05/18/22

Looking at Andrew Kulikovsky’s Overview (2005) “The Bible and Hermeneutics” (Part 8 of 10)

0058 The greimas square in the prior blog contains two paradoxes.

0059 For A1 and B1, here is the paradox.

Genesis 1-11 participates in the historical reality of the literary traditions of the ancient Near East. These literary traditions present fantastical elements that, to us, appear to be inventions. They are inventions. But, they are not made out of whole cloth. They describe natural processes, historical events and social behaviors that cannot be captured by spoken language, except through phantasmagorical scenes, for a variety of reasons.

One of these reasons is that the semiotic qualities of speech-alone talk potentiate “world building” processes that cannot be captured in the spoken language at the time. How can someone inside a historic process tell the story of the historic process from an outsider’s point of view?

Indeed, what is the nature of witness?

0060 For A2 and B2, here is the paradox.

The biblical witness is preserved by a living tradition. When the Bible is redacted, perhaps during and shortly after the Babylonian exile, no one knows that those hills, out in the middle of the desert, contain royal archives, holding stories very similar to those that the redactors are working with.

The extrabiblical materials include cuneiform tablets, excavated and translated by archaeologists. These tablets come from royal libraries of long-buried capitals. These tablets serve as the subject matter for constructing the literary forms of the ancient Near East.

0061 Kulikovsky clarifies this greimas square by mentioning a favorite theme of liberal theologians: cultural accommodation.

Without a doubt, the stories of Genesis 2:4-11 correspond to the archaeological periods of the Ubaid, the Uruk and the Sumerian Dynastic of southern Mesopotamia.

From all appearances, the tradition of Seth promulgates stories, from Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden to the Tower of Babel, from a point of view standing deep inside of the above progression of cultures. Then, Abraham and Sarah step out of that insider tradition.

The so-called “Seth hypothesis” is discussed in chapter 13C of An Archaeology of the Fall.

So, what does the term, “cultural accommodation” really mean?

0062 Genesis 1-11 is properly interpreted by considering extrabiblical materials from the ancient Near East. Kulikovsky quotes Paul Seely in this regard. Genesis 1 reflects the cosmology of the second millennium BC. Modern science may produce a more accurate picture of the universe. But, that does not invalidate (or take priority over) the theological message of Genesis 1. However, it does suggest that Genesis 1 is a temporal concession to the people at that time.

0063 Hmmm. Does the term, “temporal concession”, key into B2 in the following greimas square.

It sure does, because Genesis 2.4-11 is an insider’s view of the formation of civilization in southern Mesopotamia.

0064 Does the intercalation of Genesis into the society and history of southern Mesopotamia (B2) contrast with the truth and honesty of the biblical witness of nature, history and behavior (A2)?

There are two ways to say, “Yes.”

0065 Yes, theological liberals think that cultural accommodation (B2) contradicts the idea that the biblical record conveys historical reality (A1). Plus, extrabiblical material from the ancient Near East (B2) complements the idea that the fantastic elements and narratives are inventions (B1).

0066 Yes, the idea that Genesis 2:4-11 is an insider’s view of the Ubaid, the Uruk and the Sumerian Dynastic (B2), contrasts with a plain view of the biblical portrayal of nature, history, and human behavior as true and honest (A2), but the idea does not invalidate biblical truth and honesty. The idea (B2) contradicts the notion of historical reality (A1), because witness from within a historical event cannot describe the totality of the event, even though such witness can describe the character of the event. For this reason, the inventiveness of ancient literary traditions (B1) can be seen as necessary, because the character of events is more important than the mundane details of the occurrence.

0067 The word, “invention”, is under contention.

In one use, primitive people invent their stories out of whole cloth, so the stories are both incorrect and deceptive.

In the other use, inventiveness is necessary because spoken words fail during civilizational crises. Mythical constructions attempt to capture the processes where one social reality dissolves and another coagulates in the crucible of speech-alone talking southern Mesopotamia.

0068 The former use of the word, “invention”, is condemned by the Evangelical Theological Society. The latter is not.

05/17/22

Looking at Andrew Kulikovsky’s Overview (2005) “The Bible and Hermeneutics” (Part 9 of 10)

0069 Does the term, “cultural accommodation”, cohere with the idea that Genesis 2:4-11 is an insider’s view of the Ubaid, the Uruk, and the Sumerian Dynastic.

0070 How does one describe events that are potentiated by the semiotic qualities of speech-alone talk?

This is one of the challenges facing folk within the emerging civilization of southern Mesopotamia.

