10/6/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 18 of 21)

0115 My comments on chapters one and seven, 1A and 7A’, set the stage for original sin_2V.

Chapter one claims that neither science nor theology can situate one another. When two actualities cannot situate one another, then they may intersect. The intersection associates to the potential of message, in the e-masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”.

Chapter seven discusses the formulation of the doctrine of original sin by Augustine. According to Augustine, Adam and Eve are the parents of all humanity. When taken as a scientific hypothesis in human evolution, the proposition fails.

Does that mean that narrative of human evolution_2H and the doctrine of original sin_2V do not intersect?

No, the intersection still stands.

0116 To me, the fact Augustine’s formulation contains a scientific proposition is amazing. How many theological formulations can be debunked by science? Remember, science cannot situate revelation. Revelation cannot situate science.

When Paul links Adam to all humanity in his letters to the Corinthians and to the Romans, Haarsma’s third intersection enters reality. How can this be? Augustine’s solution says that Adam and Eve are the parents of all humanity. For centuries, the nested form for human evolution is covered by Augustine’s proposition. Now, in postmodernity, the hypothesis of the first singularity is the solution.

A scientific twist in human evolution_2H joins the doctrine of original sin_2V in a single actuality, our current Lebenswelt₂.

0117 Chapter eight follows the semitic structure of 1A:2B:3C:4D:5C’:6B’:7A’.

Chapter eight pays tribute to the slipperiness of speech-alone words by asking the question, “What is ‘sin’?”

0118 Of course, “sin” is merely a spoken word.

One needs a normal context₃ and a potential₁ in order to understand this actuality₂.

0119 Here is a diagram.

10/5/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 19 of 21)

0119 Chapter nine asks the question, “What changes when sin begins?”

The doctrine of original sin entails a loss of relationality among humans and between humans and God.

0120 Genesis 2:4-4 portrays the loss in a narrative that may be interpreted in a variety of ways. In particular, for our modern age, two platforms for interpretation stand out, corresponding to the two actualities that constitute our current Lebenswelt.

0121 Standing for the twist in human evolution_2H, the hypothesis of the first singularity_2H, classifies the stories of Adam and Eve_1V as witnesses to the social dynamics of the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia. The Ubaid experiences trends, potentiated by the semiotic qualities of speech-alone talk, toward increasing labor and social complexity. Adam and Eve are fairy-tale figures, depicting a process in which humans, in our current Lebenswelt, innocently and stupidly and selfishly misread the signs of God.

0122 From the vantage point of the doctrine of original sin_2V, one sees Adam and Eve_1V as particular historical individuals who originate humanity’s tragic flaw, a compulsion to negligence, forgetfulness and narcissism.

0123 Augustine’s formulation of original sin_2V is part diagnosis and part deduction.

The diagnosis is that we cannot help but enter into concupiscence. Concupiscence is the desire to put self before God. Concupiscence is the desire to feel good about oneself. Concupiscence is the desire to feel good, period. Really good. No matter what the consequences.

The deduction is that the imputation of the rebellion in the Garden of Eden passes directly from Adam and Eve to all humanity. Adam and Eve are the first humans according to Genesis 2:4-4, even though Cain, their son, finds a wife from who knows where. Augustine can think of no other way to account for the spread of the originated sin from Adam and Eve to all humanity.

0124 Sixteen centuries later, the science of genetics debunks Augustine’s deduction.

Is there no other way to account for the spread of sin from Adam to all humanity?

Now there is.

The hypothesis of the first singularity_2H addresses many of the questions that Loren Haarsma dwells on.

When does sin begin?

Consider the e-masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall.

10/4/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 20 of 21)

0125 Chapter ten addresses the question, “Whose fault is it?”

Subsidiary questions include (more or less), “Why doesn’t God stop sin and suffering?”, “Did God create humans in a way that permitted sin?”, and “Was the Fall inevitable or unavoidable?”

These questions will eventually be leavened with Haarsma’s interscope, containing the hypothesis of the first singularity_2Has the twist in human evolution_2H.

