two words, “hyle” (matter) and “morphe” (form). According to Comments on Daniel De Haan’s Essay (2018) “Hylomorphism and the New Mechanist Philosophy…”, Aristotle’s hylomorphe associates to Peirce’s category of secondness. Peirce’s secondness consists in two contiguous real elements. Here, the two real elements are matter and form. The contiguity? May I use the word, “substance”?
The contiguity is placed in brackets. Secondness is denoted by the subscript.
0236 Augustine’s mechanism captures the essence of the first singularity. It does not capture the esse_ce. Augustine treats the Garden of Eden as if it is a real story. Instead, the fairy tales of Adam and Eve point to the first singularity.
Similar mythologies from the ancient Near East, revealed during the past three centuries from archaeological excavations, give the same impression. Humans do not have a deep past. Humans are recently manufactured by differentiated gods, who arise out of a foggy, undifferentiated nowhere.
0237 These ancient writings are not known during the Latin Age, so the scholastics do not contest Augustine’s mechanism. Yet, they find that the mechanism is not sufficient, because of those damned dead infants. How can infants express concupiscence?
The concern is both mechanistic and conditional. It can be portrayed as a dyad in the realm of actuality. This actuality corresponds to original sin2.
0238 How to describe the contiguity?
Houck lists three scenarios that gain prominence during the Latin Age: disease theory, a legal connection, and a realist view.
These three approaches tie into the above actuality.
0239 Augustine’s conflation of concupiscence and procreation provides a disease mechanism for how Adam’s rebellion infects us.
The legal framework corresponds to God’s Will, which is contained in the command, not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The status of humanity changes from blessed to cursed. A change in legal status puts Augustine’s conflation into context3.
The realist view is that humans lost something with Adam’s rebellion. The Story of the Fall indicates that humans lost access to the tree of life. A better way to put it is: The tree of life is no longer a possibility1. The Garden of Eden is no longer possible. So, God is no longer present as He once was.
0240 In sum, the scholastics, following Aristotle’s four causes, place Augustine’s mechanism into a complete category-based nested form.
0241 Perhaps, the reader can predict my next move.
I wonder, “Can this nested form go into the perspective level of divine suprasubjectivity?”
Or, does it correspond to what Christian doctrine projects into perspective-level elements?
Here is how the perspective level changes.
Note how the normal context3c and potential1c have changed character, they are now qualified.
Note how the judgment of original justice2c (belonging to thirdness) changes into a mechanistic dyad2c (belonging to secondness).
What are the implications?
0242 A change in perspective for God passes into a change of perspective for humans.
Our commitment2c does not make sense without God’s orientation (grace).
0243 Adam disobeying God’s command changes our legal status3c.
The ejection of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden changes God’s Presence1c from open to hidden.
And worse, a mechanism connects Adam’s rebellion to our own lives2c. Augustine’s hybridization of concupiscence and procreation is one mechanism that captures crucial features of the contiguity. However, modern evolutionary science argues for its implausibility. Adam and Eve are not the first human beings. Therefore, they are not the parents of all humans today.
0244 Is there a mechanism that will meet the qualifications of cause-and-effect and offer us (in our current Lebenswelt) a glimpse into who we evolved to be?
Augustine’s mechanism coheres to a literal interpretation of the Story of the Fall. Consequently, the mechanism is not independent of the biblical text.
The mechanism of the first singularity coheres with an interpretation of the Story of the Fall that is appropriate for the genre. The stories of Adam and Eve are fairy tales. Fairy tales are stories that are told to children. Often, they are preserved with remarkable precision over hundreds (and for these stories, thousands) of years. They may point to some primal event. That event cannot be reconstructed from the fairy tale itself. That event must be postulated independently of the fairy tale.
The hypothesis of the first singularity fits the criteria of (1) cause-and-effect and (2) a connection to the Genesis text. But, it does not allow us to appreciate how the twist in human evolution touches base with the doctrine of original sin.
0245 This is why Aquinas’s postulation of original justice2c is so crucial.
Original justice2c pertains to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Original sin2c pertains to our current Lebenswelt.
Original sin2c is the privation of original justice2c.
Speech-alone talk is the privation of the hand-component of hand-speech talk.