Things happen that no one expects. The world of the Ubaid gets more and more complicated. Innovation follows innovation. Villages turn into towns. Towns expand into cities. The Ubaid becomes wealthier, more powerful, more hierarchical, more specialized, more unequal and, of course, more deranged.

0071 The hypothesis of the first singularity challenges the modern… er… postmodern imagination.

How do we imagine the social changes that follow the potentiation of labor and social specialization by speech-alone talk?

0072 The semiotics of speech-alone talk is radically different than the semiotics of hand-speech talk. As discussed in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace, the early Ubaid practices speech-alone talk, at a time when all the surrounding cultures practice hand-speech talk. But, that is not the case for long. The surrounding cultures see what the Ubaid can do. They drop the hand-talk component of their hand-speech talk in imitation. Then, weirdly, they also start to become more and more complicated.

0073 No one in the Ubaid is prepared for the way that speech-alone talk works. No one is accustomed to the deception that speech-alone permits, in contrast to hand-speech talk.

Well, I suppose, after a number of generations, some people within the Ubaid culture start to figure out that speech-alone talk can be used to deceive, even while making apparently correct statements. Plus, these deceptions lead to exposure. Exposure ends in disaster.

0074 How so?

We project meaning, presence and message into spoken words. Then, we construct artifacts that validate our projection. When the artifacts are working, everything seems fine. When the artifacts stop working, we are exposed. Everything that our projections tell us is true turns out to be wrong.

0075 Hmmm. Does any of this sound like Genesis 2.4-4?

05/16/22

Looking at Andrew Kulikovsky’s Overview (2005) “The Bible and Hermeneutics” (Part 10 of 10)

0076 Of course, the science always changes. The revelations in Scripture do not.

Darwin’s theory of natural selection is less than two centuries old. Certain Christian doctrines have remained unchanged for twenty centuries.

0077 What is the problem?

Is there a problem with highly educated experts claiming that scientific knowledge is more believable than the book of Genesis?

Wait until they hear about the hypothesis of the first singularity.

Is the problem that there is a demonic serpent hiding in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Modern secular academics have been cultivating that tree for centuries.

0078 Hermeneutics is key. The problem lies in how to interpret Scripture. The reader_3b must interpret_2b the biblical text_1b, using hermeneutics and exegesis_1b.

Kulikovsky relies on the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, promulgated by the Evangelical Theological Society, in order to address these problems.

The Society affirms the good and denies the bad.

Yet, the bad turns out to be affirmations that are vulnerable to denial, because they may be taken so far as to negate their corresponding affirmations. The denials contain views that must be held in abeyance and regarded with an eye towards mischief.

0079 Yet, the hypothesis of the first singularity offers a new opportunity. Devotees of scientism will find no harbor in saying that scientific knowledge disproves or has priority over the Scriptures. Those who want to limit Biblical authority to religious themes, and who offer recipes to separate the theological message from the worldviews of the ancient Near East, find no solace.

Why?

Genesis 2.4-11 is an insider’s view of the development of unconstrained social complexity in the Ubaid, the Uruk and the Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods.

0080 The text itself is a feature of God’s revelation.

0081 The denials may be modified into contrasts that are vulnerable to being misconstrued and placed in greimas squares, along with their affirmations.

0082 Articles IX and XII yield one greimas square.

0083 Articles XIV and XX yield another greimas square.

0085 The scientific hypothesis of the first singularity changes the ground beneath Kulikovsky’s brief and concise overview.

Yet, the grounds of hermeneutics and exegesis remain the same.

Kulikovsky concludes that the difficultly lies, not so much with understanding the teaching of Scripture, but believing it to be real.

05/13/22

Looking at Thomas Michaud’s Essay (2021) “Anatomy of the Progressive Revolution” (Part 1 of 9)

0001 The article under consideration appears in a special issue of Studia Gilsoniana (volume 10(5), pages 1107-1120), covering economics and politics.

I downloaded the article from academia.edu.

The article addresses issues raised in How To Define the Word “Religion”, as well as in contributions to the Intimations of Political Philosophy series.

0002 The structure of Michaud’s argument follows Greek textual structure. Greek textual structure seeks certainty by eliminating possibilities.

Here, Michaud presents two options: (A) the traditional view of religion as the foundation of morality and culture and (B) the Progressive view, where politics transforms culture by imposing revolutionary ideological social justice through a collectivist economy. Then, Michaud questions the Progressive stance (B) by considering one implication, the integrity of the individual as a person. This leaves (A) as the only viable option.

