06/2/20

Comments on Edmund Chattoe-Brown’s Essay (2019) “Does Sociology Have Any Choice But To Be Evolutionary?”

— Notes on Text

This work examines an article by Edmund Chattoe-Brown, appearing in the Frontiers in Sociology (26 Feb 2019, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00006). My comments rely on the category-based nested form and other relational models within the tradition of Charles Peirce.

‘Words that belong together’ are denoted by single quotes or italics.

Prerequisites: A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction

Recommended: The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall, How to Define the Word “Religion”, Two Primers on the Organization Tier, Speculations on Thomistic Evolution

— Table of Contents

Introduction and Conclusion 0001

Cheese in the Middle 0004

The Sandwich is Firm 0010

Evolution and a Cheese Sandwich 0022

Conclusion 0029

— Introduction and Conclusion

0001 Edmund Chattoe-Brown opens with an observation.

Sociology, as an academic discipline, tends to rule out evolutionary approaches.

Surely, sociologists want to avoid any connection between social behavior and genes. Or, should I say, society and genetics?

Why?

First, it is not polite.

Second, anthropologists have already thrown in with Darwin. Archaeologists are convinced of the importance of evolution in understanding where the world comes from and how humanity comes to be. Any sociologist interested in evolution can go into anthropology.

Consequently, sociologists face a choice whether or not to adopt evolutionary approaches.

0002 Edmund Chattoe-Brown concludes his essay, asking “What can evolutionary accounts do for sociology?”

For one, let us not put the cart before the horse. Sociology is not to be at the service of evolutionary accounts. Just the opposite, evolutionary accounts should make sociology “fun”. Sociologists should not walk on eggs when discussing evolutionary accounts.

But, what is an evolutionary account? Descent with modification? Natural selection? Or does it always reduce to biology, innate dispositions and the reading of gene sequences?

For two, today, sociology is a jumble of eclectic approaches, making it difficult to define a disciplinary core. What kinds of analysis do sociologists engage in? Non-quantitative historical sociologists rely on one toolbox. Social statisticians work from another, quantitative toolbox. One provides diachronic insights. The other offers synchronic results.

Well, evolutionary accounts have similar specializations. For example, diachronic radionuclide dating of fossils and synchronic genetic surveys complement one another.

For three, evolutionary analysis is able to lay a foundation for both diachronic and synchronic approaches.

But, obviously, such evolutionary analysis is not biological. Genes will have nothing to do with unifying sociological evolutionary theories.

So, what does the term, “evolution”, mean to sociology?

0003 I suppose that evolutionary analysis is like a horse, at the service of sociology. Also, sociology is like a cart, held up by a wheel on either side. One wheel is historical and qualitative. The other wheel is statistical quantitative analysis.

Chattoe-Brown sits in the driver’s seat of this horse-pulled cart, driving out of the barn of the introduction and conclusion.

— Cheese in the Middle

0004 Okay, my metaphors are goofy. I hope that that will be a source of comfort and entertainment.

Chattoe-Brown’s introduction and conclusion act like two slices of bread. In the middle, he places the Agent-Based Model (ABM).

The idea of an agent appeals to the theoretical inclinations of the historical sociologist.

The ABM allows the narrow numerical focus of the statistical side of sociology.

Does that mean that the ABM will contribute to evolutionary approaches?

I defer an answer.

0005 I ask, “How does the ABM fit into the category-based nested form?”

In order to answer, I draw upon A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction. These short pieces are enough to build a bridge between an ABM and an evolutionary approach.

0006 What does it mean to be an agent?

Well, an agent does “things”, broadly defined. These things are actions that, ideally, can be qualitatively observed and quantifiably measured. A bare-bones survey asks three questions. What is happening? What are you doing? Why are you doing what you are doing?

In the synchronic moment, an agent acts₂, in the normal context of what is happening₃, upon the possibilities inherent in accomplishing ‘something’₁.

Here is a picture of this content-level nested form.

0007 What does the term, “agent-based model” indicate?

Well, an agent does things. What is happening₃ defines the content level_a of an interscope.

In addition to what is happening_3a, an agent has the potential₁ to situate_b what he or she is doing_2a. This assessment_1brelies on what I am supposed to do_2b. This assessment_2b occurs in the normal context of what does it mean to me_3b.

For sensible construction, what I am supposed to be doing_2b better make sense_2b. These elements are both real and contiguous.

Here is a picture of this situation-level nested form.

0008 The situation-level_b actuality₂ takes on the complete, dyadic structure of Peirce’s secondness. The category of secondness is the realm of actuality. Secondness consists of two contiguous real elements. For the agent who models “his” own actions, the two real elements are making sense_2b and what I am supposed to do_2b.

The nomenclature looks like this: making sense_2b [contiguity] what I am supposed to do_2b.

The term, “contiguity”, typically means contact, attachment, dependency, sharing, holding together, two closely timed events and so forth. Contiguity expresses causation, in the broadest sense.

The empirical sciences try to relate contiguity to material or force-field causation. For example, iron filings on a sheet of paper align to the magnetic field of a magnet beneath the paper. A magnetic field causes the iron filings to align. The notation is magnet [contiguity] iron filings. The contiguity is the magnetic field. The contiguity is the point of interest for physicists. They aim to mechanically and mathematically model this field.

What about the contiguity between making sense_2b and what I am supposed to do_2b?

The contiguity between these two real elements is yet to be articulated.

Still, the sociological imagination should already be engaged. Humans always make sense_2b of what they are supposed to be doing_2b, even when their behavior makes no sense at all, to a so-called “disinterested” observer.

0009 Situation_b virtually emerges from (and situates) content_a.

Together, they compose a two-level interscope.

Sensible construction is the hallmark of the two-level interscope.

Here is a picture of these two levels.

— The Sandwich is Firm

0010 So far, I imagine that an agent is an individual in community.

I am disabused of this notion with Chattoe-Brown’s first example. The agent is a business firm.

Does a firm fit the picture of what an agent does_2a and what an agent models_2b?

Well, I suppose some translation is necessary.

0011 I start with the content level.

How does a business firm compare to an individual in community?

Here is my guess.

0012 The business firm obviously belongs to a different tier than the individual in community. The relation among tiers follows the same pattern as the interscope. The organization tier_B emerges from (and situates) the individual in community tier_A.

Nevertheless, there are parallels in the relational structures.

Management_3aB ought to know what is happening_3aA in the firm. Sometimes, it_3aB does not.

Production_2aB strives to accomplish what must be done_2aA. This necessitates cooperative action. Cooperative action increases productive capacity.

Does management_2aB know this?

If they don’t, then human resources_1aB should tell them_3aB. If the firm is not running smoothly, capital_1aB is not put to best use.

There is a certain irony in the location of both labor support_1aB and capital_1aB. Typically, labor associates to production_2aB, the actualization of financial capital_1aB. However, labor_2aB also comes with its own human capital_1aB, which may or may not be utilized by a firm_3aB.

Surely, this is an opportunity for sociological research. What is the nature of human capital_1aB? Can human capital_1aB be treated in a fashion that complements financial capital_1aB?

