0084 Of course, there is an explanation for why our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The explanation is called the hypothesis of the first singularity.
The hypothesis is plainly laid out in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace.
The hypothesis is dramatically rendered in An Archaeology of the Fall.
The hypothesis is reflected upon in Comments on Original Sin and Original Death: Romans 5:12-19.
0085 Here is a snapshot.
Figure 22
0086 There is a reason why all the origin myths of the ancient Near East depict recent creations of humans. The myth tellers cannot see beyond the time horizon set by the first singularity. In particular, the people of the Ubaid, then Uruk, then Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods in southern Mesopotamia could not remember the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The Creation Story is the sole exception. But, it does not stand alone. The creation of Adam and Eve immediately follows the first chapter of Genesis, giving the impression that Adam and Eve are the first humans.
Consequently, humans are created twice in Genesis 1-4. In Genesis 1, humans are created as images of God in an evolutionary framework. In Genesis 2.4-3, the preamble to the creation of Adam clearly places the Garden of Eden at the confluence of four rivers, including the Tigris and Euphrates, during the Wet Neolithic of southwestern Asia.
0087 In conclusion, I would like to conduct a point-by-point comparison of the alt- and trad- definitions of the terms that compound into “concupiscence”. The alt definitions correspond to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in and original justice. The trad definitions correspond to our current Lebenswelt and original sin.
0088 Here is the first comparison
Figure 23
0089 In the alt-definition, the self (B) is a psychological actuality produced by an innate judgment, where consolidation (relation, thirdness) brings the self (B) (what ought to be, secondness) out of various psychological expressions of I-myself (A) (what is, firstness).
Cupid (B’) expresses the sociological realities of the self (B).
These realities are implicit abstractions. They cannot be pictured or pointed to in hand talk, so they cannot be subject for discussion by our hominin ancestors. Instead, they are held in mind as judgments, fed by experiences of other selves in action.
0090 In the trad-definition, Cupid is a passion-child of the goddess of cooperation and god of competition. There is no hint of triadic relations or implicit abstraction. The abstractions are explicit. Cupid is a selfish thing.
0091 Here is the second comparison.
Figure 24
0092 In the alt-definition, concupiditas (C’) is the desire to belong with others in a social circle. The desire entails performance, not analysis. Not analysis? In hand talk, one cannot image or indicate an explicit abstraction, such as “desire” or “performance”. Instead, one performs desire through actions, just like the animals, who also have no means to arrive at explicit abstractions. The desire is real. The performance is real. They are so real that we innately anticipate suffering for the well being of others and accepting the ministrations of others with humility. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
0093 In the trad-definition, concupiditas (C) is like selfish (C), a parody of belonging. Selfish attitudes aim for conditional (or better, forced) acceptance. Belonging is conditioned by my desires and my desires are not oriented to others. The balance of give and take is always off kilter. What appears to be fair play carries a dangerous edge. In Greek myth, Cupid tips his arrows with poisonous desires.
0094 Here is the third comparison.
Figure 25
0095 In the alt-definition, concupiscence (D’) is what humans evolved to do, compete to cooperate. We strive to bond with one another, according to the traditions of each social circle, which itself adapts to encourage human flourishing, as opposed to immediate gratification.
Indeed, our most addictive pleasures evolve under cultural traditions that forbid the full expression of the addictive behavior, if that makes sense. For example, if we could give our lives for others over and over again, we would. But, that cannot be done, because we are flesh and blood. The tree of life forbids unconstrained courage and self-immolation, while offering the fruits of its abundance. We flourish when we are willing to sacrifice ourselves for others, not when we get carried away and go too far. Courage can become addictive. Courage must be weighed by prudence.
The alt-definition of concupiscence (D’) denotes the presence of original justice.
0096 In the trad-definition, concupiscence (D) is the state of being with Cupid. Cupid is a shallow twit of a god, the mischievous passion-child of Venus and Mars. Cupid’s arrows are tipped with poisons that carry us too far. For example, one poison conveys a desire to haveothers desire to sacrifice for me. Seduction is a type of fixation. One can get addicted to one’s own power of seduction, demanding that others sacrifice for one’s own preoccupations.