Figure 24

0126 If one looks at the first singularity_2H from the point of view of original sin_2V, one could ask, “Why does God not stop the transition from hand-speech to speech-alone talk?”

Why does God permit it?

If one looks at original sin_2V from the point of view of the first singularity_2H, one could ask, “Was it inevitable or unavoidable that the multi-generational and incomprehensible increase in labor and social specialization in the early Ubaid would naturally give rise to the stories of Adam and Eve?“

Of course not.

So, why does our Creator the speak to us through the depths of the confusion associated with the emergence of unconstrained social complexity?”

Why tell us the stories of Adam and Eve?

Is it a coincidence that the serpent has no hands in which to hand talk?

0127 These are not questions of blame.

These are question of mystery.

0128 Our current Lebenswelt binds the hypothesis of the first singularity_2H and the doctrine of original sin_2V, allowing cross-talk between two apparently independent nested forms. Cross-talk opens our awareness to irresolvable contradictions between the two constituting actualities. Thus, the potential of Genesis 2:4-11_1V is in conversation with the potential of speech-alone talk, in contrast to hand-speech talk_1H.

Spoken words allow abstraction in ways that cannot be imagined in hand-speech talk. Speech-alone talk offers the capacity to exploit and corrupt human relations by manipulating the meanings, presences and messages underlying purely symbolic words.

0129 Indeed, speech-alone talk is a vector for Satanic deception. Consider the serpent’s conversation with Eve. What a demonstration of speech-alone talk in action.

10/3/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 21 of 21)

0130 In chapter eleven, Haarsma raises other difficult questions.

I would like to elevate my own question for examination.

0131 When does sin begin?

Here is an artistic way to appreciate the answer.

Consider the two interscopes of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in and our current Lebenswelt.

0132 Consider the theological actualities_2V.

For the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, it_2V is humans as images of God.

For our current Lebenswelt, it_2V is the tree of life.

Here is a picture.

Consider the tree of life as a metaphor for the roots and the branches of belonging, intuitively nurtured by prehistoric humans living out their lives as images of God, …

0133 … then, in order to appreciate the depths of callousness and total depravity implied by the doctrine of original sin,consider the wickedness of plucking the fruit of the tree of life in order to attain immortality.

0134 Loren Haarsma tries to calm the dissonance of two apparently independent actualities: human evolution_2H and original sin_2V.

In doing so, he creates a semitic textual structure that allows my comments to suggest that these two actualities belong to a single reality. Two category-based nested forms intersect. The intersection of two nested forms offers a message. Here is a mystery.

It is beautiful to behold.

0135 Haarsma concludes.

God’s answer is still Christ.

Dissonance gives way to mystery.

10/1/22

Fantasia in G minor: A Speech Written for Gunnar Beck MEP

0001 Gunnnar Beck of the Alternative Fur Deutschland Party, a member of the European Parliament, schedules a speech for the current session. A few members mill about an almost empty chamber. The speech lasts for around fifteen minutes. In that brief span, this statesman provides a true alternative for Germany, as well as all of Eurasia.

He reads the following text.

0002 “Today, I want to address a topic that has recently come to my attention. The topic concerns the start of our current Lebenswelt. The topic should be of interest to all Europeans.

Remember the stories of Adam and Eve?

(laughter by the few in attendance)

We know that they are myths. But, we cannot imagine what the myths are about.

So I ask: Can we imagine that these myths point to a scientific project that calls all the nations in Eurasia to contribute?

0003 During the past dozen years, a literary figure, Razie Mah, has published a dramatically new approach to human evolution. He offers three works: The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How to Define the Word “Religion”. The Human Niche covers the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. An Archaeology of the Fall introduces the first singularity. How To Define the Word “Religion” explores our current Lebenswelt.

0004 I will briefly elaborate the proposals of this scholar.

Here is the first hypothesis. Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. The transition from the latter to the former occurs in recent prehistory and is called ‘the first singularity’.