0013 What about a comparison of the situation levels between the firm_bB and the individual in community_bA?

0014 This comparison touches base with Chattoe-Brown’s example of sales and price.

The firm_3bB places products_2bB onto a market_1bB. If the products do not sell_2bB at a given price_2bB, then the situation becomes dire for the entire firm. In 1950, the economist, Armen Alchian, discusses a discontinuity between individuals_Aand firms_B. The stakes are higher for firms, even though no one dies when a firm goes bankrupt.

Yes, the death of a firm seems so much larger than an individual’s fate. Many individuals have done what they are supposed to do_2bA, working at the firm_3aB. Suddenly, the firm no longer makes sense_2bA. A dream becomes a nightmare.

0015 The market is like an actuality independent of the firm.

Can a firm be considered an adaptation into a market niche?

Does that sound evolutionary?

What is a niche?

The following diagram presents Darwinian evolution as a sensible construction.

0016 The normal context of natural selection_3b’ brings the actuality of an adaptation_2b’ into relation with a niche_1b’. A niche is the potential_1b’ of an actuality independent of the adapting species_2a’.

By comparison, a firm is an adapting species. The actuality independent of the adapting species_2a’, is the market. The market_2a’ is as changable as an evnironment_2a’ or ecology_2a’. However, the biological terms do not capture the character of the market_2a’, because the market is both material and immaterial. The market plays upon what is real and what is imagined. The Germans formulated a word that captures the market_2a’ as a quixotic being. The term is “Zeitgeist”.

Time is real. Ghosts are unreal.

No wonder ancient civilizations worship the space between earth and heaven. The god of the air, the wind, the cloud and the storm works under various names, including Yaltaboath. Yaltaboath behaves like the actuality underlying the niche that any corporation adapts to. Is Yaltaboath the personification of the open market’s multiplicity of specializations? What about the market’s creative destruction?

0017 And, what about the times before civilization?

What about the era before business firms?

Is our current Lebenswelt the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

Consider An Archaeology of the Fall.

Okay, that’s a plug.

The contemporary firm belongs to our current Lebenswelt.

0018 Chattoe-Brown’s example of the firm as an agent-based model brings me right to the threshold of evolutionary theory. The civilizational Zeitgeist is as fickle as Yaltaboath. Change is in the air we breathe. Yet, at the same time, each civilizational Zeitgeist lasts long enough to establish firms and profit from their endeavors. Yaltaboath rewards as well as punishes. Attending to this god makes sense.

0019 So, let me go back to the previous figure. Let me summarize.

How does natural selection_3b’ work?

An actuality independent of the adapting species_2a’ exists.

This actuality_2a’ has a potential that can be exploited by the adapting species_1b’. This potential is called the niche_1b’.

An adaptation_2b’ exploits its niche_1b’, leading to increased reproductive success in natural selection_3b’.

0020 How does the business firm, as an agent-based model, fit into this picture?

The situation-level of the firm is the adapting species_2b’. The market is the actuality independent of the adapting species_2a’. So, the niche_1b’ is the potential of the market_2a’.

Here is how that looks.

0021 So, the content-level_a of the firm_B does not even appear in an evolutionary approach. It is as if the abilities of management_3aB, production_2aB and support staff_1aB are assumed to be functional. The sales department_1bB situates its product_2aB as something that offers an advantage in the current market_1b’. Every product_2aB fills a market niche_1b’.

Just as every adaptation is a guess about how to exploit a niche, every firm speculates about the market that operates independently of the firm.

Of course, this must be a first approximation. A second approximation will be required, because the presence of the firm itself may alter the market.

— Evolution and a Cheese Sandwich

0022 So far, the agent-based model is the cheese between the bread of the introduction and the bread of the conclusion. As it turns out, the agent-based model may be re-articulated as a two-level interscope. The two-level interscope is synchronic. The two-level interscope expresses sensible construction. The two-level interscope belongs to the organization tier_B, which has parallels to the individual in community tier_A.

Here is how that looks for firms.

0023 Plus, there is a diachronic, evolutionary twist.

For firms, the entire nested form for the situation level_b goes into the slot for adaptation_2b’ in Darwinian evolution.

Here is how that looks.

0024 If sociology has no choice but to be evolutionary, then this double vision cannot be avoided.

The situation-level of a firm_bB must be analyzed as it emerges from (and situates) its corporate content-level_aB. To me, this analysis includes synchronic data and time-restricted models, typical of quantitative sociology.

The situation-level of a firm_bB must also be pictured as an adaptation_2b’ into a market niche_1b’, where the market_2a’ is (on first approximation) independent of the adapting species. (The second approximation brings in the idea of niche construction). This drama is depicted in historical sociology.

Surely, the double vision cannot be resolved into one, even though both start with the relational structure of the agent-based model.

0025 With this said, I proceed to Chattoe-Brown’s second example of agent-based modeling: foraging.

He dwells for three sections on a case study for foraging for food.

Perhaps, the simulation applies to elk, in addition to ancestral hominins.

Is that a far cry from firms?

After all, the agent-based model starts with a two-level interscope of individuals in community.

Here is how that looks.

0026 This raises an odd question, “Does the individual adapt, in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, in the same way as the firm adapts in our current Lebenswelt?”

In our current Lebenswelt, the firm_b’ adapts to the potential of the market_2a’. The market offers rewards (and punishments) in the milieu of unconstrained social complexity. The behavior of a firm allows agent-based modeling to the extent that the Zeitgeist remains sensible.

Does this parallel human evolution?

0027 Consider the key hypothesis presented in the masterwork, The Human Niche.

In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, the situation level of the individual in community_b’ adapts to the potential_1b’ of triadic relations_2a’. Triadic relations offer opportunities for sign-coordinated cooperative actions. Surely, the milieu is constrained social complexity. The innate behavior of individuals allows agent based-modeling to the extent that ecology remains stable.

Here is how that looks.

0028 This raises interesting questions.

Do markets_2a’ and triadic relations_2a’ have common characteristics?

My impression?

The more diverse the market and the more diverse the sign-relations, the greater the “wealth” of organizations_B and individuals in community_A, respectively.

0026 Is there a homology between the adaptations of firms and individuals in community?

Here is a comparison of the two situation-level nested forms.

0027 My impression?

A sale_2bB matches what I am supposed to do_2bA.

A price_2bB points to making sense_2bA.

What about the potential of situating production_1bB?

The sales department echoes an individual trying to situate what “he” is doing_1bA.

No wonder everyone seems to be selling themselves.

The resonances multiply.

Individuals in community_A enter into the market_2a’.

Individuals in community_A also enter into management_3a, production_2a and support for a corporation_1a.

So, the organization tier_B and the individual in community tier_A are entangled.

0028 Does that suggest that Chattoe-Brown’s cart is going out of its lane or that the cheese sandwich melts?

No. But, it does imply that genetics has nothing to do with the way sociologists investigate the organization tier.

Of course, biologists confound genetics and evolution. They apply for grants on the grounds that genetics solves questions in evolution. It does. But, there is always another, often ignored, side to biological evolution. That side is Darwinian natural selection.

Chattoe-Brown’s exercise in computer models concludes that both the environment and genetic-dispositions are in play in the evolution of foraging strategies. However, these “genetic-dispositions” are not phenotypes, they are adaptations.

Geneticists can eat their cake and have it too. Their cake is phenotypes. But, they claim that phenotypes are the same as adaptations.