Concupiscence (D) is unhinged selfishness (D). Concupiscence asks to be justified. Speech-alone words are willing servants. After all, a spoken word does not directly image or indicate its referent. A spoken word means whatever I want it to mean, in the presence of my fixation.
Surely, the trad-definition of concupiscence (D) denotes the presence of original sin.
0097 Original sin is the absence of original justice.
That is what Saint Thomas Aquinas claims.
The association between original justice, the state of Adam before the Fall, and the Lebenswelt that we evolved in is developed in Comments on Daniel Houck’s Book (2020) “Aquinas, Original Sin and the Challenge of Evolution”.
0098 This examination of Daryl Domning’s book adds depth to that commentary.
By separating the universal (descent from common ancestor) and moral (the traditional definition of concupiscence) realities of original sin, Domning offers me a path to discover one of features of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, as well as one of the features of our current Lebenswelt.
0099 What games we play with words.
My thanks to Daryl Domning and Monica Hellwig for their speculative effort, trying to reconcile evolutionary science and Christian doctrine. Original Selfishness: Original Sin and Evil in Light of Evolution is first published in 2006 by Ashgate. My copy is published in 2016 by Routledge. The first edition in paperback is issued in 2021. ISBN is 978-1-03-224358-0.
0001 Loren Haarsma is an old man, a physics professor and a Christian. As a fellow of the American Science Affiliation, he has lectured on the intersection of science and faith. He is a scholarly voice in the Biologos network.
The full title of his book is When Did Sin Begin: Human Evolution and The Doctrine of Original Sin (2021, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI).
If one goes to the resources page for the Biologos.org website, then selects the topic, “Bible”, and the subtopic, “Adam and Eve”, one will find an extensive collection of essays on the concerns in Haarsma’s title: timing, evolution and original sin.
0002 How do these concerns fit into a category-based nested form?
Timing calls forth a normal context3. The question, “when?”, implies an event. Here, the event is a transition. For evolution, the transition is a topic of natural inquiry. For original sin, the transition is a topic for theologians.
Human evolution and original sin belong to the realm of actuality2.
The only item not mentioned is potential1. Here, the question mark applies. For human evolution2, the potential must be adaptive change1. For original sin2, the potential is the start of sin in our current Lebenswelt1.
0003 To me, these concerns yield two category-based nested forms.
Here is a picture, following the recipe in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.
Figure 01
0004 These two normal contexts exclude one another.
0005 The upper normal context3 associates to evolutionary science. The focus of attention is on natural history and genetics.
Typically, an adaptive change produces speciation. However, in human evolution, an adaptive change may be cultural. Human evolution is both biological and cultural. Since natural history and genetics do not adequately describe culture, they may not be enough to scientifically describe human evolution. Indeed, no natural science convincingly addresses cultural change.
0006 The lower normal context3 associates to theological science. The focus of attention is on special and general revelation.
Special revelation includes Genesis 1-11. Genesis 1-11 divides into two parts. In the Primeval History (chapter 2:4-11), Adam is brought to life as the first human, even though um… in the Creation Story (chapter 1-2.3), humans are already intended, created and blessed, in the framework of six days of creation.
General revelation includes Greek philosophy, among other traditions. Greek philosophy is useful for resolving contradictions. For example, some theologians resolve the contradiction inherent in the two parts of Genesis 1-11 by claiming that Adam (in Genesis 2.4-4) is the male and female “them” that God intended, created and blessed (in Genesis 1).
Say what?
In the Creation Story, God creates them, male and female. So, Adam must have had some sort of divided consciousness, one operating in his mind and the other working in his ribs.
Just kidding.
0007 Greek philosophy’s usefulness is not limited to resolving contradictions, no matter how silly the resolution may be. Greek philosophy may also be used in situations where contradictions cannot be resolved. Such a situation occurs here. Human evolution2 and original sin2 belong to a single actuality. They both pertain to one realness2.
Here is a picture.
Figure 02
0008 Two (apparently independent) category-based nested forms intersect in the realm of actuality2. The two constituting actualities cannot escape the one realness, because they constitute the one realness. Certain contradictions are accidental. Certain contradictions are essential. Greek philosophy is useful for separating the accidental from the essential. A set of essential contradictions is called “a mystery”.
