11/8/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 17 of 38)

0057 Hoffmeier considers the story of Noah’s flood.  It has a literary structure common to Semitic civilizations.  Typically, the structure goes ABCB’A’, where B’ and A’ mirror B and A.  Noah’s flood story, ABC…P…C’B’A’, contains 16 steps. 

0058 On top of that, during the past three centuries of the Age of Ideas, archaeologists unearth cuneiform-bearing clay tablets from long-buried libraries of ancient cities.  Some of the tablets tell a flood tale almost identical to the story of Noah’s flood.

0059 What does this imply, concerning the genres in Gen 1-11?To me, this implies a deep coherence between an elite Sumerian tradition and Abraham’s ancestors.  The idea is dramatically envisioned in the masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall.  

Gen 1-11 in an insider’s tale about the rise and the fall of Sumerian civilization.

11/5/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 18 of 38)

0060 James Hoffmeier concludes, by expressing the conviction that the entire Bible, including Genesis 1-11, intend to portray real events.  Therefore, the genre of Gen 1-11 is history and theology.

0061 These comments rely on the hypothesis of the first singularity, where a change in the way humans talk, from hand-speech to speech-alone talk, constitutes a transition so fundamental that our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

To me, this implies that the stories of Adam and Eve are fairy tales about the initiation and early development of our current Lebenswelt of unconstrained social complexity.

0062 The first singularity initiates cycles of failure, reorientation, paradigm implementation, and response to contradictions inherent in the established paradigm.  Each cycle expresses its own genre.  Each cycle lasts for 16 generations (that is, about 400 years).  Each cycle brings the Ubaid further into the rewards and losses of increasing social differentiation.

A similar spiraling appears in Gen 1-11.  For example, the stories of Cain and Abel are a little less dreamy than the stories of Adam and Eve.  Lamech’s attitude is way more arrogant than Cain’s.

0063 The primeval history serves a witness to the consequences of the first singularity.

In this sense, Hoffmeier is on target.  Gen 1-11 is history and theology.

11/4/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 19 of 38)

0064 In chapter two, Gordon H. Wenham views Gen 1-11 as protohistory.

He starts with the genealogies.

Even though the narratives are difficult to classify as genre, the genealogies are not.

0065 Wenham proposes a thought experiment.

Clearly, the view from within, the author’s point of view, would not assign the classifier, “genre”, to portions of the text.  The classification comes from the outside, from the reader’s point of view.

So, how does the reader, on the outside, enter the thought-world of the author, on the inside?

0066 This thought experiment associates to a two-level interscope, which is discussed in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

For content, in the normal-context of the author’s world3a, the Biblical text2a emerges from (and situates) the potential of ‘the insider’s witness’1a.

For situation, in the normal-context of the reader’s world3b, an interpretation of the Biblical text2b emerges from (and situates) the potential of ‘insights into the revelation of what happened’1b.

0067 Here is a picture.

11/3/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 20 of 38)

0068 Where does identification of genre enter into the previous diagram?

Genre introduces perspective.

Genre may serve as an ordering principle1c.

0069 Here is a picture.

0070 If I look at the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility (the column of elements in firstness), I see this:

genre1c( insights for reader1b( Biblical witness1a))

The normal context of genre1c virtually brings insights for the reader1b into relation with the potential of Biblical witness1a.

10/14/21

Looking at Richard Colledge’s Essay (2021) “Thomism and Contemporary Phenomenological Reduction” (Part 1 of 7)

0001 Phenomenology situates science.

Three commentaries flesh out the above statement.

All are available at smashwords.

Just search for key words, in addition to the commentator, Razie Mah.

0002 These e-works are:

Reverie on Mark Spencer’s Essay (2021) “The Many Phenomenological Reductions”

Comments on Joseph Trabbic’s Essay (2021) “Jean-Luc Marion and … First Philosophy”

Comments on Richard Colledge’s Essay (2021) “Thomism and Contemporary Phenomenology”

0003 The originating articles are published in the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly.

None mention science.

0004 Two questions arise.

First, why are Catholic philosophers interested in phenomenology?

Second, why do none of these originating essays mention science?

10/13/21

Looking at Richard Colledge’s Essay (2021) “Thomism and Contemporary Phenomenological Reduction” (Part 2 of 7)

0005 Why are Catholic philosophers interested in phenomenology?

In Reverie on Mark Spencer’s Essay (2021) “The Many Phenomenological Reductions”, one incentive is proposed.

0006 The positivist intellect has a rule.  No metaphysics is allowed.

Catholic anti-reductionism is metaphysical.

Phenomenology is not.

Consequently, the phenomenologist is tolerated in our scientific Age of Ideas, but the Thomist is not.