Sociologists must approach evolution in terms of Darwinian natural selection. Institutions are adaptations.

— Conclusion

0029 Is there a disciplinary core to sociology?

According to Chattoe-Brown, not at this time.

Chattoe-Brown is an enterprising sociologist. He tries to sell agent-based modeling as the portal to evolutionary approaches. The gambit works because agent-based modeling is a symptom of human evolution and a feature of the organization tier.

Human evolution occurs in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, as illuminated in The Human Niche.

The organization tier differentiates from the society and the individual tiers in our current Lebenswelt, as portrayed in How to Define the Word “Religion”.

The transition from the first Lebenswelt to the second is a unique, prehistoric event, the first singularity, as captured in the fiction, An Archaeology of the Fall.

0030 Chattoe-Brown anticipates that evolution will provide a disciplinary core to sociology.

He may be correct in ways that he does not currently imagine.

There may be a parallel between the evolution of firms in our current Lebenswelt and the evolution of humans in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

Here is a short list of comparing firms_B and individuals in community_A.

05/18/20

Comments on J.B. Stump’s Article (2020) “Did God Guide Our Evolution?”

0001 These comments are offered on my blog as a sample of the character of works that are available for sale at www.smashwords.com. They seem rather dry and technical. Nevertheless, they offer an innovative postmodern approach that should interest enterprising students and scholars. Here, the category-based nested form and the two-level interscope come into play.

These categorical structures are introduced in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

0002 J.B. Stump offers his views in the March issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (volume 72(1), pages 15-24). Perspectives is the flagship publication of the American Scientific Affiliation. Stump’s article may be available for download at their website. If not, please request.

Stump addresses the question, “Did God guide our evolution?”

He reviews several broad ways to answer, then discusses his favorite.

0003 So, does God guide our creation?

What about the scientific description of human evolution?

These questions point in different directions, C2 and C1.

The second direction (C2) is that God intentionally creates human beings in His image.

The first direction (C1) claims that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the origin of our species, Homo sapiens.

0004 These two claims can both be formulated as category-based nested forms (CBNF).

The CBNF contains four expressions. The fourth is paradigmatic. A normal context₃ brings an actuality₂ into relation with the possibility of ‘something’₁. The subscripts refer to Peirce’s categories.

0005 Now, I associate features in each direction to the CBNF.

The normal context₃ for C1 is science₃. The normal context₃ for C2 is the Genesis portrayal of God’s work₃.

The actuality₂ for C1 is human evolution₂ and for C2 is the Genesis creation of humans₂.

The potential₁ for C1 is ‘natural selection and genetics’₁. The potential₁ for C2 is ‘the picture of humans as images of God’₁.

0006 Here is how that looks in technical notation.

0007 So, did God guide our evolution?

According to Stump, the first strategy (A1) for answering the question relies on semantics.

I ask, “What problem does semantics solve?”

Well, I see two nested forms. How do they interact?

0008 Normal contexts follow the logic of exclusion, alignment and complement.

If they exhibit the logic of exclusion, the nested forms come into conflict. It’s God’s work₃ or science work₃. It is either one or the other.

If the logic is complement, then one could end up with Steven Gould’s idea of “non-overlapping magisteria”. This is not much of a complement. Perhaps, a truce is a better description.

If they exhibit the logic of alignment, then one nested form virtually emerges from (and situates) the other. This structural relation is called a “two-level interscope”. The two levels are content_a and situation_b. Content_a goes with Peirce’s category of firstness (the realm of possibility). Situation_b associates with Peirce’s category of secondness (the realm of actuality).

The two-level interscope has two flows.

In the upward flow, content_a underlies situation_b.

In the downward flow, situation_b orders content_a.

0009 So, I have two statements (C2 and C1) and two levels. Which goes with which?

Here is where semantics comes into play. Semantics is about language. When I talk about science, my words are usually content-oriented. When I think about God’s creation, I am contemplating my own (and everyone else’s) situation.

There is another, more technical semantic argument. The religious statement (C2) cannot be situated by the science statement (C1), because the Positivist’s judgment rules out metaphysics. The Positivist’s judgment is developed in Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy. I cannot help but smile at this application. From a semantic point of view, how could science situate a nested form that it cannot consider?

Here is a picture of the semantic-ordered, two-level interscope.

0010 Ironically, this model initiates questions that key into Stump’s second answer, the nomological strategy (A2). The nomological strategy suggests that the laws of human evolution are not well understood. The laws of evolution may be, but there is something wrong with their application to human evolution. Stumps reviews some critical arguments.

0011 The two-level interscope pictured above endorses the “yes, but” character of the nomological approach, addressing the question, “Did God guide human evolution?”

If science is so smart, then it should situate the religious nested form, rather than the other way around. The fact that the Positivist judgment excludes metaphysics indicates that science can understand human evolution only in terms of material and instrumental causalities. However, I personally situate the evolution of my species in terms of my religious sensibility, which involves immaterial causalities, such as final attributes and formal design.

What does this imply?

The ultimate human niche is not material.

Indeed, this is the central thesis of the masterwork, The Human Niche, available at www.smashwords.com.

0012 The semantic (A1) strategy may be adjusted by the nomological (A2), producing something like this.

0013 Well, if our hominin ancestors adapted over millions of years into a niche that is not material, then the third answer, the causal joint strategy (A3), comes into play. The causal joint strategy suggests that God does not obviously intervene in human evolution, but God nevertheless creates. The question is, “How?” Stump considers several authors with very curious answers.

0014 These answers have something in common.

They exploit the dynamics of the two-level interscope.

The divine situation_b guides the science content_a.

The scientific content_a underlies divine subtle intervention_b.

“Subtle” means “below the threshold of detection”.

0015 How could this happen?

I only need to substitute God’s Will_3b for the situation-level actuality_3b and God’s Presence_1b for the situation-level potential_1b.

Here is how that looks.

0016 God’s Will_3b associates to God’s work_3b and what this means to me_3b.

God’s Will_3b provides subtle guidance to science work_3a and what is happening_3a.

Subtle guidance underlies the Anthropic Principle.

God’s Presence_1b associates to the potential of humans (including me) being created in the image of God_1b.

0017 How does God’s Presence_1b manifest?

God’s Presence_1b is the potential underlying God’s will_3b. Also, it_1b stands in the slot 1b, which is the potential_1b of situating the content level actuality_2a. This associates God’s Presence_1b with the potential of situating human evolution_2a.

This potential to situate operates according to joint causes, in the realm of possibility₁.

God’s Presence_1b virtually situates (and is emergent to) the potential of ‘natural selection and genetics’_1b. The word, “virtual”, means “in virtue” (rather than the modern use, “in simulation”). The term, “in virtue”, goes with final attributes and formal design.

So, while the stuff of Neodarwinism may be scientifically regarded according to material and instrumental causes, the virtue of God’s Presence_1b cannot be fully ignored in either the adaptation_1a or the phenotype_1a. This is the central point of the joint causal (A3) answer. Biologists cannot avoid joint causality when they discuss adaptation or phenotype. Many modern biologists label God’s Presence_1b, “chance_1b” or “random_1b”.

0018 In sum, divine subtle intervention operates in the realms of normal context₃ and potential₁, as pictured above. Neither of these can be scientifically observed or measured.