0009 The actualities of human evolution2 and original sin2 intersect.
Here is the diagram of the intersection for this example.
Figure 03
0010 The intersection is a relational structure. The e-masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, available at smashwords and other e-book venues, introduces the intersection. This relational structure associates to the message underlying the term, “religion”.
0011 Note how all the items in Haarsma’s title are captured by elements in the above intersection.
Two transitions (3H and 3V) touch base with the question, “When?”.
Two actualities (2H and 2V) go with human evolution2H and the doctrine of original sin2V. These two actualities join into a single reality, which I currently label as one realness.
The potentials (1H and 1V) are implied. Let me examine each.
0012 The potential of adaptive change1H arises in response to a niche. Typically, the niche involves some material advantage (to be exploited) or disadvantage (to be ameliorated). For our lineage, the niche involves immaterial advantages and disadvantages. How so? The Homo lineage adapts into the niche of triadic relations, as discussed in the e-masterwork, The Human Niche.
0013 The potential of the start of sin1V is not so different than the potential of the Genesis Primeval History1V. For this reason, I enter the potential of the stories of Adam and Eve1V, as the possibility underlying original sin2V. I could also have entered the potential of the letters of Saint Paul1V.
At the same time, the mythological character of the Primeval History comes into play. The stories of Genesis 2:4-11 are set in the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods.This setting is discussed in the February 2022 blog series at www.raziemah.com, entitled, Looking at Carol Hill’s Article (2021) “Original Sin with respect to Science”.
0014 In the Introduction, Haarsma states that human evolution2H and the doctrine of original sin2V seem dissonant.
0015 All intersections seem dissonant.
Why?
Two apparently independent actualities constitute a single actuality.
0016 I call the single actuality, “one realness”.
What should I label this “one realness”?
0017 Maybe, the term, “our current Lebenswelt”, will do.
The word, “Lebenswelt”, is German for “living world”.
0018 Here is an initial picture of two actualities constituting a single actuality.
Figure 04
0019 The problem?
Original sin2V applies to our current Lebenswelt, the world after Adam and Eve.
Human evolution2H covers a much longer timeline than our current Lebenswelt.
This introduces a wrinkle to the fabric of Haarsma’s work.
The natural3H and theological transition3V marking the start of our current Lebenswelt2 involves only a fraction of the entirety of human evolution. It is like trying to fix one’s glasses with a tool kit designed for automobiles. It is like cutting a handkerchief from a bedsheet.
0020 Haarsma premises his book on the tenet that there are several possible ways to harmonize human evolution and the doctrine of original sin.
Plus, none of them are good.
Why?
None of them raise the following question, coming from the standpoint of original sin2V and addressing experts on human evolution2H.
Why is our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
0020 Clearly, a natural transition3H and a theological transition3V contextualize the start of our current Lebenswelt2.
Furthermore, our current Lebenswelt2 arises from two, apparently independent, potentials: an adaptive change in human prehistory1H and a cultural change that is captured in the stories of Adam and Eve1V.
As already noted, these two potentials point to the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods of southern Mesopotamia2.
According to the e-work, The First Singularity And Its Fairy Tale Trace, these two potentials pertain to a cultural change that potentiates civilization (specifically) and unconstrained social complexity (generally)2. This cultural change marks the start of our current Lebenswelt.
0022 In brief, the doctrine of original sin2V challenges the discipline of modern Anthropology2H, which currently proposes a litany of material causes for the potentiation of civilization, such as the birth of agriculture, or the use of irrigation, or population pressures, or this or that material condition.
0023 Original sin2V forces the Christian to ask the scientist, “What if the natural transition3H to our current Lebenswelt is not material?”
This is the location where Loren Haarsma cannot go, because he values the discoveries of natural history and genetics. For years, he has been working with human evolution writ large.
The result is that the initial intersection is lopsided.
Figure 05
On top of that, natural history and genetics cannot propose a scientific hypothesis for a cultural change in the way humans talk.
0024 The first singularity2H is a hypothesis inhuman evolution2H.
The hypothesis explains why our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The hypothesis pertains to the start of our current Lebenswelt.
The hypothesis is plainly stated in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
The hypothesis2H is dramatically portrayed, in tandem with originating sin2V, in the fiction, An Archaeology of the Fall.
