0178 Chapter twelve shifts Fuller back to a guide for the post-truth condition.
0179 In 2020, he writes that there are four challenges to the psychometric sciences for the budding COVID-19 saga.
First, winning the fight against the virus.
Second, winning the fight over what ‘winning the fight’ means.
Third, winning the fight over the lessons to learn from ‘what winning the fight means’.
Fourth, winning the fight over ‘what the lessons from winning the fight’ broadly mean.
0180 Here is a guess as to the appropriate empirio-normative judgment.
Note how each challenge ends when what is (what people say) corresponds to what ought to be (a normative narrative). As each challenge ends, the next begins.
0181 In 2024, I ask, “Where do the four challenges stand?”
First is winning the fight about the origins of the virus. This fight is not over.
Second is winning the fight over how to really treat this particular viral disease. This fight is ongoing.
Third is winning the fight over how the initial determination of what to do to cure the disease turned out to be a complete disaster, as well as a fraud, perpetrated as an ineffective synthetic mRNA technology and approved by experts as an experimental “vaccine”. The public is still in shock.
Fourth is winning the fight over the broad lessons of a catastrophic success2c coming from the one of scientism3c, who now seems to be prepared to encourage more trials2c.
0182 It is enough to throw one into a fit of metalepsis.
0183 Chapter thirteen is titled, “Thinking in the Fourth Order: The Role of Metalepsis in the Post-Truth Condition”.
The fourth challenge of any crisis is a fight over what the lessons from winning the fight broadly mean.
In other words, fourth-order thinking is a fight over the meaning of success2c.
Today, success2c for the all-but-divine post-truth perspective-level normal context3c does not seem to coincide with what the scrappy player regards as the success2athat is to be attained by submitting the player’s will1a to the situation-level potential1b of formalized knowledge.
0184 Indeed, the discrepancy is palpable.
Just ask a highly indebted graduate of a well-known university who has earned a degree in a psychometric discipline,where capitalist values entail skills in manipulation and where socialist values entail skills in propaganda.
Where are the jobs?
“Oh,” say the experts at the One Economic Forum, “You are already a success because of your credentials2b in the psychometric sciences3b. You have pleased the gods of scientism3c. You will own nothing and you will be happy.”
0185 Then, the former student receives a thick envelope from a loan agency containing a book full of expected payments. Here are coupons… er… I should say… your monthly bills for the loans that you took out. You can make our work more convenient by allowing the loan agency to automatically remove the amount of the bill from your checking account on a monthly basis.
Yes, the discrepancy is palpable.
0186 The graduate begins to understand that he has already been sacrificed for the scientismist one’s success2c.
Success2c for the system is not the same as success2a for an individual within the system.
Oh, the capriciousness of the gods.
0187 What about metalepsis?
Metalepsis is a rhetorical trope where something imaginative is taken to be real.
How curious.
So, which does metalepsis go with, illusion or delusion?
Consider the following definitions, which occur in Looking at Alex Jones’s Book (2022) “The Great Reset”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog at the start of January, 2023.
An illusion is a mind-independent being that is regarded as mind-dependent.
A delusion is a mind-dependent being that is regarded as mind-independent.
0188 Well, obviously, the rhetorical trope of metalepsis must be a delusion.
Something imaginative is taken to be real.
All the experts are satisfied.
Metalepsis is madness.
0189 Oh, wait, do I feel a Gestalt shift coming on?
Is everything that seems to be mind-dependent becoming mind-independent?
Including the labels?
Does that mean that the rhetorical trope of metalepsis may be an illusion?
The experts are satisfied that metalepsis2a (as a mind-independent phenomenon) is madness1b (a mind-dependent formalization) because they regard metalepsis2a as a reticence that questions, does not submit to, and does not want to participate in1b, the acknowledgment that the relativist one3c is scientism3c. Outside of science3c, everything is relative. Science3c does not dwell in the jurisdiction of all other knowledge traditions. In fact, science3c rises above all other academic turfs3b. Science3c eclipses all academic fiefdoms3b.
0190 But, let me re-examine the definitions of metalepsis, illusion and delusion once again.
In metalepsis, something imaginative is taken to be real.
“Something imaginative” appears to be mind-dependent, and that is what illusion creates. When a mind-independent being (such as a decision2c by the one of scientism3c) appears as mind-dependent (as opinions of people about something2a), then something real becomes something imaginative. That fits the definition of illusion.
“Something that is believed to be real” appears mind-independent, and that is what delusion creates. When a mind-dependent being (such as opinions2a) appears as mind-independent (phenomena observed and measured by the experts in the psychometric sciences1b), then something imaginative becomes something real.
0191 Yes, the expert can regard metalepsis as delusional.
0192 Is there another way to think about metalepsis?
Does the interventional sign-relation have the characteristics of metalepsis?
Something mind-dependent2c(imaginative) is taken to be mind-independent2a(real), but not in a straightforward fashion.