0019 The pertinence of the joint causal (A3) semantic (A1) approach does not stop there.

Adaptations_1a and phenotypes_1a are actualities that have the potential_1a of underlying human evolution_2a.

That means that adaptations₂ and phenotypes₂ are actualities with their own nested forms.

One can imagine that God directly intervenes in either nested form by manipulating its underlying potential. Such intervention avoids detection because the actualities, adaptation₂ and phenotype₂ refer to the same biological entity₂. In other words, two actualities₂ constitute a single entity₂. Therefore, the two actualities₂ are confounded.

0020 Let me develop this scenario in a little more detail.

Neodarwinism_1a consists in two independent nested forms, as noted in Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome. These nested forms belong to the situation-level of a two-level interscope.

In one, natural selection_3b brings adaptation_2b into relation with a niche_1b. The niche_1b is the potential_1b of situating an actuality independent of the adapting species_2a.

In the other, body development_3b brings phenotype_2b into relation with genotype_1b. The genotype_1b is the potential_1b of situating DNA_2a.

In the joint causal answer, God could directly manipulate either an actuality independent of the adapting species_2a, the foundation of the niche_1b, or DNA_2a, the foundation of the genotype_1b, without detection. Why? A change in one can mask a change in the other. They are confounders.

0021 Here is a picture of these independent category-based nested forms.

0022 The adaptation₂ is not the same as the phenotype₂. Each arises from a different potential₁. Each requires its own normal context₃. However, adaptation₂ and phenotype₂ pertain to a single actuality₂, the biological entity, in this case, the human being₂. The human being is the intersection of adaptation₂ and phenotype₂.

According to the chapter on presence in How to Define the Word “Religion”, intersections are mysterious. They contain contrasting features that cannot be resolved through the logic of noncontradiction. Biologists present distorted views when they claim that evolution consists in either natural selection or DNA-based body development. The intersection of these two nested forms codifies what biologists are really trying to say, but fail, because of preferences for either natural history or genetics.

0023 So, the joint causal answer suggests that, even if God directly manipulates the actualities underlying the niche_1b or the genotype_1b, scientists could never detect the intervention, because the evolved biological entity₂ is an intersection, filled with contradictions.

Here is how that looks.

0024 This brings me to Stump’s favorite strategy (A4), the epistemological.

The epistemological strategy highlights the contrast between science work_3a and God’s work_3b, while simultaneously asserting that they cannot be divorced. I am a product of human evolution_2a. I am created in the image of God_2b. Science work_3a is what is happening_3a. God’s work_3b is what this means to me_3b.

Here is a picture of that strategy.

0025 Now, I address the elephant in Stump’s room.

I do so in a roundabout way.

I start with a question about the question.

0026 Does God guide human evolution?

What is the difference between this question and…

Did God guide human evolution?

0026 One strategy to answer this question is semantic (A1).

Human evolution is in our past. Are we no longer are evolving? It sure seems that we aren’t. In fact, who knows what we are doing?

0027 What does this imply?

The nomological strategy (A2) comes to bat.

Homo sapiens comes into existence, and lives for some time, in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

Currently, we are no longer in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

Therefore, our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

I conclude that a transition from one Lebenswelt to the other is missing in current accounts of human evolution.

This missing element is hypothesized in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace and reflected upon in Comments on Original Sin and Original Death: Romans 5:12-19. This transition is dramatized in An Archaeology of the Fall, available on www.smashwords.com.

0028 With this said, the joint causal strategy (A3) cannot be ignored.

If (as proposed in The Human Niche), humans adapt into the niche of immaterial triadic relations (such as the category-based nested form), then God’s work_3b virtually situates nature’s operations, as understood by science_3a. In our evolution, the material world enters into an evolving awareness of immaterial triadic relations, without compromising its instrumental and material causalities.

0029 On top of that, the epistemological strategy (A4) says that God’s work_3b and science work_3a cannot be divorced, in the same way that what this means to me_3b cannot be divorced from what is happening_3a.

0030 So obviously, the elephant in the room is concordism.

Did God guide human evolution? How does God guide us today?

These questions aim to harmonize scientific formulations and Biblical revelation.

Stump is on target. Four different strategies apply. But, the target is so much larger than he realizes.

For example, Comments on Christy Hemphill’s Essay (2019) “All in a Week’s Work” introduces a harmony between cognitive psychology and metaphors within Genesis 1.

The concord between humans created in the image of God_2b and human evolution_2a will prove to be multi-faceted, addressing who we are_2b as well as who we evolved to be_2a.

0031 My thanks to J.B. Stump for publishing his evocative article.

****

Feel free to e-mail comments and corrections.

05/6/20

A Theology of the Deep State (Part 1)

It is official. The federal government has established a religion. May I propose a label for this new referent? Let me call it the “deep state”.

Others call it the “administrative state”.

The imprimatur comes when Steve Deace, broadcasting on Blaze TV from the heart of America’s flyover country, states the obvious, saying, “We are not dealing with a political party. We are dealing with a cult.”

For example, only a cult can perform the purgation and humiliation rites afforded to Brett Kavanaugh, then a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. Now a member of the SCOTUS, this individual is forever branded by one accusation. The accusation, while never proven true, is justified by its reliance on an organizational objective, claiming, “Believe the woman, for … (whatever righteousness applies)”.

Righteousness_1aC is the nectar of religion.

Organizational objectives_2aC are like gods.

Hey, what are those subscripts?

Subscripts are introduced in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction. The “1” indicates Peirce’s category of firstness, the realm of possibility. The “2” denotes actuality in a category-based nested form. The “a” refers to the content-level of an interscope (a category-based nested form composed of category-based nested forms). The “C” points to the society tier (the third tier in a category-based nested form composed of interscopes).

The three tiers are society_C, organization_B and individual in community_A.

Yes, this notation introduces a novel approach to Sociology.

Plus, this approach is worth looking into. Homeschoolers should consider the course titled, How to Define the Word “Religion”.

Why?

State indoctrinators define the word so narrowly that it seems that they are covering up a topic much larger, and more interesting, than churches, synagogues and mosques.

This brings me back to the prescience of the broadcaster noted above.

The immediate stimulus for the broadcaster’s response is a coronavirus-related national work-stoppage. The statistics associated with the unfolding pandemic simply do not support the drastic, uni-dimensional, solution of a total shutdown, bringing the US economy to a standstill.

Yes, in economics and politics, there are two dimensions. There are trade-offs.

Yet, in the matrix of the administrative state, there are only organizational objectives_2aC. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and other state-cults_3aC focus on saving lives_2aC. We must save lives at all costs_1aC.

Organizational objectives_2aC emerge from (and situate) the potential of righteousness_1aC.

The problem?

They_2aC may come into conflict.

One solution endows each insitution_3aC with a similar character. In the case of the deep state, that character is a demand for sovereign power_3bC. Sovereign laws and decrees_2bC are necessary in order for each institution_3aC to achieve its organizational objectives_2aC. This imperative_1cCsatisfies the potential underlying all legislation_2bC: the possibilities inherent in order_1bC.

Picture piglets struggling to latch onto their mother’s teats. Each has its own agenda. Of course, these agendas conflict. Yet, a certain order is achieved as long as the mother offers her milk.