Speech-alone talk attaches labels to the elements within the perspective-level actuality2c.
Why stop there?
Spoken words can label every element on the perspective level, as well as the situation level, as well as the content level.
This is not possible in iconic and indexal hand-speech talk.
0246 The Story of the Fall tells a tale, rich in details that call to mind the first singularity.
With the assistance of the serpent, Eve attaches spoken labels to the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Then, her spoken words generate the reality of Adam’s rebellion.
0247 Thousands of years later, scholastics refine the Story of the Fall into a perspective-level category-based nested form for original sin.
They know nothing about the content level, as it currently is configured by modern science.
They know that the content level pertains to crucial questions, “Where does the world come from? Where do we humans come from?”
They know that the situation-level addresses the question, “What went wrong?”
They figure that we cannot return to the Garden of Eden. We cannot go back to the original justice2c, enjoyed by Adam before his rebellion.
This explains why revelation is necessary.
0248 Jesus Christ fills the emptiness inherent to original sin. No one, not even infants, can avoid that emptiness. Original sin is the privation of original justice.
From this, Latin-Age scholastics cobble together a normal context3c and a potential1c for the mechanism connecting Adam’s rebellion to our current lives2c.
0249 Speech-alone talk facilitates the scholastic’s exercise in exemplar extrinsic formal causality. Speech-alone talk permits the articulation of exemplar signs.
The sign-vehicle (SVe) consists of phantasms that arise from the recitation of the Story of the Fall2b.
The sign-object (SOe) is the perspective-level actuality2c.
The sign-interpretant (SIe) is as shown below.
0250 In this exemplar sign, Augustine’s version of original sin2c initially stands where original justice2c used to be. Original sin2c overwrites original justice2c. This is what spoken words do. Our verbal rhetoric can never recapture the wholeness of the commitment2c that we evolved to sense and feel2a. But, it sure can trigger our longing for that wholeness.
Yet, Augustine’s vision captures an essential feature of our own lives2c. We are fallen.
0251 Similarly, the proposed confluence of Adam’s rebellion and a change in Lebenswelt may occupy the contiguity in the dyad where original justice2c used to be. Again, this proposal somehow distorts the judgment. But, it does so in a way that scientists cannot dismiss out of hand. The hypothesis of the first singularity is not the second doctrine of original sin. However, it offers a mechanism that reflects quite nicely in the mirror of theology.
See Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2024) by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues (also appearing in Razie Mah’s blog from April through June 2024).
0252 Not unlike Augustine’s first version of original sin, the first singularity offers a suite of insights that are difficult to ignore. First, it is mechanistic in the way that science is mechanistic. Second, it challenges current paradigms on human evolution, but not the data that support them. Neodarwinism has not come to grips with the possibility that the human niche is not material. Modern evolutionary science has yet to entertain the idea that human evolution comes with a twist. Plus, the twist is metaphysical.
And, what better place to look for the metaphysical tools to construct the second doctrine of original sin, than those formulated by Thomas Aquinas and re-formulated by Charles Peirce, who is about to be baptized in the same way that Aquinas baptized Aristotle and Averroes?
0253 So, I conclude my comments on Daniel Houck’s Book (2020) Aquinas, Original Sin, and the Challenge of Evolution. My thanks to the author and apologies for wandering far and wide.
0254 And, what about the turtle?
When I place the apparently dead turtle into the pond. Its head and feet poke out from under the shell. It swims away. The pond is its Umwelt.
We (humans) are not so fortunate. We can never return to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Nor can we create our own utopia. The most we can hope for is some miraculous redemption of our current Lebenswelt. This is precisely what God delivers.
0841 This is an encore performance to the sequence of blogs on the post-truth condition.
As such, this examination wraps up Part Two of Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).
Take a gander at the full title of Enfield’s text, Language vs. Reality: Why Language Is Good For Lawyers and Bad For Scientists.
Surely, that sounds like a book that belongs to a set of books on the post-truth condition.
So, the numbers continue to build from the last examination.
0842 The book is published by MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The author is a professor of linguistics at the University of Sydney and the Director of the Sydney Centre for Language Research.
0843 The title of the book is a play on John B. Carroll’s (editor) collection of essays by Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941 AD), published in 1956 under the title, Language, Thought and Reality.