An empirio-normative judgment2c (SVi) stands for what people say2a (SOi)
0193 The empirio-normative judgment2c must be mind-dependent because it is a triadic relation.
Triadic relations are mind-dependent beings.
Oh, yeah, triadic relations can also be mind-independent beings.
Ugh, I forgot to add that triadic relations bring mind-independent beings into relation with mind-dependent beings, and visa versa.
This is a little confusing.
0194 Let me start with the following.
Because a judgment is a triadic relation, and triadic relations often occur in the mind, some regard the empirio-normative judgment2c as mind-dependent.
However, the empirio-normative judgment2c resides as an actuality2 on the perspectivec-level of post-truth interscope. As such, it should be mind-independent.
0195 The same type of distinction applies to the content-level actuality. Opinions2a are mind-dependent and phenomena2a (the observable and measurable facets of people’s opinions) are considered to be mind-independent.
0196 Okay, what about the interventional sign-relation?
How do mind-dependence (imaginative) and mind-independence (real) play out in the interventional sign-relation?
The empirio-normative judgment2c serves as an interventional sign-vehicle (SVi). It2c does so in its role as a perspectivec-level actuality2. Typically, sign-vehicles are mind-independent and sign-objects are mind-dependent. So, when the empirio-normative judgment2c operates as an interventional sign-vehicle (SVi), then it is a mind-dependent being (a judgment) that appears to be mind-independent (a sign-vehicle).
Does that pretension meet the definition of delusion? Or illusion? Or what?
0197 Here is a picture of the interventional sign-relation, so far.
Let me say that again.
Opinions2a are ubiquitous and can be experienced, while the judgment2c that arises from an opportunity1c for the relativist one3c cannot be directly witnessed by a scrappy player.
0198 However, sign-vehicles are taken to be mind-independent. So, even though the perspective-level judgment2c of the relativist one is mind-dependent, its2c role as an interventional sign-vehicle (SVi) gives it the character of mind-independent realness.
Following the same line of thought, interventional sign-object is imbued with the character of mind-dependent imaginative-ness, even though the content-level actuality2a is plain to see and hear. Witness peoples opinions2a.
0199 The empirio-normative judgment2c (an apparently mind-independent SVi) stands for what people say2a (an apparently mind-dependent SOi) in regards to the intellect3a operating on the will1a (SIi). The interventional sign-interpretant (SIi) must be the mechanism whereby something apparently mind-independent (but is constitutionally mind-dependent) becomes something mind-dependent (a SOi consisting of opinions2a).
0200 Does that meet the definition of “metalepsis”?
No, something apparently mind-independent and real (SVi) stands for something apparently mind-dependent and imaginative (SOi) in regards to reason3a,1a (SIi).
Yes, the mind-dependent and imaginative interventional sign-object (SOi) next serves as an apparently mind-independent and real specifying sign-vehicle (SVs).
Overall, opinions2a seem to be mind-dependent because they are interventional sign-objects (SOi).
Then, opinions2a appear to be mind-independent because they are specifying sign-vehicles (SVs).
0201 Okay, does “metalepsis” coincide this transition?
Something mind-dependent is taken to be mind-independent.
What happens next?
The specifying sign-relation couples the content and situation levels. Phenomena2a (SVs) stand for models of valuation2b(SOs) in regards to the disciplinary languages of the psychometric sciences3b operating on the potentials of observation and measurement1b (SIs). Social phenomena2a (SVs) specify psychometric models (SOs).
0202 Does Fuller’s version of metalepsis correspond to when something imaginative (SOi) is taken to be real (SVs)?
If I answer in the affirmative, then metalepsis occurs entirely within the content-level actuality, in the transition from the apparently mind-dependent and imaginative interventional sign-object (SOi) to the apparently mind-independent and real specifying sign-vehicle (SVs).
Of course, this transition is a real concern. But, it is not metalepsis.
See Looking at Daniel Dennett’s Book (2018) “From Bacteria, to Bach and Back”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog for December 2023.
Indeed, this transition leads me forward, towards the expert level, where I have already traveled and ended up asking the following.
Question: How do I pay off my student loans for my journalism degree when I cannot find success2a?
Answer: You have already succeeded2c by getting a degree in journalism2b, according to the psychometric models2b that your professors have taught you.
0203 So what is Fuller aiming at with the introduction of the term, “metalepsis”, where something imaginative (mind-dependent) is regarded as real (mind-independent)?
0204 Why is the empirio-normative judgment2c mind-dependent?
Triadic relation are mind-dependent beings.
Why is the empirio-normative judgment2c mind-independent?
It must be mind-independent in order to serve as the interventional sign-vehicle (SVi).
0205 What element always seems to be mind-dependent?
Opinions2a, the interventional sign-object (SOi).
But, aren’t opinions2a, as specifying sign-vehicles (SVs), taken to be mind-independent?