0003 Of course, I oversimplify.

Why am I interested in this essay?

Features in Michaud’s argument may be re-conceptualized as category-based nested forms.

See A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, available at smashwords and other e-book vendors under the author, Razie Mah.

05/12/22

Looking at Thomas Michaud’s Article (2021) “Anatomy of the Progressive Revolution” (Part 2 of 9)

0004 In the twilight of the Age of Ideas, a traditionalist slogan captures the order of social things. Politics is downstream of culture. Culture is downstream of religion. To that, Michaud adds two more. Morality flows from religion. Economics goes with politics.

Surely, America’s founders, living in the heyday of the Age of Ideas, would sympathize with this snapshot, which may be encapsulated in a hierarchical diagram.

0005 How does the following flow diagram associate to a category-based nested form?

Religion is the normal context₃. A normal context₃ belongs Peirce’s category of thirdness. Thirdness brings secondness into relation with firstness.

Morality and culture are both actual₂. Actuality₂ belongs to the dyadic category of secondness. Secondness consists in two contiguous real elements. Here, the two real elements are morality and culture. I can write the actuality₂ as morality [contiguity] culture₂.

0006 What label describes the contiguity?

This is a great question. It is at the heart of a series titled, “Peirce’s Secondness and Aristotle’s Hylomorphism”. I could label the contiguity, “substantiates”. But, here, I will use a less technical term, “sustains”.

0007 Finally, the possibilities inherent in ‘politics and economics’ underlie culture.

0008 Thus, I arrive at the following category-based nested form.

05/11/22

Looking at Thomas Michaud’s Essay (2021) “Anatomy of the Progressive Revolution” (Part 3 of 9)

0009 Where does the individual fit into this category-based nested form?

The individual resides on a lower form. Looking up, “he” sees a relational dynamic within the social paradigm.

0010 The hierarchical flow in the traditional slogan becomes a double dynamic, where the normal context₃ flows into one dyadic actuality₂ and the potential₁ rises into the other dyadic actuality₂. The category-based nested form displays its own transcategorical flows. Religion₃ motivates morality₂. Politics and economics₁ enlivens culture₂.

What does this imply?

The traditional slogan depicts a flow down a hierarchy. This flow conveys an aura of determinism.In contrast, the corresponding category-based nested form presents two transcategorical flows. One flows “down” from normal context₃ to actuality₂. The other flows “up” from potential₁ to actuality₂. These flows convey a picture of dynamism.

05/10/22

Looking at Thomas Michaud’s Essay (2021) “Anatomy of the Progressive Revolution” (Part 4 of 9)

0011 The progressive agenda showcases a similar hierarchical flow diagram.

0012 Politics₃ can change a culture and save it from itself.

How?

In the normal context of politics₃, economic interventions₂ transform the culture… or rather… its morality into one that conforms to the ideological ideals of an educated, judicious and articulate cadre of enlightened, “woke” and true believers₁.

Here is a picture.

0013 Michaud elaborates nine points.

First and second, the Progressive’s devotion to political ideologies exhibits a type of religious zeal. Yet, the progressiveself-identifies as “not religious”. Progressive political movements₃ are thus “not religious” religious enterprises₃.

Third, fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth, economics is a tool for progressive revolutionary politics. Economic interventionis a lever that transforms culture. This requires the use of sovereign power.

Today’s progressives desire to identify and privilege groups who are victims of past and present exploitation, both real and imagined. This fortifies allegiance of such groups (remember, this is democratic politics) and encourages individuals to identify as members of a victim group. State education, the justice system and corporate media serve as ideological apparatuses that convey moral and cultural information to acolytes.

Fifth, the morality of social justice does not conform to traditional morality, because, in both theory and perception, people following traditional morals victimize(d) now-privileged groups.

Ninth, the progressive agenda is a permanent revolution.

0014 These nine points suggest that there are levels in the progressive agenda that are not envisioned in the traditional flow diagram.

Politics₃ belongs to the situation level.

Social justice and permanent revolution are located above the situation level.

Progressive affiliation, victim group, individual, and identity reside below the situation level.

05/9/22

Looking at Thomas Michaud’s Essay (2021) “Anatomy of the Progressive Revolution” (Part 5 of 9)

0015 Now, I associate the elements above and below the situation level to nested form. The result is an interscope, as described in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

0016 The perspective level_c stands above the situation level_b.

On this level, an unnamed, “not religious” normal context_3c brings the actuality of a permanent revolution_2c into relation with the potential of ‘social justice’_1c.