To me, this implies that “thought” has transubstantiated into “versus”. The substance of the word has changed, so to speak. The word, “versus”, derives from the same root as the word, “adversary”. So, if “thought” once used to nominally stand between “language” and “reality”, then today, “thought” is confounded with “adversary”, and that might serve as a hint concerning the nature of our adversity.
Perhaps, this is not the only notable feature of the title.
Then again, a book titled, Language, Adversary and Reality, might not fly off the shelves in feel-good book-outlets. It is not as if, next to the Self-Help section, there is a Come To Grips With Your Doom section.
So, expect me to play with the title throughout this examination.
0844 Another notable feature of this book, at least to me, is that the author is not acquainted with Razie Mah’s re-articulation of human evolution, in three masterworks, The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How To Define the Word “Religion” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues). The evolution of talk is not the same as the evolution of language. Language evolves in the milieu of hand talk. Plus, the evolution of talk comes with the twist, humorously called, “the first singularity”.
So, Enfield’s work serves as a marker for the twilight of the Age of Ideas and the dawning of the Age of Triadic Relations.
0845 Okay, let me dwell on the idea that the evolution of language is not the same as the evolution of talk.
Comments on Michael Tomasello’s Arc of Inquiry (1999-2019) (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues, and also, for the most part, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog for January, February and March, 2024) divides the evolution of talk in the following manner.
0846 The first period starts with the divergence of the chimpanzee and human lineage (7 million of years ago) and ends with the bipedalism of the so-called “southern apes” (around 3.5 to 4 million years ago).
In the second period, australopithecines adapt to mixed forest and savannah by adopting the strategy of obligate collaborative foraging. Eventually, Homo erectus figures out the controlled use of fire, leading to the domestication of fire, starting (perhaps) around 800 thousand years ago.
The third period, lasts from the domestication of fire to the earliest appearance of anatomically modern humans. During this period, hand talk becomes fully linguistic, religion evolves as an adaptation to large social circles (of 150 individuals and more) and hominins use the voice for synchronization during seasonal mega-band and occasional tribal gatherings. Then, sexual selection does the rest and the voice comes under voluntary neural control.
0847 The fourth period starts when the voice, now under voluntary control, joins hand-talk, resulting in a dual-mode way of talking, hand-speech talk. Hand talk retains the iconicity and indexality that grounds reference in things that can be pictured or pointed to. But, speech adds a symbolic adornment, which starts as a sing-along and ends up taking a life of its own. Four centuries ago, the North American Plains Indians and the Australian aborigines still practiced hand-speech talk, with full fledged sign and verbal languages. Now, their hand-speech talk is all but dead.
0848 That death, along with the demise of all hand-speech talking languages, comes (and came) due to exposure to speech-alone talk, which has significantly different semiotic qualities than hand-talk and hand-speech talk. Hand-talk is iconic and indexal. The referent precedes the gestural word. Speech-alone talk is purely symbolic. The spoken word labels ‘something’, and sometimes that ‘something’ cannot be imaged or indicated.
Well, it must be real because speech-alone talk provides a label for an explicit abstraction!
0849 Here is a picture of the transition labeled, “the first singularity”.
0850 Consider the words, “language”, “adversary” and “reality”. Each word is a label for ‘something’ that cannot be pictured or pointed to. These words do not exist in hand-talk or hand-speech talk, because the referent cannot be imaged or indicated using a manual-brachial gesture. What does this imply? Does a referent exist because a label has been attached to it? Or, does an explicit abstraction properly label referents that exist irrespective of the spoken word? This type of question is addressed in Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”.
Fortunately, the author of the book under examination is unaware of the first singularity and the difficulties that a change in the way that humans talk poses. Human evolution comes with a twist.
0851 So why examine this work?
Well, I expect to see the evolution of talk manifesting in this book, even though the author is not aware of Razie Mah’s academic labors.
Surely, Enfield’s work details recent scientific research in linguistics and cognitive psychology, in an attempt to provide the reader with a coherent view of how language is good for lying lawyers and bad for honest scientists.
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 sin2c. 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 wordsconjure 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 East2a, rising through the observable and measurable use of spoken words2b, and blossoming into a sacrament instituted during the most amazing revelation coming from the promised land2c.
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.