0206 Uh-oh, I already went in that direction.
I must not go into the specifying sign-relation.
If I am to proceed by way of the “metalepsis” that Fuller must be intimating, I should travel backwards, tracing the structure of the interventional sign-relation, from an imaginative, mind-dependent sign-object (SOi), consisting in opinions2a, towards a real, mind-independent sign-vehicle (SVi), that is located in the slot for a perspective-level actuality2c, currently occupied by an empirio-normative judgment2c.
0207 In order to accomplish this transit, my intellect3a (SIi) must operate on a potential greater than my will1a (SIi).
Here is a picture.
Indeed, I could say that something greater than my intellect3a (SIi) is required as well.
0208 In short, something imaginative (my own opinions and the opinions of those around me2a as SOi) is taken to be real(a perspectivec-level actuality2 that emanates itself2c as an interventional sign-vehicle, SVi).
Metalepsis goes backwards within the interventional sign-relation.
0209 Now, let me flow through my discombobulated thought development, once again.
The empirio-normative judgment has the same general structure as the empirio-schematic judgment of the natural and the social sciences.
0210 The empirio-normative judgment occupies the perspective-level actuality2c is because it is what ought be for thePositivist’s judgment.
Or, something like that.
What ought to be for the postmodern Positivist’s judgment2c puts the expertb level into perspective.
0211 On the perspective level, the normal context of the one of scientism3c brings the empirio-normative judgment2c into relation with opportunities1c to contextualize the entire expert level.
On the situation level, the normal context of postmodern forums3b, where discourse is conducted using specialized disciplinary languages (expertise), brings the actuality of psychometric models of value2b into relation with the potential of formalizing knowledge1b, where knowledge consists of observations and measurements of social phenomena, especially in regards to what people are willing to say to a surveyor2a.
0212 The expertb level contains an intersection composed of two nested forms whose actualities constitute one contradiction-filled actuality.
Here, the two aspects of research ethics are reduced to adjectives for capitalist and socialist value.
The capitalist nested form contains transactional value2 as its actuality. Transactional value2 concerns the causalities of financial exchange2bB and applies to the actuality2 on the situationb level of the organizationB tier.
The socialist nested form contains transcendental value2 as its actuality. Transcendental value2 concerns the causalities of organizational objects2aC and applies to actuality on the contenta level of the societyC tier.
0213 Here is a picture.
Models of value2b ought to be intelligible.
Intelligibility characterizes what ought to be for the empirio-normative judgment2c.
0214 For the content level of the post-truth interscope, the actuality2a is both what people are thinking and saying (that is, their opinions)2a and what the psychometric sciences regard as phenomena2a. My opinion2a can be separated into what I think2a and what I am willing to say to someone asking me questions from a survey2a. The latter serve as phenomena2a.
0215 At the same time, the content-level actuality may be formulated in the same manner as what is of the Positivist’s judgment. What is for the Positivist’s judgment says, “The noumenon cannot be objectified as its phenomena. Or, the thing itself cannot be objectified as its observable and measurable facets.” This is a universal statement, so the following comparison applies.
Universality characterizes what is for the empirio-normative judgment.
0216 For the situation level of the post-truth interscope, the actuality2b is psychometric valuation. If anything, psychometric valuations2b should be intelligible, because an empirio-schematic judgment unfolds into the situation level.
The empirio-schematic judgment goes like this.
Disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness).
The empirio-schematic judgment unfolds into the situation-level nested form.
0217 So, what relation (thirdness) brings the intelligibility of expert-determined valuations (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with the universality of phenomena (what is, firstness)?
In the Positivist’s judgment, the relation is the positivist intellect. The positivist intellect has a rule. Metaphysics is not allowed.
Perhaps, I can replace the positivist intellect with another label, “the scientismist intellect”, who is at the service of the one of scientism3c.
0218 Here is the result.
0219 May I still call this perspective-level actuality2c “the empirio-normative judgment”?
I suppose so.
At this juncture, the perspective level actuality2cof what ought to be for the Positivist’s judgment shifts into what the Positivist’s judgment ought to be, in order for the psychometric sciences2b to occupy the situation level.
Is that how the one of scientism3c defines success2c?
That’s not all.
Here is a picture for the general operation of the interventional sign-relation.
An interventional sign-vehicle (SVi) stands for an interventional sign-object (SOi) in regards to an interventional sign-interpretant (SIi).
0220 Connecting all the dots, the empirio-normative judgment2c (SVi) projects the intelligibility of the results of the psychometric sciences2bas what ought to be into people’s intellects3a and wills1a (SIi) and expects to harvest what people say2a (SOi) as a universal what is.
If these connections are plausible, then the one of scientism3c attempts to exploit the evolutionarily ancient character of the interventional sign relation in order to achieve contemporary domination of its subject populations.
Will1a underlies knowledge1b and knowledge underlies opportunity1c.