The potential of ‘social justice’_1c contextualizes the entire situation level_b.

0017 The content level_a stands below the situation level_b.

On this level, the normal context of affiliation_3a brings the dyadic actuality of group [contiguity] individual_2a into relation with the potential of ‘identity’_1a.

How should I label the contiguity between the two real elements of group and individual?

I choose the word, “subsumes”.

The group [subsumes] the individual_2a.

0018 These associations yield a three-level interscope for the progressive agenda.

05/6/22

Looking at Thomas Michaud’s Essay (2021) “Anatomy of the Progressive Revolution” (Part 6 of 9)

0019 At this juncture, I stand at the threshold of the section titled, “Progressive Depersonalization”.

Michaud claims that the progressive agenda depersonalizes the individual. He starts with the ironic, progressive slogan: The personal is the political.

0020 In order to appreciate this slogan, I start with the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality. A virtual nested form is a feature of a three-level interscope. It consists of a column in one of the three elements.

Here is a picture of the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality for the progressive interscope.

0021 This virtual nested form may be spoken as follows.

The normal context of permanent revolution_2c virtually brings the dyadic actuality, economics [transforms] morals & culture_2b, into the potential of group [subsumes] individual_2a.

This nested form operates as a demiurge. A demiurge is a gnostic divinity that is forever building its world. It is typically opposed to another demiurge that is forever building an opposite world. So, it is always one demiurge against another.

0022 Of course, I can easily guess the identity of the opposing demiurge.

The opposing demiurge is the one that victimizes individuals who do not conform to morality or culture, thereby inspiring them to identify with a victim group.

Here is a comparison of the actuality₂ of the traditional slogan and the actuality_2b of the situation-level of the progressive agenda.

0023 Clearly, economic intervention_2b is a tool for the permanent revolution_2c to use, in order to transform the ways that traditional morality sustains culture_2b.

Also, of all the groups that subsume the individual_2a, none can involve traditional morality and culture₂.

0024 Why?

In Christian morality, the individual is called into mystical union with Jesus Christ, one of the three Persons of the Triune Godhead. So, the “group_2a” is actually the divine oikos, or the economy of God. This is discussed in the second interlude in How To Define the Word “Religion”.

The individual_2a does not adopt an identity_1a. The individual_2a becomes an identity_1a.

0025 What is identity_1a?

Ah, in the Christian schema, identity_1a is the person that I call “me”. It_1a is not a group_2a affiliation_3a.

In Jungian terminology, the assumption of the individual into the divine oikos is called, “individuation”. It is not called, “subsumption”.

0026 So, Michaud is on target in claiming that the progressive agenda depersonalizes the individual.

It does so by re-defining the word, “identity”.

In the progressive ideation, identity_1a is the potential underlying group affiliation_3a and supports the subsumption of the individual into a political group_2a.

The personal_2a is subsumed into the political_2a.

05/5/22

Looking at Thomas Michaud’s Essay (2021) “Anatomy of the Progressive Revolution” (Part 7 of 9)

0027 The personal is the political.

In the progressive agenda, the content-level actuality_2a is a dyad, group [subsumes] individual_2a.

The word, “individual”, no longer means a person who stands before God. The individual reduces to someone carrying a group identification tag.

Similarly, identity_1a potentiates group affiliation_3a, not the person that I call “me”.

0028 Michaud calls this, “depersonalization”.

With this in mind, I consider the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility for the progressive interscope.

0029 The normal context of social justice_1c virtually brings the actualities of ideological apparatuses (such as state education, justice system and corporate media, to name a few)_1b into relation with the possibilities inherent in identity_1a.

If “justice” is a virtue for traditional folk, then “social justice_1c” is a hegemonic, demiurgic alternative. Social justice_1ccontextualizes the actuality of economics [transforming] morals [&] culture_2b and answers the question, “When is justice (in the traditional frame) injustice (in the progressive frame)?”

0030 Here is one of the resulting twists.

The category-based nested form for the traditional view appears below.

The arrows, however, depict trans-categorical flows from the progressive point of view.

0031 Is this a misperception? Or, is this an accusation?

To the progressive, there is one deterministic flow to the traditional schema. Religion₃ flows through morality and culture₂ and pours into alienating political systems and exploitative economic arrangements₁.

To the traditionalist, there are two transcategorical flows. Religion₃ flows into morality₂. Politics and economics₁ enliven culture₂, through cooperative and laborious human action.