Or consider the abandoned infants, Romulus and Remus, suckling the teats of a she-wolf. Surely, the Romans offer a more evocative icon of the feminine nature of sovereign power. Believe the she-wolf and she will offer her milk, instead of her teeth.

To Marxists, there is nothing more. The sovereign_3bC must be the exception_1cC. The state_3bC must not be subject to its own laws_2bC. The milk_2cC must flow_1cC. The milk_2cC sustains order_1cC. Order_1bC is to sovereign power_3bC as righteousness_3aC is to institutions_1aC. Listen to the speakers. Hear the talking heads. Every shill_3aC signals a virtue_1aCthat calls the citizen to a righteousness_1aC that seeks to establish order_1bC.

There is nothing above sovereign power_3bC.

Yet, there_3cC is.

The problem is that we cannot envision it_2cC.

Here is a way to picture the society tier for Big Government (il)liberalism.

05/5/20

A Theology of the Deep State (Part 2)

The two-level interscope is typical for sensible construction. Sensible construction does not ask, “Why?”. Sensible construction assumes that, whatever we are doing, it’s okay. The perspective level is never questioned, unless something goes horribly wrong.

Here is a picture of the society tier for Big Government (il)liberalism.

If there is anything hidden within the perspective level, it is this: The milk_2bC must flow_1cC.

That is, the milk of the federal government_2bC.

There are no suggestions for why the milk must flow, except for the fact that so many institutions_3aC demand sovereign power_3bC in order to implement_2bC their organizational objectives_2aC. Institutions_3aC that do not appeal to Caesar_3bCoften wither or mutate into institutions that do. Mutation is facilitated through infiltration by believers_2cA in a particular (sovereign-entangling) righteousness_1aC.

Each organizational objective_2aC is a god.

Some call them “sacred cows”.

Since each organizational objective_2aC emerges from (and situates) the potential of righteousness_1aC and since righteousness_1aC is inherently metaphysical in nature, the deep state consists in a wide range of cults (institutions_3aC) that have a common feature. Each righteousness_1aC accommodates a call for sovereign power_3bC.

Diversity is the strength of Big Government (il)liberalism.

However, there is a problem.

All the advocates claim to be “not religious”, even though they are.

Why?

Why do the advocates for Big Government (il)liberalism, who congregate in cults_3aC, claim to be “not religious”?

Well, the American Constitution’s first amendment states that the federal government shall not establish a religion.

Consequently, acolytes of the deep state define “religion” narrowly, with intellectual constriction, as falling into bins labeled “Christian”, “Jewish”, “Islamic” and so forth. In this way, they skirt the question that cannot be confronted. Why is their righteousness not “religious” as well? These state-entangled institutions_3aC implement organizational objectives_2aC that situate the potential of righteousness_1aC. Why is their metaphysical righteousness exempt? Why are not they “religious”?

This crucial point is ignored by current experts in Sociology, because they are committed to Big Government (il)liberalism. Okay, that’s a cheap shot. But really, the answer demands a definition of the word, “religion”, that does not simply slap labels onto people. Do any sociological theories explain why the labels work? Or, do the labels explain themselves?

The course, How to Define the Word “Religion” offers a novel definition, one that is not hemmed in by a deep-state historical narratives or restrictive legalisms.

But wait, the indoctrinated… er, educated citizen replies, “Okay, let’s be sensible. These state-entangled institutions, and their advocates, say that they are not religious because they are not ‘Christian’, ‘Jewish’, ‘Islamic’ and so forth. This is obvious. Everyone agrees.”

Shall I venture a translation?

If you disagree, no milk for you. Instead, you will feel the sovereign’s teeth.

This is a word-game, where so-called “enlightenment” institutions_3aC advocate for certain laws and decrees_2bC in order to promulgate their organizational objectives_2aC, yet declare themselves to be “not religious”. Why is their righteousness_1aC different from the righteousness_1aC of institutions that fall under the label? How do their missions_2aC differ from the Christian, Jewish and Muslim missions_2aC? Why do they say that they are not religious?

Oh, yes, that gets around the first amendment.

Clearly, the veiled perspective level_c of the deep state encourages subsidies_2bC for innumerable “points of light”, institutions_3aC that self-identify as “not religious”, yet are founded on diverse calls to righteousness_1aC. These cults_3aC that have a character in common. Each point of light_3aC signals its virtue_1aC, while demanding that state laws and decrees_3bC implement its organizational objectives_2aC.

The advocate-lobbyist says, “Our missions_2aC are ‘not religious’, yet are necessary for the organization of a righteous society.”

The advocate-lobbyist cannot say, “There may be a reason why the organizational objectives_2aC of all deep-state institutions_3aC call for the exercise of sovereign power_3aC. But, we cannot know the reason until the milk becomes all there is.”

Only then, will the veil be pulled back and the perspective level_c revealed.

What do we know?

Big Government (il)liberalism establishes institutions_3aC that declare themselves to be “not religious”, even though, like Christian, Jewish and Islamic institutions_3aC, they contextualize organizational objectives_2aC that emerge from (and situate) the potential of righteousness_1aC. Their declaration exempts them from the first amendment of the American Constitution.

Big Government (il)liberal organizational objectives_2aC have a common feature. Their_2aC implementation relies on sovereign power_3bC. Since sovereign power_3bC is not subject to its own laws and decrees_2bC, then the resulting institutions_3aC participate in the sovereign’s state of exception. In fact, the sovereign_3bC is the only one who can bring contemporary trends to fulfillment by cultivating a state of exception_2cC.

The federal government not only has established a host of religions_3aC, each standing as a point of light in a New World Order, but all these religions_3aC vicariously participate in the exception_2cC that contextualizes sovereign power_3aC.

What does this imply?

The theology of the deep state_c is yet to enter into consciousness in our current, Enlightenment-celebrating, Zeitgeist. State-entangled institutions_3aC are everywhere. Few have eyes to see. Many avert their gazes. The suprasovereign level_cC stands behind a curtain and will step out only when a state of exception_2cC brings all into relation_1cC. That moment will be a revelation.

There are signs of a future unveiling. The hour draws near.

Consider Comments on Peter Burfiend’s Book (2014) Gnostic America.

Consider Comments on Eric Santner’s Book (2016) The Weight of All Flesh.

These works belong to the Intimations of Political Philosophy series, available at smashwords.

Broadcaster Steve Deace reads the writing on the wall, announcing, “We are not dealing with a political party. We are dealing with a cult.”

The federal government has established a legion of religions_3aC, each declaring itself to be “not religious”. Plus, each has one other feature in common with all others. Where are the intellectual tools to articulate these sociological phenomena?

04/3/20

An Intimation (or a Proof) of the Actuality of God

In the previous blog, I left with this two-level nested form.

The two level-nested form characterizes sensible construction.

So, even though there are missing elements, I may draw sensible conclusions.

Here are some.

The content-level actuality of God_2a must be assumed in order to obtain the situation-level nested form_b.

The Divine Presence_1b is the situational potential of the actuality of God_2a.

The normal context of the Divine Will_3b and the potential, the Divine Presence_1b, virtually emerge from (and situate) the actuality of God_2a. So does the secondary causation in creatures_2b.

We (humans) do not know the normal context_3a and potential_1a that accompany the actuality of God_2a. These slots are not truly empty. Rather, they are opaque.