The opportunity1c for what2c?
Success2c in projecting something intelligible2c into my intellect3a and my will1a.
Where does that intelligibility2c come from?
Of course, it2c comes from the valuations2b of the psychometric sciences3b.
0222 Clearly, the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods is different from prior modern wars. This battle arrays those who think the narrative2a and whose thoughts can be objectified as what marketers and social workers can observe and measure2a, against those who realize that the Positivist godhead’s definition of success2c means something other than “getting ahead”2a.
It’s the big-government (il)liberals versus the human rats starting to realize that they are subjects in a colossal hybrid capitalist-socialist scientific experiment.
Or is it fascist-communist?
0223 May I see your vaccine passport?
The person asking the question is a “bigilib” (big-government (il)liberal) who has bought the narrative, resulting in a coherence within the content-level actuality2a. Such coherence provides feelings of invulnerability and belonging.
0224 The person who must comply with the question is a member of the subject population, who knows that showing the passport is an act of compliance. Compliance does not comport with the noumenon,the thing itself, and this provides feelings of vulnerability and alienation.
Can the reader identify precisely what phenomena are being observed and measured by the experts that the bigilib reports to?
0225 Fuller does not explicitly state the answer.
Instead, he describes what he thinks now that he has come to recognize the post-truth condition.
0226 The title of chapter fourteen is “The Path From Francis Bacon: A Genealogy of the Post-Truth Condition”. Fuller, as both professor and guide, provides an insight into how the interventional sign-relation may serve as a back door to escape the clutches of this enlightenment god.
He starts with a simple request.
0227 Only when an inquirer2a has come to realize that the current enlightenment god3c, intervenes in the way that he thinks3a,1a, can this simple request be entertained.
If the reader feels a twinge of discomfort, take a look around. Evidence abounds. Consider Looking at Sam Smith and Kim Petras’s Music Video (2022) “Unholy” (appearing in Razie Mah’s blog on February 11, 2023). Who is the woman in white?What does her choice at the end of the video imply? Cutting edge artists portray submission to the empirio-normative judgment2c as something to be applauded.
0228 Fuller tells a story, starting with Francis Bacon (1561-1626 AD), who serves as Attorney General and Lord Chancellor under King James I. This story serves as an interventional sign-object (SOi) that implicates an interventional sign-interpretant (SIi) and that implication suggests the presence of an interventional sign-vehicle (SVi).
0229 The interventional sign-relation is so odd. It must be evolutionarily ancient, at least going back to the domestication of fire, when people find the occasion to hand-talk nonsensical statements after enjoying a big, well-cooked meal.
Say what?
I thought that hand-talk is sensible.
Yes, every gesture-word is sensible, but a fully linguistic statement can grammatically not make sense.
And, that opens the possibility of cogitating the interventional sign-relation.
0230 Hand talk relies on icons and indexes. Icons (like pantomime) picture their referents. Indexes (like pointing) indicate their referents. The referent always precedes the gesture-word. In a sense, the iconicity and indexality of hand-talk words guarantee reference.
The gesture-word is a specifying sign. The gesture word (SVs) specifies its referent (SOs) in regards to what the statement means to me operating on the potential of situating the decoded content (SIs).
0231 But what of the referent?
Is the referentitself also a gesture-word, signed by the one who signifies, without us knowing why?
If so, then the referent2a itself (or what I am thinking about the referent2a) may be a sign-object (SOi) that must have an interpretant (SIi). That SIi more or less corresponds to the answer to the question, “What is happening3a“, operating on the possibility that ‘something’ is happening1a.
Okay, if the referent2a of a hand-talk word itself is an interventional sign-object (SOi), then where is the interventional sign-vehicle (SVi)?
I cannot see, hear, smell, taste or touch it, but I know that it is there.
0232 In other words, the gesture-word (say, MOON) already has a referent, the moon that can be pictured or pointed to.
Is the moon itself like a hand-talk word?
If so, then who gestures it?
Once hand talk becomes linguistic, counter-intuitive, grammatically correct statements can address this question.
0233 [Point to me][point to my eyes][pantomime or point to MOON][pantomime MAN].
Tonight, I will see what the moon-man (SVi) is saying (SOi).
0234 So, an awareness of the interventional sign-relation is a hominin adaptation to the nature of sign-relations.
Fortunately, we evolved long before the modern constellation of enlightenment gods enters into the picture.
0235 The interventional sign-relation is embodied.
Metalepsis requires something greater than my will1a.
The truth is greater than my will1a.
0236 Unfortunately, in our current Lebenswelt, the one of scientism3c is eager to place its actionable judgments2c in the slot for the interventional sign-vehicle (SVi).
So, “my” will1a becomes a projection of the intelligibility2c of psychometrically determined valuations2b.
0237 The interventional sign-relation is not only the front door for domination in the current Battle of Enlightenment Gods, it is also the back door to the one who signifies, without us knowing why.