0007 So, the Christian realist has an incentive to speak through the mouthpiece of phenomenology.

10/12/21

Looking at Richard Colledge’s Essay (2021) “Thomism and Contemporary Phenomenological Reduction” (Part 3 of 7)

0008 Why are Catholic philosophers interested in phenomenology?

In Comments on Joseph Trabbic’s Essay (2021) “Jean Luc Marion and … First Philosophy”, a second incentive is proposed.

0009 If phenomenology situates science, then what puts phenomenology into perspective?

0010 In 1995, the French Catholic phenomenologist, Jean-Luc Marion, comes very close to naming that “what”.  “What” coincides with the givenness of things themselves.

0011 Marion’s identification of givenness offers an opportunity for Catholic philosophers.  But, the concerns of the positivist intellect remain.  The positivist intellect rules out metaphysics.

As far as science is concerned, givenness is irrelevant.

0012 But, there is a twist.

The naming of givenness illuminates the potential underlying phenomenological reduction.

The noumenon1a, the thing itself1a, is a mind-independent being.

The noumenon1b, what the thing itself1a must be1b, is a mind-dependent being, that one can take to be mind-independent.

0013 Does that reflect the awkward nature of givenness?

One can give, with no expectation for return.

Can one take, with no expectation of reciprocity?

Can the gift be given, even when the giver and the recipient are nowhere to be found?

10/11/21

Looking at Richard Colledge’s Essay (2021) “Thomism and Contemporary Phenomenological Reduction” (Part 4 of 7)

0014 Why are Catholic philosophers interested in phenomenology?

In Comments on Richard Colledge’s Essay (2021) “Thomism and Contemporary Phenomenology”, a third incentive is proposed.

0015 Colledge reads a 2006 book by German phenomenologist, Gunter Figal, entitled Objectivity, The Hermeneutical and the Philosophical. 

Colledge wonders, “Is this a phenomenological realist open to Christian anti-reductionism?”

Can we talk?

0016 Figal admits that the thing itself1a should be mind-independent.  If this is the case, then metaphysics should be allowed.  Aren’t the mathematical and mechanical models of the empirio-schematic judgment mind-dependent beings?  Don’t mind-dependent beings transcend (while entangling) physics?  Doesn’t that fit the definition of metaphysics.

Well, yes, this becomes apparent when phenomenology reveals what the thing itself1a must be1b and then a novel empirical science2a arises to investigate its1a(1b) phenomena1a.

10/8/21

Looking at Richard Colledge’s Essay (2021) “Thomism and Contemporary Phenomenological Reduction” (Part 5 of 7)

0017 Why do Catholic philosophers (who are curious about phenomenology) not mention science?

This is a very good question, since Aristotle’s and the Positivist’s judgments are structurally similar.

Well, they are different, because the three elements of judgment are imbued with different categories.

0018 The similar structures, along with different categorical assignments, benefit phenomenology.  Phenomenology can sneak Aristotelian metaphysical constructs into the laboratory by reifying hylomorphes into what the thing itself1a must be1b.  Phenomenology appropriates illicit metaphysical constructs then cleans them of metaphysical terminology.

0019 For example, in terms of physics, a one Euro coin may be reduced to its constituent metal and minted shape.  To me, this looks like matter and form.

At the same time, in terms of phenomenological reduction2b, a one Euro coin1a is money1b.  Money1b is what the Euro coin itself1a must be.

0020 What happens when what the thing itself1a must be1b is not the thing itself1a?

Is phenomenological reduction at work?

0021 If the one Euro coin as money is a mind-independent (formerly mind-dependent) being, then novel laws of “physics” apply.  The coin1a(1b) now exhibits the phenomena of value1a and fiat currency1a.

The novel “social” science of modern economics investigates the phenomena1a that objectify this noumenon1a(1b).

10/7/21

Looking at Richard Colledge’s Essay (2021) “Thomism and Contemporary Phenomenological Reduction” (Part 6 of 7)

0022 Okay, so far in this sequence of blogs, I have discussed three incentives for why Catholic philosophers may be interested in phenomenology.  I have also raised a question concerning why these philosophers do not mention science.

0023 The answer to the latter question is located in the relation within the Positivist’s judgment.  A positivist intellect (relation, thirdness) brings an empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements (what is, firstness).  The positivist intellect has a rule.  Metaphysics is not allowed.

0024 What is the result?

Catholic anti-reductionists are excluded from discourse… er, polite scientific society in this modern Age of Ideas.

The positivist intellect says, “No.”

So, why even try?

Why not discourse with the ones who might want to talk, the phenomenologists?

0025 Do I see Gunter Figal heading to the exit?

Professor Figal is interested in objectivity, not givenness.