0005 The second hypothesis concerns the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

We are all familiar with the biological principle that natural selection brings adaptations into relation with a niche.

0006 I ask, ‘What is a niche?’

A niche is the potential of something independent of the adapting species. Typically, the niche is a material condition, say, the presence of a predator or an environmental influence. For humans, the niche is not a material condition. The human niche is the potential of triadic relations.

The philosopher Charles Peirce initiates the study of triadic relations in the modern era. Examples includes signs, mediations, judgments and category-based nested forms. Triadic relations encompass mechanical cause and effect, even as they transcend it. Triadic relations are immaterial, yet they entangle the material.

0007 Consequently, triadic relations offer a new avenue for investigating the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. The book, The Human Niche, plus its attending commentary, starts the inquiry.

0008 The third hypothesis concerns our current Lebenswelt.

Consider the spoken word, “religion”. This spoken word belongs to a system of differences. “Religion” is not the same as “spirituality”. “Spirituality” is definitely not the same as a “church”. A “church” is not the same as “a popular belief that there is more to reality than material being”. In short, the word, “religion”, is purely symbolic and symbols belong to systems of differences.

0009 Do systems of differences have anything to do with language?

Yes, according to Ferdinand de Saussure, language consists of two related systems of differences: parole (or talk) and langue (or thought).

When parole is speech-alone talk, its relation to langue is arbitrary.

If speech is arbitrarily related to thought and if words compose systems of differences, then how do we know what a spoken word refers to?

0010 This is a difficult question.

Razie Mah proposes that we project meanings, presences and messages into spoken words. Then, we construct artifacts that validate our projections.

In How to Define the Word “Religion”, Razie Mah projects purely relational structures into the meaning, presence and message of the word, “religion”, creating artifacts that validate the term. But, the artifacts do not quite match what most of us think when we say the word, “religion”.

0011 Remember Eve in the Garden of Eden?

She performs the identical operations. She sees the fruit. She names the fruit with a spoken word. She projects meaning, presence and message into its name. Then, the fruit becomes an artifact that validates her projection. Until, of course, the moment that she bites into it.

Then, her eyes are opened.

This story should be familiar to all Europeans, because, right now, the eyes of many citizens are being opened, as our artifacts fail to live up to our projections. Indeed, we find that our artifacts are not at all what we think they are. We have tasted the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And, we realize that we are naked and exposed.

0012 There is a foundational problem with our current Lebenswelt.

This problem does not operate in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

So, what is the difference between our current Lebenswelt and the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

0013 This brings me back to Razie Mah’s first hypothesis.

What is the nature of the first singularity?

Let me start with this. The evolution of talk is not the same as the evolution of language.

Hand talk is practiced in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Speech is added to hand talk at the start of our species, over two-hundred thousand years ago.

The semiotics of hand talk is crucial. Manual-brachial word-gestures image and point to their referents. So, the referent stands before the gestural word. Hominins cannot project meaning, presence and message into their gesture-words. Such projections require symbols. Manual-brachial gestures are icons and indexes.

0014 Consequently, our distant ancestors cannot perform explicit abstraction. Rather, abstractions are implicit. Implicit abstractions build our bodies and our minds. Implicit abstractions build our social circles. This is the way that we evolved to be.

Language consists of symbolic operations. Symbolic operations start to function beneath the icons and indexes of hand talk. Consequently, language evolves in the milieu of hand talk, as symbolic operations become more and more routine. General grammar appears after the domestication of fire. Hominins prosper with fire and linguistic hand-talk. When humans evolve, speech gets added to hand talk.

Anatomically modern humans practice hand-speech talk for two-hundred thousand years. Humans settle all habitable continents. Then, around seven-thousand eight-hundred years ago, something strange happens. A new culture appears on the edge of the Persian Gulf. That culture practices speech-alone talk. That culture is the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia.

0015 At the beginning of the first singularity, the Ubaid is the only culture practicing speech-alone talk. All surrounding cultures practice hand-speech talk.