Here is a picture of the interventional sign-relation that this examiner constructs from Fuller’s historical account.
0239 Francis Bacon (1561-1626 AD) lives at the start of the current Age of Ideas. He is a lawyer. He accepts that lying is part of everyday life, especially in the courtroom. He discovers that inquisitional modes of investigation force people to report in public what privately they do not hold. In short, the inquisitorial mode of testing and observing and measuring produces what I call “phenomena”. Courtroom phenomena do not reveal what a subject “privately” thinks. Courtroom phenomena reveal what the subject is openly willing to disclose under inquisition.
What I privately think associates to the noumenon.
What I am willing to say associates to phenomena.
0240 What does this imply?
Just as a triumphalist scientist wants to replace the noumenon with a mathematical or mechanical model,the scientismist one wants to replace what I privately think with what the Positivist’s judgment ought to be, that is, an empirio-normative narrative.
0241 Okay, then does that mean, once I am properly credentialed, that I have bought into a lie?
Yes and no.
Yes, phenomena cannot objectify their noumenon. If I do not testify to what I think, then I must be lying. So, the very idea of phenomena entails, not necessarily a falsehood, but a deception.
No, phenomena can objectify a model substituting for the noumenon. If I have successfully substituted an empirio-normative narrative for what I think, then I am always engaging in deception, even to myself. Either that, or I am always telling the “truth” (that is, the narrative) that can be objectified as what I say.
Did I write that correctly?
0242 The Christian doctrine of Original Sin derives from a mythic account of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are fashioned by God in a paradise near the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. They disobey God’s command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Okay, let me tweak the tree’s label to “the fruit of the tree of formalized knowledge1b“. Mythically, this tree occupies the center of the Edenic garden.
The problem is not disobedience, per se, but a capitulation to a post-truth condition imposed by… what else?… a speaking snake. Serpents must speak, because they cannot talk with their hands.
0243 Needless to say, the serpent has a variety of narratives to offer. The fruit will allow Eve to own its beauty (the capitalist model of value2b) as well as make her wise (the socialist model of value2b). Eve sees an opportunity1c. She makes an actionable judgment2c. And, the relativist one3c notches up two successes2c, since Adam is along for the ride.
So, the Fall in the Garden of Eden has a lot to do with disobedience (to God, but obedience to the serpent) and lying (to oneself by adopting the narrative of the serpent as one’s own).
0244 Saint Augustine associates the Fall to a permanent weakness called “concupiscence”, which transliterates to “con (with) cupi (Cupid) scence (the state of being)”. The state of being with Cupid is a little more entertaining than the state of being scammed by a speaking snake. But, the post-truth condition for each is pretty much the same.
0245 Why?
The foundational potential of the post-truth condition is the will1a.
By definition, the foundational potential of the prior condition is the truth1a.
0246 What does this imply?
Well, if Adam and Eve associate to the start of our current Lebenswelt, as proposed in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace (as well as An Archaeology of the Fall, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues), then the prior truth condition must associate to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Consequently, Adam and Eve may be historical, in so far as they are fairy tale figures associated with the start of the Ubaid archaeological period of southern Mesopotamia. The Ubaid marks the start of history (that is, our current Lebenswelt).
0247 Of course, Saint Augustine does not know this. So, he proposes that all humanity shares in the original sin of Adam and Eve through direct descent. All humans are subject to original sin2c because Adam and Eve are the first parents.
This turns out to be a scientific proposal. All humans are related to an original pair of humans. This hypothesis is debunked by modern genetics. There is no genetic bottleneck, as would be expected for a single-pair founding our species.
0248 So, Fuller points to a post-Augustine interpretation of our current Lebenswelt as a breeding ground for the post-truth condition. We are expected, by our inquisitors, to say only what we are publicly willing to disclose, as if that is what we are thinking. Whenever we live up to that expectation, we deceive ourselves. At the same time, we notch up successes2c for the relativist one3c.
On top of that, our hard-won academic credentials encourage us to utter statements based on the latest empirio-normative narratives2c, as if they2c are what we are thinking2a.
0249 Razie Mah heartily agrees. See his blog post for January 2, 2024.
0250 Perhaps, among other things, original sin involves defying the God of Creation by publicly mouthing the normative narratives of lesser deities, relativist ones3c, who put both the human intellect3a and will1a into perspective.
The sacrament of baptism plays a role in washing away that original sin, in so far as it introduces the infant to people who offer the story of the One True God, despite the fact that the story is unbelievable, according to all relativist one-heads.
0251 That said, Fuller’s genealogy of the post-truth condition points back to the very start of our current Lebenswelt.
Here is one vista that Fuller, as a guide to the post-truth condition, allows.
0252 Each person must decide which path to follow in the fourth Enlightenment Battle.
There are two paths.
One turns the person in to a certified mask that utters empirio-normative narratives.