This produces a balanced intersection.
Figure 06
0025 With this in mind, I digress, in order to discuss two complementarities between the contributing actualities (2H and 2V).
0026 The first complementarity matches the construction of what is in the Positivist’s judgment, as developed in Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy. What is presents itself as an actuality, composed of two contiguous real elements, characteristic of Peirce’s category of secondness. But, this presentation is an illusion, because the two elements are really the same thing, regarded from two different vantage points.
The real elements are a noumenon (the thing itself) and its phenomena (the observable and measurable facets of the noumenon). According to Kant, a noumenon cannot be objectified as its phenomena. So, the contiguity is [cannot be objectified as].
The two contributing actualities complement one another in the following manner.
Figure 07
The Fall is like a noumenon. The first singularity models its corresponding phenomena.
0027 The second complementarity matches the distinction between primary and secondary causation, which plays a role in Comments on Armand Maurer’s Essay (2004) “Darwin, Thomists and Secondary Causality” (see July 2020 of Razie Mah’s blog).
Secondary causation describes what goes on in the Peirce’s category of secondness, the realm of actuality2.Primary causation describes what goes on in Peirce’s categories of thirdness and firstness, the realms of normal context3 and potential1.
Figure 08
The two contributing actualities complement one another as follows.
Figure 09
0029 This digression into the complementarity between the two contributing actualities reinforces the idea that they should balance.
In chapter four, Haarsma discusses human evolution2H, as configured before the hypothesis of the first singularity. Indeed, he does not place any importance to the start of civilization, which is potentiated by the first singularity.
Does he realize that almost all of human evolution predates the stories of Adam and Eve?
I wonder.
Plus, I chuckle.
0030 Why?
Saint Thomas Aquinas, the great medieval philosopher, argues that original sin is the lack of original justice.
So, the long period of human evolution2H is joined to original justice2H in the single actuality2 of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Here is a picture.
Figure 10
0031 Wow. The size of the contributions match.
Plus, just as original sin2V asks theorists in modern Anthropology about a recent (and immaterial) natural transition in human evolution2H, which turns out to be the hypothesis of the first singularity2H,original justice2V challenges theorists in modern Anthropology concerning the nature of the ultimate human niche2H.
0032 At present, modern Anthropology has not confronted the concept of an ultimate niche in human evolution, now elucidated in the e-masterwork, The Human Niche. The ultimate human niche is not defined by material conditions. It is defined by an immaterial condition: The realness of triadic relations.
0033 The modern scientific community follows a rule: Actuality is all there is. Models are built from observations and measurements of material actualities. These models are couched in various disciplinary languages. In the empirio-schematic judgment, disciplinary language brings mathematic and mechanical models into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena.
0034 The problem?
Material actuality is not all there is.
0035 This point is obvious in the category-based nested form, derived from the semiotics-friendly philosophy of Charles Peirce. The category-based nested form manifests the realness of triadic relations.
In the nested form, a normal context3 bring an actuality2 into relation with the possibility of ‘something’1. The subscripts refer to Peirce’s categories of thirdness, secondness and firstness.
Material actuality2 is real.
Immaterial normal contexts3 and potentials1 are also real.
But, don’t tell that to modern anthropologists.
As soon as the hear, they will become “postmodern”.
0036 When a human encounters an actuality, the human does not understand. The human can observe and measure the phenomena associated with the actuality. The human may model these observations and measurements. The human may discuss the model using well-defined disciplinary language. But, understanding is not modeling.
Understanding is a triadic relation. Modeling is a dyadic formulation.
0037 Understanding concerns the noumenon, the thing itself. Actuality2 demands a normal context3 and potential1. Figuring out the normal context3 and potential1 leads to understanding.
Humans evolve to understand. Modeling things is only part of understanding.
Haarsma engages in a discussion of human evolution2H as if it does not intersect with original sin2V. Yet it does, otherwise Haarsma would not write a book about it.
Haarsma’s titular question2V, “When did sin begin?”, should place the hypothesis of the first singularity2H side by side with the doctrine of original sin2V.
But, since Haarsma is not aware of the hypothesis of the first singularity, the term, “human evolution”, goes into the slot for actuality2H for the normal context of natural change3H.