I can speculate as to how the actuality of God_2a becomes apparent in history, by examining the astrologer’s vision, which has a similar relational structure.

Here is a picture of the astrologer’s vision, derived in the three prior blogs.

How did this relational structure come about?

I suppose that methods for reading the heavens_1b are already formalized in the Sumerian Dynastic civilization of southern Mesopotamia, starting around 3000 BC. While that is five thousand years ago, the condition of unconstrained complexitystarts 2800 years earlier, with the first singularity, as discussed in An Archaeology of the Fall.

Yes, history has laws.

The first law is history is that our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

The second law of history is that history has a beginning, around 7800 years ago.

This year may be labeled 7820 Ubaid Zero Prime.

The third law of history is that history is the story of unconstrained complexity.

The fourth law of history is that the potential for unconstrained social complexity begins at the start of Ubaid in southern Mesopotamia, then radiates from there to other cultures of the time.

At the site of initiation, Ubaid villages (0 to 1800 U0’) grow and transform into Uruk town-chiefdoms (1800 to 2800 U0’), which develop further into early Sumerian city-states (2800 U0’ on).

The fifth law of history is that history is entangled with the semiotics of speech-alone talk.

What does this imply?

The astrologer’s vision develops in our current Lebenswelt, in an effort to sensibly comprehend mundane events in an increasingly complex, rapidly changing, social world. The Lebenswelt that we evolved in disappears behind the horizon of the first singularity. Why? Hand-speech talk and speech-alone talk have different semiotic qualities. The traditions of one cannot survive in the other. No written mythology of the ancient Near East (with one exception) pierces the veil. What does this suggest? The Ubaids cobble together their own formula for grasping what is going on in our current Lebenswelt.

So, the astrologer’s vision is conceived in mundane events during the formative Ubaid period. The Ubaid not that much different from now. Everything changes. Yet, everything stays the same. Everyone acts as if the current social world has been there forever. Everyone faces different challenges within that social world. In dealing with those challenges, the social world changes, sometimes quietly and sometimes boldly.

Here is a diagram of the seed of the astrologer’s vision.

The proto-astrologers had only to look to the heavens to see a parallel to events on the mundane plane. The sky is always in motion. The sun moves. The moon moves. The roving luminaries move. At the same time, the stars do not move. They do not change their relative positions. So, astrologers connect the dots. The stars coalesce into constellations. The constellations along the transit of the sun, moon and planets gain value because they are the like the numbers on a gigantic mechanical clock.

The constellations are fixed and continually accrue mythic associations. Perhaps, this is how Capricorn, half-goat and half-fish, constellates the image of the Mesopotamian god, Ea, who lives on land during the day and in sea at night. As mentioned in the first blog in this series, the zodiac sign of Capricorn pictures the earthly-watery mix of the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian ecological and social worlds.

A connection between the always changing, yet always familiar, motions in the mundane world_2b and the movements of the superlunary beings against the fixed constellations_2a, grows into a formal system for specifying how events in the celestial sphere presage events in the mundane plane. The result is the astrologer’s vision.

The astrologer’s vision is a template for remembering past worldly events and for contemplating future events. The astrologer’s vision solves problems inherent in unconstrained social complexity_2b by incorporating both change and stasis into a coherent theoretical system_1b, where mundane events_2b virtually situate (and emerge from) celestial conditions_2a.

My example comes from the gospel of Matthew. Astrologers from the east, the lands of the Medes and Persians, follow a “star” and bring gifts to the infant Jesus. The fact that the child is of humble origins turns out to be significant. The Trinity works within their cognitive game, implicitly unveiling a larger picture, an intimation of the actuality of God_2a.

Here is a diagram of the journey of the magi.

Indeed, the astrologer’s impulse, like the magi’s fancy gifts, seem weirdly confused. Surely, the magi anticipate a figure of future authority, but greet a somewhat befuddled young couple. Then, like the astrologers before them, they transcend their own expectations. They know that any celestial event_2a must be read in the light of both the (unmoving) zodiac signification_3b and the situation at hand_2b. The events_2b,2a remain actual. The reading_1b accommodates. The astrologer bends like a willow.

Now, allow me to compare the journey of the magi with a prior figure, an intimation (or proof) of the actuality of God.

The relational structure begins with the situational actuality_2b. The causation exhibited by creatures_2b mirrors mundane events in our world of motion_2b. Creatures act the same over and over again. Yet, they are wily and adaptive in unusual circumstances. Similarly, our behaviors and traditions in unconstrained social complexity establish habits and routines. Yet, the unexpected always arises, calling for us to be cleverer than we otherwise would be.

The journey of the magi adds a sublime twist to this comparison between two situation-level actualities. The birth of a royal child in the sublunary realm_2b mirrors the secondary causation of creatures_2b. It is as if all life is honored in the journey of the magi.

What about the situational normal context_3b?

Astrology puts our earthly turmoil_2b into the normal context of something that does not itself change, the twelve signs of the zodiac_3b. For a particular celestial event, one sign will dominate, as in the example of the conjunction of Saturn and Pluto in January 2020.

The zodiac mirrors the Divine Will_3b, which is unmoved and multifaceted. The Divine Will_3b contextualizes our worldly affairs_2b. Like the numbers of a mechanical clock, the Divine Will_3b orients the moment at hand_2b. Like the zodiac, the particularity of God’s Orientation_2b is revealed. Everything has a proper season. Contextualization of our worldly events_2b by the Divine Will_3b allows us to remember, contemplate and decide.

What about the situational potential_1b?

The Divine Presence_1b addresses a moment in time. So, does the magi’s reading_1b.

The magi’s reading of celestial events_1b tells us of the nature of the Divine Presence_1b. The Divine Presence_1b is the potential_1b of the actuality of God_2a in the same way that the magi’s interpretation_1b engages the potential_1b of the actuality of celestial transits through unmoving constellations_2a.

For the magi, the celestial sphere_2a contains motion (the sun, moon and the roving stars), as well as a lack of motion (the stars in the constellations). These two features allow reading_1b to occur. The regularity of celestial motion contributes to habits of interpretation, styling astrological hints and suggestions. The permanence of the constellations, along with the finite number of moving celestial bodies, contribute to astrology’s foundation.

For primary and secondary causation, the actuality of God_2a transcends time and enters time. Here, time parallels motion. God’s transcendence of time is like the lack of motion of constellations. God’s entrance into time parallels the motion of celestial bodies. Transcendence speaks to the exclusivity of the Divine Will_3b. Entrance addresses the inclusivity of the Divine Presence_1b.

Yet, while the Divine Presence_1b manifests in every moment in time, the entrance of the actuality of God_2a into the flow of time divides all time. The Incarnation fixes one moment in the continuum of time.

The journey of the magi is significant in this regard. The gospel passage in Matthew highlights this precise moment, when the secondary causation of creatures_2a simultaneously fulfills the primary causation of the Divine Will_3b and realizes the potential of the primary causation of the Divine Presence_1b.

The relational structure of the journey of the magi mirrors the relational structure of primary and secondary causation involved in the theodrama of the birth of a king, whose kingdom is not of this (mundane) World.

In this mirror, I can see an intimation (or proof) of the actuality of God_2a.

04/1/20

How much potential does tiny Pluto have?