Today, all civilizations practice speech-alone talk.

0016 Obviously, speech-alone talk expands from the Ubaid to all the world. It does so, through mimesis.

The transition is easy. All that a hand-speech talking culture needs to do is drop the hand-talk component of its hand-speech talk.

The motivation?

Speech-alone talk increases labor and social specialization.

Speech-alone talk makes people wealthy and powerful.

Speech-alone talk allows explicit abstraction. Speech-alone talk permits people to project meanings, presences and messages into purely symbolic words. Speech-alone talk encourages people to construct artifacts that validate those projections. Consequently, speech-alone talk places no constraints on social complexity. Speech-alone talk potentiates civilization.

0017 The hypothesis of the first singularity explains why our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved.

If the hypothesis of the first singularity is plausible, then our appreciation of ourselves will never be the same.

0018 Here, I get down to business.

The hypothesis of the first singularity mandates an intercivilizational research project. Can we visualize the spread of speech-alone talk, from the Ubaid to all the world, in recent prehistory? We are looking for signs of increasing social complexity, eventually leading to civilization in various regions of the world. But, that is not all. The adoption of speech-alone talk leads to many other trends that appear in recent prehistory, such as the Indo-European and the Austronesian language expansions. The question opens wide vistas. Archaeologists of the world, hear our plea. Nations of the Eurasia, hear our voice.

We look to Iraq, the site of the Ubaid, the Halaf, and the Hassuna cultures. History begins in Sumer. We look to Iran, the site of the Susa culture, showing signs of social complexity, then, collapsing in the face of a Uruk expansion. We look to Egypt. Could speech-alone talk have spread to Egypt from Mesopotamia, potentiating civilization along the Nile? We look to the nations of the Aegean. Could the adoption of speech-alone talk contribute to the rise of Bronze Age civilizations. We look to Europe. Could the secondary farming expansion have spread speech-alone talk?

We look to Russia, as the site where the Proto-Indo-European culture coalesces. What is the prehistory of the Kurgan culture? We look to Pakistan and India, asking them to explore the prehistoric cultures giving rise to the planned cities of the Harappan culture. We look to China, for signs of increasing social complexity, leading to the Longshan culture, among others. We look to Japan, for the emergence of social complexity during the Jomon period.

We look to China, Taiwan, Philippines, New Guinea, and other nations of the eastern Pacific, asking them to investigate the nature and the timing of the Austronesian language expansion. We look to Peru and Ecuador, site of the oldest civilizations in the Americas. We look to Mexico and central America for signs leading to Mesoamerican civilizations. We look to North America, for the archaeology of the mound-building cultures.

0019 We propose that The First Intercivilizational Conference on the First Singularity be held, in the year 2025, in Berlin. Within two years, archaeologists can collate existing information with the hypothesis in mind. The intent of this conference will be to establish collaborative intercivilizational research programs. Seven years later, a second conference should give the world an indication as to the credibility of the hypothesis of the first singularity.

0020 Razie Mah offers three works, The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How to Define the Word “Religion”. These three works transform our vision of human evolution.

First, our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. The transition from the latter to the former is called “the first singularity”. The first singularity involves a change in the way humans talk.

Second, the human niche is the potential of triadic relations.

Third, the semiotics of speech-alone talk potentiates unconstrained social complexity. Unconstrained social complexity defines our current Lebenswelt.

0021 These three hypotheses should be of interest to all Europeans. They address issues of intellectual concern throughout Western civilization. What if the stories of Adam and Eve are fairy tales about social developments in the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia? What if our ancestors adapt to a niche that is unlike any other mammal’s niche? How do we accept the claim that our spoken words encourage us to construct artifacts that then validate our spoken words? The implications are profound.

0022 Most of all, the hypothesis of the first singularity should inspire this body, the European Parliament, to address the continent of Eurasia, and ask, “Will you help us investigate?”