This does not work, of course, and leads to a winding path, back to the crucial intersection between the first singularity2Vand original sin2H.
0039 The path starts by asking, “What contributing actuality2V, in a theological framework3V, corresponds to human evolution, as Haarsma discusses the topic?”
The answer comes from Thomas Aquinas’s suggestion that original sin is the lack of original justice. Original justice is entangled with human evolution.
Figure 11
0040 If human evolution2H is one of the actualities in an intersection, the corresponding actuality is not original sin2H. The corresponding actuality is really the stuff of the Creation Story2V.
The structure of Haarsma’s text validates this suggestion.
Chapter four, titled, “Human Evolution”, is preceded by chapter three, “Suffering and Death Before Humans”, and followed by chapter five, “The Soul, the Imago Dei and Special Divine Action”. Chapters three and five point to Genesis 1:26-31.
0041 Chapter three asks about the phenomena of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Does natural evil exist? Do the characteristics of natural evil change at the start of our current Lebenswelt?
00428 The answer is yes, to both questions.
If the single actuality2 is our current Lebenswelt, then the natural transition3H entails leaving the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Genesis 2:4-11 provides no evidence for the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Adam and Eve are depicted as ab initiocreations in the Garden of Eden.
0043 Does the Garden of Eden contain something that associates to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
Well, it seems to me that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil associates to our current Lebenswelt.
Perhaps, the tree of life associates to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The idea pops up in Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) The Genesis of Good and Evil, appearing in the Razie Mah blog in January 2022.
0044 The tree of life is not in the middle of the Garden. It is somewhere in the Garden. Perhaps, it is everywhere in the Garden. This gives me a hint about the character of life in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
If the tree of life is anywhere, then it is everywhere. I can imagine a world where people are alive because they have access to the tree of life. I look at the life of the people of the Developed Neolithic (Genesis 1:29-31) and the Upper Paleolithic (Genesis 1:28), stretching back through the creation of man (Genesis 1:27) and even the intention of man (Genesis 1:26) and I wonder, “If the tree of life is a metaphor for living in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, then what would its roots and its branches be?”
Well, it must be ourselves, both dead and living.
0045 The tree of life is a metaphor for the creation of humans as the images of God.
Thomas Aquinas offers a term for the state of human nature before the Fall. That term is “original justice”.
What does this imply?
Theologians may one day speculate how the tree of life,the image of God, and original justice complement one another as metaphor, evocation and philosophical attribution.
But, for Haarsma’s intersection, these theological images2V belong to a single actuality along with the long course of human evolution2H.
0046 Here is a picture.
Figure 12
0047 Are we the tree of life? Or does the tree of life bring us all into relation?
The Australian Aborigines talk of dreamtime. Dreamtime brings us all into relation, dead and living. The North American Plains Indians dance in circles. Circles bring us all into relation, including the living and the dead. Is the tree of life similar to dreamtime and dance circles?
0048 Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big conveys the importance of social circles in human evolution. Hominins adapt to the realness of triadic relations within social circles, such as family and intimates (5), teams (15), bands (50), communities (150) and (eventually) mega-bands (500) and tribes (1500). Each social circle offers adaptive advantages to certain sets of triadic relations.
Natural evil always threatens. Social circles keep us alive. The tree of life is rooted in our ancestors. The tree of lifebranches into our social circles, moving from present into future.
0049 In chapter five, Haarsma lays our four common theological theories about the nature of the image of God.
0050 First, we are different from all other animals.
The reason?
Hominins adapt into a unique niche, the potential of triadic relations. We recognize signs as things in themselves. See Comments on Steven Mithen’s Book (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind.
0051 Second, the pre-fallen state corresponds to original justice. One imago dei is willing to sacrifice and die for another imago dei. See Comments on Daniel Houck’s Book (2020) Aquinas, Original Sin and The Challenge of Evolution.
0052 Third, the imago dei points to a personal relation between God and humans. This implies that God defines the human niche.
0053 Fourth, the imago dei is commissioned to be God’s stewards of the rest of creation. This requires understanding, where understanding entails placing the actuality of creation2 into a normal context of stewardship3 as well as the potential of The One Who Brings All Into Relation1.