In the last two blogs, I discuss a contemporary gift, from modern magi to Christian newborns, in the parallel relational construction of astrology and the Thomist’s insight into primary and secondary causation.

Here is a picture of the association of primary and secondary causation with the category-based nested form.

For astrologers, the superlunary sphere parallels primary causation. The sublunary plane matches secondary causation.

Here is how that looks.

My example entails a celestial event on January 20, 2020, the conjunction of Saturn and Pluto at the edge of the constellation of Capricorn, teetering into Aquarius.

Saturn is a massive planet. It is visible to the unaided eye. Ancient astrologers tracked this “roving star”.

Pluto is a dwarf planet, invisible to the naked eye. It is 0.2% the volume of Earth. Tiny Pluto is discovered in 1931, during search of the Knieper Belt, inspired by a perceived incongruity in the orbit of Neptune.

The year of discovery stands between the two great Battels of the Enlightenment gods, the naïve battle among the Mercantilist gods (1914-1918) and the hot battle among the Fraternal Ideologies (1939-1945). What better time to discover a distant invisible roving star and label it with the name of the pagan god of the underworld?

Pluto seems large at first. Improved measurements reduce its size. More dwarf planets have been found. Eris, discovered in 2005, is slightly larger than Pluto.

So, why would a modern astrologer worry about Pluto?

Why not only follow the visible planets tracked by our ancestors?

The periodicity of Saturn is a little over 28 years. Many modern humans live to see two full orbits. This short periodicity may capture the psychology of the mundane world, but not the sociology. Sociology requires longer periodicities. Pluto’s circuit of 248 years fits the bill, as do the legitimate planets of Uranus (discovered in 1781, 84-year orbit) and Neptune (discovered in 1846, 165-year orbit).

What does this imply?

The addition of unseen, distant planets with multi-generational periodicities offer modern astrologers the long periods useful for sociological readings.

Now, I return to the nested form for the conjunction of Pluto and Saturn in the constellation, Capricorn. The Wuhan plague starts right before the inauguration of this year of the rat.

Both the mundane event and the celestial conjunction are real. An actual event₂ occurs on Earth. A potentiating event₁occurs in the heavens, within the normal context of Capricorn₃.

However, the conjunction between Saturn and Pluto is also actual₂.

Is there a way to configure the category-based nested form in order to account for the realness of the celestial event?

Yes. One way follows Peirce’s secondness. Secondness consists of two contiguous real elements. The nomenclature is one real element [contiguity] other real element. For example, I could write, celestial event [contiguity] mundane event. However, there is no material or instrumental causality between these two real elements. So, this route is blocked.

Another way is to construct two category-based nested forms and hierarchically arrange them. One nested form enters a situation level (corresponding to actuality). The other nested form enters a content level (corresponding to potential).

The relation between situation_b and content_a is the same as between actuality₂ and potential₁. Yet, the relation occurs between nested forms, rather than elements with a single nested. The qualifier “virtual” (meaning, “in virtue”) denotes the distinction. Situation_b virtually emerges from (and situates) content_a.

In sum, the actuality in the celestial sphere_2a may be distinctly separated from the mundane plane_2a through a two-level interscope, as described in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

Here is how that looks.

According to this sensible (two-level) construction, the mundane plane_2b virtually emerges from (and situates) the celestial sphere_2a.

Ironically, this relational structure also applies to both genetics and natural selection, as demonstrated in Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome, as well as Speculations on Thomism and Evolution.

Notable, for both genetics and natural selection, the content level_a is relatively independent of the situation level_b and contains a potential_1b exploited by the situation level_b. For astrology, the situation level_b places the content level_a within a mythic framework_1b that is tested by the congruence between actuality_2b and potential_1b, in the normal context of astrology_3b.

The fall of Wuhan_2b passes the test and addresses the question, “How much potential does the miniscule Pluto have?”

But there is more.

The celestial drama of Pluto, Saturn and Jupiter entering into Capricorn_2a can be read in light of events on earth_2b.

Pluto enters into the constellation of Capricorn on November, 2008, during a world-wide financial crisis. Easy-finance mortgages, packaged in the USA, are sold throughout the world. When the bubble bursts, powerful Wall Street companies swoon.

Central banks save the day by propping up financial firms. In the following years, debt levels rise, extraordinarily, surpassing the debts of 2008.

Now, in early 2020, dozens of economic bubbles are ready to pop.

In 2008, the H1N1 virus jumps to humans in Mexico. In 2009, the so-called “swine flu” produces a small panic.

Meanwhile, in 2007, Chinese and American scientists collaborate on research into the SARS virus, which swept through Asia four years earlier. They publish detailed studies of bat-associated coronaviruses. This work is continued by scientists at the Wuhan Virology Institute, with subsequent publications, even to the unfortunate outbreak.

All it takes is a small tear in a bio-protective suit to release a genetically modified virus into the populace.

Pluto is a tiny player. Yet, events_2b in the fields of finance and virology readily play into the image of a minute celestial being, fully capable of exerting its influence within each constellation_2a. Pluto is a sign of death and renewal. Capricorn is associated with sovereign power and political order.

In contrast to dwarf planet Pluto, Saturn is massive. Saturn enters the constellation of Capricorn in December 2017.

At the time, in the USA, President Donald Trump finishes the first year of his term. National politics is rent by (false) corporate media narrative explaining why Hillary Clinton loses the 2016 election. The (fraudulently initiated) Mueller investigation offers promise for revenge. (Innocent) General Michael Flynn (under tainted legal counsel) pleads guilty to lying to the FBI. Republican candidate, Roy Moore, loses a senate bid in Alabama under the weight of (numerous, manufactured and media-driven) accusations (for sexual misbehavior 30 years prior). Q posts on the dark web for the first time (and is later vilified and ignored by corporate media). A foot of snow falls in Georgia. The city of Atlanta is paralyzed. Facebook admits censorship.

Worldwide, Britain triggers article 50 of the EU constitution. Mohammad Bin Salman becomes heir to the Saudi throne. The nineteenth congress of the Chinese Communist Party names Xi Jinping to a second five-year term, then ends without naming a successor.

Saturn is all about time. Time reveals all things. Already, in the first quarter of 2020, the American news of 2017 is shown to be deceptive (see parentheses above). World news of late 2017 is similarly qualified as Saturn passes through Capricorn.

Jupiter enters Capricorn in December 2019. It will leave December 2020, after Saturn and Pluto are no longer in retrograde. The mythic attributes of Pluto, Saturn and Jupiter entangle. The first complete conjunction occurs January 12, 2020. Pluto leverages the weight of Saturn in a mythic story_1b, telling of the fall of Wuhan and the spread of a novel coronavirus_2b. The mundane plane_1b resonates with the celestial sphere_2a.

What lesson can I draw?

The story, told above, addresses history and sociology. Pluto’s advantage comes from its extraordinarily long periodicity. It lingers within each constellation. It moves slowly, just like sociological transformations. Seven visible planets go into conjunction with Pluto as it passes through each constellation. Saturn goes into conjunction with Pluto every 33 years.

The last time Pluto passes through Capricorn is from 1762 to 1779, during the corruption of Louis XV in France. King George III rules Britain and milks her colonies. Frederick II serves Prussia, winning battles and promoting Enlightenment ideas. Maria Theresa, daughter of Charles III, rules the Hapsburg Empire. Catherine the Great captures the throne in Russia. The Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth suffers losses in 1772. Mohammad Karim Khan Zand rules Persia, ending 40 years of war. The Ottoman Empire suffers peace and militarily falls behind its European rivals.