One turns a person into a sign-tracker on a path that leads to a sign-vehicle that does not stand for what the empirio-normative judgment is telling me to think. This is the path of metalepsis. If Fuller is on target, the sign-tracker will discover an interventional sign-vehicle containing both a novel doctrine of original sin (for our current Lebenswelt) and a new appreciation of the human asan image of God (for the Lebenswelt that we evolved in).
In order to appreciate original justice, one must first respect original sin.
0253 Razie Mah offers three works that reconfigure the current empirio-schematic narrative of human evolution in a way that may assist sign-trackers. These works are titled, The Human Niche,An Archaeology of the Fall and How To Define the Word “Religion”. These works address the Lebenswelt that we evolved in,the first singularity and our current Lebenswelt.
Indeed, these works begin where Fuller’s excellent guidebook concludes.
0254 My thanks to Steve Fuller for his daring, and brief, exposition of the contemporary post-truth condition.
0001 On January 2, 2024, Razie Mah posts a blog challenging a Catholic podcast to take up a quest. Re-articulate the doctrine of original sin for the forthcoming age of triadic relations.
0002 The challenge rests on four points.
0003 Here is the first point.
In the 300s AD, Saint Augustine formulates the doctrine of original sin. In the process, he inadvertently proposes a scientific hypothesis. All humans descend from Adam and Eve as the original pair.
Of course, Augustine has no reason to question the Genesis text in this regard. The Bible is sacred text, a witness to God’s action in our current Lebenswelt. The science of genetics stands 1600 years in the future.
In the 1900s, geneticists definitively debunk the idea that all humans descend from an original pair, unless that founding pair lives over 500,000 years ago.
0004 This is not the only surprise.
In the 1800s and 1900s, archaeology discovers the historical depth of the ancient Near East. Now, the stories of Adam and Eve are listed among other origin stories of this age and location. All these stories (with the exception of the first chapter of Genesis) depict a recent creation of humanity, which does not make sense, since humans have been around for at least 200,000 years.
Why do all the written origin stories of the ancient Near East testify to a recent creation of humans?
0005 Indeed, if Augustine were around today, he would frame the doctrine of original sin within the paradigms of the current scientific age. Adam and Eve are not the first Homo sapiens, even though the second chapter of Genesis depicts their unique manufacture. The stories of Adam and Eve are ancient Near East mythologies. The artisanal fashioning of Adam and Eve, as well as the talking serpent, are correspondingly mythic. Also, the stories recorded in Genesis 2.4 through 10 concern the same start of humanity that is suggested by all other written origin stories of the ancient Near East.
0006 The problem?
What is this business about a recent start to humanity?
Why can’t the origin stories of ancient civilizations envision times significantly earlier than their civilizational foundings?
The social and biological sciences have done their utmost to portray human evolution in a way that excludes the witness of the earliest civilizations.
Does human evolution come with a twist?
Of course, it does.
0007 Why does Augustine claim that Adam and Eve are the first humans? The book of Genesis says so. But, once one realizes that all the origin stories of the ancient Near East point to an event horizon beyond which civilization cannot see,and that this event horizon is recent (rather than in deep evolutionary time), then the stories of Adam and Eve turn into fairy tales that address the coming-to-be of our current Lebenswelt.
0008 Before our current Lebenswelt, there are no civilizations. There is no unconstrained social complexity. There are no experts, or sophists, or relativist ones, or post-graduate ones.
Before our current Lebenswelt, humans live in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, which is unquestionably different than our own civilized condition. Social complexity is always constrained. Social hierarchies seldom contain more levels than grand-parents, parents and children. Maybe there are specialists, like a midwife or a shaman, but there are no institutions for education in “nursing” or “medicine”.
0009 What does this imply?
Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
All the origin stories of the ancient Near East (except for Genesis One) testify to the beginning of our current Lebenswelt as the start of all humanity. The Lebenswelt that we evolved in cannot be remembered.
The history of the ancient Near East runs deep. Archaeologists point to the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia, as the time and the place where the earliest unconstrained social complexity manifests. Civilization is further potentiated during the Uruk archaeological period, when urbanism starts and social stratification becomes obvious. Plus, uncanny inventions are made, such as the wheel and the use of the donkey for long-distance caravans. Civilization is obvious at the start of the Sumerian Dynastic archaeological period.
0010 So, what do the stories of Adam and Eve depict?
In the 300s, Augustine gives a premodern answer and formulates the first doctrine of original sin. Adam and Eve are the parents of all humans. The taint of original sin passes from one generation to the next.
In the 2000s, Augustine’s followers will give a postmodern answer and formulate the second doctrine of original sin. The stories of Adam and Eve are fairy tales about the start of our current Lebenswelt.Our current Lebenswelt begins with the first singularity.
0011 Here is the second point.
If Augustine’s hypothesis that Adam and Eve are the first humans fails, then is there another relevant scenario suggested before the modern age of ideas?