Archaeologists from all parts of Eurasia are called to participate in an intercivilizational research project. Can archaeological investigations of our local prehistories allow us to imagine the adoption of speech-alone talk as the historical condition that potentiates unconstrained social complexity? This is a huge question. This question extends beyond Eurasia. However, the question applies first to Eurasia.

Further details of this proposal will be forthcoming.

0023 I thank you for the privilege of addressing this chamber.”

09/30/22

Looking at William Lane Craig’s Book (2021) “In Quest of the Historical Adam” (Part 1 of 21)

0001 William Lane Craig publishes a work of erudition, titled, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, ISBN 978-0-8028-79911-0). The bibliography contains over 250 references.

Part One discusses what is at stake.

Part Two covers the Biblical “data” concerning Adam and runs 210 pages.

Part Three covers scientific evidence about the start of humanity (broadly defined) and runs 117 pages.

0002 Overall, the first two-thirds of the book discusses the importance of the historical Adam and explores what types of stories are contained in Genesis 2.4-11. Then, the final one-third addresses the question, “If humanity descends from a single couple, then where would we locate that couple in the scientific story of human evolution?”

0003 Clearly, this professor would have been assisted by glancing at the masterworks in the Razie Mah series, The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How To Define the Word “Religion”, available at smashwords and other electronic book venues.

0004 Why?

Every sentence in this book is well composed and carefully reasoned. But, Craig’s quest ends at a location that is anything but. He writes (more or less), “Adam may be plausibly identified as a member of Homo heidelbergensis, living 750,000 years ago.”

The quest ends where the book should have started.

Then, the title could have been, “What if Adam and Eve are really the first humans?”

What if, indeed.

0006 Craig’s argument presumes, all along, that Adam and Eve are the first humans.

In this examination, I do not neglect the opposing question, “What if they are not?”

09/29/22

Looking at William Lane Craig’s Book (2021) “In Quest of the Historical Adam” (Part 2 of 21)

0007 What is at stake in the concept of the historical Adam?

Craig provides insights in Part One.

0008 The issue concerns hamartiology, the logos of hamartia.

What is hamartia?

Hamartia is Greek for a tragic flaw, a horrible error. The Greek word, in turn, derives from an indo-european root, “hemert”, meaning “to miss (as in missing the mark)”.

The historical Adam introduces a flaw. Maybe he opens a door to a will to flaw, personified by that talking serpent.

A will to flaw?

Well, a more succinct way to put it is found on page 22, “Humankind tends to destroy what God has made good.”

0009 Adam is the originator of humanity’s tragic flaw.

09/28/22

Looking at William Lane Craig’s Book (2021) “In Quest of the Historical Adam” (Part 3 of 21)

0009 Is it a coincidence that Paul compares Jesus, the Resurrected, to Adam, the Originator of Humanity’s Tragic Flaw?

The contrast is rather shocking, since Jesus is executed as a domestic terrorist after he upsets the business of an established exchange of God. Does that sound strangely contemporary?

0010 Well, yes. Jesus is an innocent man. He just got carried away.

Jesus’ innocence is revolting to the elites, who make their living by signaling (and marketing) their virtue, as the know-it-alls who know-it-all (that is, the multitude of little commandments that can be teased out of the written scriptures). Jesus says (more or less), “Forget what the know-it-alls are telling you. There are only two commandments. Love God. Love your neighbor.” (I am sure that Professor Craig can make this point more eloquently. But, the lesson is still the same. Jesus says that the know-it-alls do not know-it-all.)

Did I get that right?

0011 Jesus rises from the dead on the third day, demonstrating that he is more than simply innocent, despite being occasionally cranky. Yes, He is the Word of God. The Word shines in the darkness. The darkness has not overcome it.

And, what is the darkness?

Oh, remember Adam, the Originator of Humanity’s Tragic Flaw? Isn’t he also the First Human Being?

0012 Saint Augustine diagnoses the darkness. He calls it, “original sin”. He could have called it, “humanity’s tragic flaw”. Then, he might have avoided the… as it turns out… erroneous conclusion that this thing, original sin, is like a sexually transmitted disease, passing from generation to generation, through… you know… the stuff that modern sexual liberators want you to tell them about. Otherwise, how would they know?