1762 through 1779 marks a calm before the storms of the French revolution and the American insurrection. Germany, Russia and Austria partition Poland. The Enlightenment reformer, Joseph II, follows Maria Theresa. Persia enters civil war after the death of its regent.

In many ways, the current transit of Pluto recapitulates its previous passage through Capricorn. The deaths and rebirths of many political-religious unions are already underway, include those political systems that claim to be “not religious”.

The long periodicities of Pluto, Neptune and Uranus offer modern astrologers a vantage not available to ancient astrologers. Long periodicities allow the contemplation of a sociological spiral through history. The ancient astrologers thought that the mundane world lives within celestial cycles. Now, modern astrologers imagine a spiral, where celestial cycles are superimposed on an unfolding that transcends the rhythms of the heavens.

The wise men in the gospel of Matthews catch a glimpse of this theodrama, when they lay their gifts before an infant king. They follow the stars. Look what happens. Surely, they did not anticipate…

Astrology expresses the same relational structure as genetics and natural selection. Yet, it operates to bring the mundane plane into mythical union with the celestial sphere.

Astrology also expresses the same relational structure as primary and secondary causation, offering an intimation (or proof) on the actuality of God.

Just as, in astrology, the motions of the celestial bodies_2a are independent of events on the earthly plane_2b, yet are situated by the mundane_1b, the actuality of God_2a stands independent of primary_3b,1b and secondary_2b causalities, yet is situated by them_b.

The primary causalities of the Divine Will_3b and the Divine Presence_1b do not physically move. Secondary causalities_2b, exhibited by creatures, facilitate bodily motion. The actuality of God_2a gives rise to the unmoved (Divine Presence_1b) Mover (Divine Will_3b), just as a celestial actuality_2a underlies the zodiac’s constellation_3b and the astrologer’s reading_1b.

This implies that, just as the planets move before stationary luminaries in the celestial actuality_2a, the actuality of Godmoves before the actuality of God within the Divine Realness_2a.

These parallels are gifts, from the astrologer, to the modern scholastic.

03/28/20

Magi Bear Witness (Part 1)

According to the gospel of Matthew, after Jesus is born, wise men arrive the East, following a “star”. Of course, the term, “star”, must be broadly construed, pertaining to the superlunary domes, as opposed to the sublunary planes. The motions of superlunary beings represent ‘something’ to the magi, corresponding to ‘something’ in their sublunary situation.

They read the “star” as a sign of a birth of a king.

The magi are “magical” is so far as this: There is no direct cause whereby a divine superlunary being activates, moves, arranges or manipulates ‘something’ in our sublunary realm. Yet, causation appears to be present.

In Comments on Fr. Thomas White’s Essay (2019), “Thomism and the New Evangelization”, available at smashwords.com, one finds a parallel with primary and secondary causation. Primary causation entails God’s Will and Presence. Secondary causation pertains to God’s creatures. Creatures exhibit secondary causation, without compromising the primacy of God.

The “magic” at the heart of modern and premodern astrology re-articulates a foundational distinction in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas.

How do these indirect causalities operate?

Here is the picture.

03/26/20

Magi Bear Witness (Part 2)

The indirect causality of astrology, as well as of primary and secondary causes, is captured by the four statements embedded in the category-based nested form.

Let me consider astrology.

An actuality₂ occurs our sublunary world.

Its normal context₃ and potential₁ pertains to the superlunary sphere.Here is how that looks.

03/24/20

Magi Bear Witness (Part 3)

But, aren’t there two actualities?

There are events on earth. There are events in the heavens.

One belongs to actuality₂. The other is held by potential₁.

So, how does the modern astrologer, like the magi of old, offer the newborn Christian a gift?

Recently, a particular set of celestial events unite modern and ancient astrologies. Modern astrology considers the influence of celestial bodies that cannot be viewed with the naked eye, such as the dwarf planet, Pluto. Premodern astrology considers planets visible to the unaided eye, from Mercury to Saturn.

The notable event is the conjunction of Pluto and Saturn in Capricorn on January 12, 2020. This particular conjunction is one step in a minuet involving Pluto, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, dancing on the dividing line between Capricorn and Aquarius.Here is the nested form for this celestial event.

03/21/20

Magi Bear Witness (Part 4)

The zodiac sign of Capricorn serves as a normal context₃.

In the previous blog, I consider the imagery of Capricorn in light of the first singularity. Capricorn associates to the manifestation of civilization in southern Mesopotamia after the first singularity. Surely, such a claim fits with the standard mythic connection between Capricorn, sovereign power and order.

Several weeks have passed since the conjunction. I may now look back and assess how the sublunary realm₂ appears to manifest the potential of this conjunction between Saturn and Pluto₁. Saturn is the titanic god of time, itself. Pluto rules over the stark duality of death and rebirth, along with all its resonances, such as darkness and light.

I ask the following question in the middle of March 2020.

Is there an event that brings, to light, an incident that says, “Your time is up.”?

Such an incident would conform to the anticipated actuality₂.

There is a candidate.

Earlier, doctors in the city of Wuhan sound warnings. On January 12, 2020, they are suppressed and ordered to sign self-effacing documents. Why? The city prepares for a pre-lunar new year banquet. The feast will be the send-off for millions of its citizens, who plan to return to their hometowns and villages to celebrate the new-year holidays. This is the year of the rat.

Nine days later, on January 21, 2020, government authorities place Wuhan and adjacent cities under lockdown. Wuhan surrenders to a plague. The disease rapidly spreads throughout the world. Eight weeks later, quarantines and lockdowns occur in South Korea, Italy, France, Spain and the United States of America.

Here is my assessment.

Surely, there is no instrumental or material cause acting between the normal context₃ and actuality₂, as well as between the potential₁ and actuality₂. Direct causality is the stuff of modern science. Disciplinary languages, mechanical and mathematical models, as well as measurement and observation are imbued with the character of actuality₂. But, actuality₂is not all there is.

I cannot smell, taste, touch, see and hear a normal context₃ or its potential₁. Yet, I sense their relevance. I cannot observe or measure them. Or can I?

I can observe and measure the Saturn-Pluto conjunction. Isn’t that real?

Yes, but I cannot bring the conjunction₁ into relation with actuality₂ without a triadic relation. A normal context₃ is needed in order to bring the potential of the superlunary event₁ into relation with the actuality of a sublunary event₂. A sublunary event₂ emerges from (and situates) the potential of the superlunary event₁. The fall of Wuhan, and all its sequelae₂, emerges from (and situates) the potential of the Pluto-Saturn conjunction₁, in the normal context of the sign of Capricorn₃.

This nested form belongs to modern astrology. It touches base with the views of ancient astrologers, such as the magi, the wise men in Matthew’s gospel. It parallels primary and secondary causation, familiar to medieval and modern scholastics. There is more to the world than the category of secondness, the realm of actuality. Humans cogitate in the way of the category-based nested form. Both modern and ancient astrologers offer the newborn Christian a gift, an insight that bears witness to a relational structure, common to all and endowed by our Creator.