Thomas Aquinas offers one, when he reflects on the state of (the literal) Adam before the Fall. Before the incident involving the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve live in a world of original justice. Then, after the Fall, they live in a state of original sin.
Does the state of original justice correspond to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
What was life like during the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
Did hominins live up to a recent slogan offered by the expert-driven, science-oriented and empirio-normative-dominated World Economic Forum, “You will own nothing and be happy?”
Our Paleolithic ancestors own nothing (compared to anyone in any civilization) and they are happy (in ways that we currently cannot imagine).
0012 For example, our hominin ancestors adapt to the transcendentals that are extolled by religious intellectuals and ridiculed by secular sophists. It is as if the transcendentals are sign-vehicles that elicit adaptive sign-objects in the hominin mind, so our brains and bodies express a phenotype that serves as a sign-interpretant for those adaptive sign-objects.
Yes, our ancestors cannot label the transcendentals with spoken words. Instead, they experience the transcendentals as adaptations. Truth, beauty, nobility, temperance, strength, wisdom, and prudence do not have spoken labels. They have moments of perfection in the hominin body and mind.
0013 Aquinas knows nothing about the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. So, he depicts Adam as something of a Greek philosopher, rather than someone who modern anthropologists might recognize: a hominin who owns nothing, works in teams, belongs to community, suffers ailments and danger, yet is unimaginably happy. After all, our ancestors are who we evolved to be.
We are not so lucky.
0014 The Lebenswelt that we evolved in holds secrets that contemporary evolutionary anthropologists cannot articulate using the disciplinary languages of the social sciences. (See Razie Mah’s blog for January through March, 2024, as well as Comments on Michael Tomasello’s Arc of Inquiry (1999-2019), available at smashwords and other e-book venues). Tomasello’s technical term, “joint attention”, is an explicit abstraction that describes hominins, working in teams, being productive and having fun. It is a mystery how they do it. Yet, that is what hominins evolve to do.
0015 Another big secret about the Lebenswelt that we evolved in is that, unlike modern anthropologists, our hominin ancestors cannot conduct explicit abstractions. Our hominin ancestors cannot explicitly label things or events with spoken words. Why? They talk with their hands. Speech is added to hand talk at the start of our own species, Homo sapiens. Then, Homo sapiens practices a dual-mode way of talking, hand-speech talk, for over 200,000 years before the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia appears, nominally 7,800 years ago, as the world’s first culture to practice speech-alone talk.
0016 Hand talk and hand-speech talk facilitate implicit abstraction.
Even when hand-talk becomes fully linguistic, explicit abstraction not possible. Manual-brachial gesture-words are holistic. The referent exists before the word. The gestural-word pictures or points to its referent.
Speech-alone talk permits implicit abstraction. It also facilitates explicit abstraction.
Spoken words label parts, distinct from the whole. For example, the rotational motion that goes into making clay pots is explicitly abstracted with the invention of the pottery wheel. Then, the pottery wheel is explicitly re-oriented to become the wheel of a cart.
Spoken words exist before the referent. Spoken words cannot picture or point to anything. That is why the referents for spoken words exist as meanings, presences and messages in the realm of possibility. How often do we create artifacts that validate the meaning, presence and message underlying spoken words? How long do such validations last?
0017 The differences in the semiotics of hand talk and speech-alone talk are discussed in the opening chapters of the fictional drama, An Archaeology of the Fall.
0018 Point three follows points one and two, in so far as the mythic, as well as the historical, Adam and Eve stand at the event horizon beyond which the origin stories of the ancient Near East cannot see. The stand at the very start of our current Lebenswelt. They signify the first singularity.
See The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0019 The fourth and final point is this fool’s errand. Razie Mah’s blogs for July through October 2024 offer a stumbling yet ambitious start to the quest posted on January 2, 2024.
The sequence of presentation in the three-part e-book, Original Sin and The Post-Truth Condition, is not quite the same as the sequence of appearance in the blogs. The blogs are sequenced for space and convenience.
The numbering of the points follows the list presented here.
0020 Fuller’s account of the post-truth condition is examined first. This examination is foundational.
The results are applied to a book by American entrepreneur and politician, Vivek Ramaswamy, as well as a monograph on American propaganda by Michelle Stiles.
An essay by Josef Pieper on the abuse of language, reconceptualizes the application and serves starting point for a second formulation of the doctrine of original sin. In the blog, the examination of Pieper appears between the examinations for Ramaswamy and Stiles.
By the end of Pieper’s work, a connection between the post-truth condition and original sin, deepens.