As the metaphor mixer maintains, “The bed is a seat of compromise.”

0013 Once Adam transfigures from The Originator of Humanity’s Tragic Flaw to The First Human Being, certain scientific questions come into play. Craig offers a diagram in Figure 1.1 on page 9. Is the concept of the first human being compatible, or incompatible, with scientific evidence of human evolution?The question moves the terrain of debate into the realm of science. The answer, according to scientific know-it-alls, basking in the darkness of our day, is that the Biblical authors, as well as Jesus, teach inaccurate science. The answer, for the ones who still listen to the Word of God, is that the relevant modern science may be… um… how should I say it?… tragically flawed.

09/27/22

Looking at William Lane Craig’s Book (2021) “In Quest of the Historical Adam” (Part 4 of 21)

0014 How is the relevant modern science in horrible error?

I already promoted the three masterworks, The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How To Define The Word “Religion”.

Perhaps, these are places to start.

0015 Meanwhile, in Part 1, concerning what is at stake, Craig contextualizes the stories of Adam and Eve as Jewish covenantal history.

Is Jewish covenantal history key to the meaning underlying the stories of Adam and Eve?

The Creation Story starts Genesis 1-11. The stories of Adam and Eve come next. The Primeval History leads to the rest of the book of Genesis. Genesis is the first book of the five books of Moses. The Pentateuch depicts Jewish covenantal history within the world of the Ancient Near East.

0016 What is the presence underlying the stories of Genesis?

Oh, it must be the world of the ancient Near East.

0017 What is the message underlying the stories of Adam and Eve?

May I suggest that one important message is that Adam and Eve originate humanity’s tragic flaw?

0018 What am I saying?

Craig defines the stories of Adam and Eve.

0019 What do I mean by the word, “defines”?

I know that definition fits into a triadic structure, as discussed in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

The following picture should be familiar to anyone who has read the masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”.

0020 The normal context of definition₃ brings the actuality of a spoken word₂ into relation with the potentials of ‘meaning, presence and message’₁.

0021 Craig defines₃ the stories of Adam and Eve₂ according to the potentials of underlying meaning, presence and message₁.

The meaning₁ is Jewish covenantal history.

The presence₁ is Jewish scripture within the ancient Near East. Scripture includes Genesis 2.4-11, the primeval history, within the Book of Genesis, and then within the Pentateuch.

The message₁ is that Adam and Eve originate humanity’s tragic flaw.

Here is a picture.

0022 What does this nested form imply?

Presence₁ touches base with a world within a world, Jewish within Near Eastern.

Does the presence₁ of the stories in the Pentateuch influence their meaning₁ and message₁?

If so, can we connect Jewish covenantal history to humanity’s tragic flaw by way of the ancient Near East?

09/26/22

Looking at William Lane Craig’s Book (2021) “In Quest of the Historical Adam” (Part 5 of 21)

0023 Craig labors to define the stories of Adam and Eve.

By the time the reader reaches the section on ancient Near East mythology, Craig sets forth the meaning₁, the presence₁and the message₁ underlying the stories of Adam and Eve₂.

0024 The meaning₁ is the same as before.

The presence₁ focuses on Genesis 2:4-11 and the very ancient Near East.

The message includes two themes (T1 and T2). For T1, humankind tends to destroy what God has made good. For T2, God delivers us from the destruction that we wreak.

0025 Oops. Did I forget that Adam is the originator of humanity’s tragic flaw?

I wonder, “Where does the historical Adam fit into the above figure?”

Perhaps, I can rearrange the two themes. I can join T2 with Jewish covenantal history, since this seems to go along with the point that Paul makes in Romans 5:12-21. Then, I can put the historical Adam (the one who originates humanity’s tragic flaw, bringing sin and death into our world) in with T1.

0026 Here is a picture.

0027 To me, this looks like what Craig aims for, as he enters into the section on ancient Near East mythology.