0021 But, that is not all.
An examination of a book on language and cognitive psychology shows that, in 2022, secular academics are yet to confront the hypothesis of the first singularity. This examination stands as a warning that this hypothesis challenges both theology and science. Theologians need to devise a post-Augustine formulation of the doctrine of original sin. Scientists need to consider that (1) the human niche is the potential of triadic relations, as proposed in Razie Mah’s e-book The Human Niche, (2) our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, as dramatized in An Archaeology of the Fall, and (3) the semiotics of speech-alone talk is radically different than hand and hand-speech talk, as discussed in How To Define The Word “Religion”.
0022 The post-truth condition is a product of the semiotics of speech-alone talk.
0644 The full title of the book before me is Theistic Evolution: A Contemporary Aristotelian-Thomistic Perspective(Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: UK). The book arrives on my doorstep in October 2023. The copyright is dated 2024.
How time flies.
0645 This examination builds on previous blogs and commentaries.
Here is a picture.
0646 A quick glance backwards is appropriate.
Tabaczek’s story begins in the waning days of the Age of Ideas, when the Positivist’s judgment once thrived.
0647 The Positivist judgment holds two sources of illumination. Models are scientific. Noumena are the things themselves. Physics applies to models. Metaphysics applies to noumena. So, I ask, “Which one does the positivist intellect elevate over the other?”
The answer is obvious.
So, the first part of the story is that the positivist intellect dies, and lives on as a ghost (points 0001-0029).
0648 Tabaczek buries the positivist intellect and places the two sources of illumination against one another. It is as if they reflect one another.
But, the two sources also have their advocates.
In Emergence, Tabaczek argues that models of emergence require metaphysical styles of analysis.
In Divine Action and Emergence, he sets out to correct metaphysical emanations reflecting scientific models of emergence. It is as if these emanations are reflections of science in the mirror of theology. Intellectuals inspired by science want to see ‘what is’ of the Positivist’s judgment in the mirror of theology. But, note the difference between the picture of the Positivist’s judgment and the two hylomorphes in Tabaczek’s mirror (points 0039-0061).
0649 Why do I mention this?
In the introduction of the book before me, Tabaczek discusses his motivations. He, as a agent of theology, wants to exploit an opportunity. That opportunity is already present in the correction that he makes to what an agent of science sees in the mirror of theology (pictured below).
0650 What an opportunity!
Tabaczek offers the hope of a multidimensional, open-minded, and comprehensive (say nothing of comprehensible) account of evolutionary theory.
How so?
The positivist intellect is dead. The positivist intellect ruled the Positivist’s judgment with the maxim, “Metaphysics is not allowed.”
0651 Now that the positivist intellect is dead, the two illuminations within the former Positivist’s judgment may transubstantiate into the realm of actuality and become two hylomorphes, standing like candles that reflect one another in Tabaczek’s mirror.
Tabaczek, as an agent of theology, witnesses how a scientist views himself in the mirror of theology. The scientist sees the model as more real than the noumenon (the thing itself, which cannot be objectified as its phenomena). Indeed, the scientist projects ‘what is’ of the Positivist’s judgment into the mirror of theology.
0652 Tabaczek wants to project his philosophical construction of the noumenon (in concert with its dispositions and powers, as well as its matter and form) into the mirror of science.
But, I wonder whether any agent of science is willing to stop listening to the ghost of the positivist intellect long enough to discern what theologians project into the mirror of science.
0653 Yes, Tabaczek’s inquiry is all about optics.
0654 So, who are the players involved in the intellectual drama of Tabaczek’s mirror.
Tabaczek identifies three.
To me, there must be four.
0655 The first is the agent of science. The scienceagent is the one that makes the models. Two types of scienceagent stand out in the study of biological evolution: the natural historian and the geneticist.
0656 The second is the agent of theology. Tabaczek limits theologyagents to experts in Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.).
In a way, this self-imposed limit is a handicap, since Aristotle and Aquinas philosophize long before Darwin publishes On The Origin of Species (1859).
In another way, this self-imposed limit is a blessing, since it provides me with an occasion for examining his argument from the framework of Charles S. Peirce (1839-1914). According to the semiotician and Thomist John Deely (1942-2017), Peirce is the first postmodern philosopher. Peirce is also a co-discoverer of the triadic nature of signs, along with the Baroque scholastic (that is Thomist) John Poinsot (1589-1644), otherwise known as John of Saint Thomas.
Peirce’s semiotics begins where Baroque scholasticism leaves off.
0657 The third is the image that the scientist projects into the mirror of theology. I label this image: theologymirror, in contrast to scienceagent. The theologyagent can see the image in theologymirror, but is not the source of that image. I have already shown the initial image that the agent of science sees in the mirror of theology. I have also noted that Tabaczek aims to correct that projection.
0658 The fourth is the image that the theologian casts into the mirror of science. I label this image: sciencemirror, in contrast to theologyagent. The scienceagent can see the image in sciencemirror, but is not the source of that image. I have already indicated that the scienceagent (more or less) does not care what is in sciencemirror, because the ghost of the positivist intellect whispers in the ear of scienceagent, “All that metaphysical stuff is completely unnecessary.”
