0222 With that said, here is a quick wrap-up of the four chapters in Part III.
For chapter six, Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay conceptualizes semiotic agency.
For chapter seven, semiotic agency is considered an actuality2. In order to understand an actuality2, the actuality2 must have a normal context3 and potential1.
0223 Here is the nested form for semiotic agency2.
Semiotic agency2 presents a sign-relation as a dyadic actuality. This is shown in Part I.
Semiosis2 does not occur without an agent3 and the possibility of ‘significance’1.
0224 For chapter eight, the evolution of agents3 and the possibility of ‘significance’1 proceeds in tandem with the evolution of semiotic agency2.
0225 For chapter nine, phenomenology serves as a precursor to biosemiotics, just as the social sciences of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries serve as intimations of phenomenology.
0226 Without a doubt, Sharov and Tonnessen build upon the insights of philosophers writing a century earlier, as seen in two of Razie Mah’s e-books: Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy and Comments on Nicholas Berdyaev’s Book (1939) Spirit and Reality. Both Maritain and Berdyaev are interested in understanding the nature of scientific inquiry. And now, their works inform biosemioticians.
0001 This article records a presentation at a symposium on Adam, the Fall, and the goodness of God. The text is published in the journal, Pro Ecclesia (2020), volume 29(4), pages 387-406. I request that the journal to unlock this issue. After all, this lecture is not the only gem, covering a topic that is seldom broached.
0002 The author steps to the podium and posits two axioms. One addresses the evolutionary sciences, in a minimalistic sort of way. The other addresses biblical hermeneutics in the modern age. Ironically, another science hides in the shadow of the second axiom. That science is archaeology.
0003 Here is a picture of the two axioms.
0004 The science axiom poses a double difficulty.
Currently, the biological sciences present all evolution as continuous developments in time, although there are moments of radical… um… “re-organization”, hence the theory of punctuated equilibrium. When the evolutionary sciences cast their models of human evolution into the mirror of theology, the theologian sees a picture that does not quite sync with the wild change of… um… “genre” that occurs the moment after God wraps up the Creation Story, by telling humans that they should give food to the animals (Genesis 1:30).
Speaking of that, here is an application of the two axioms in action.
0005 Mirror of theology?
See Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2014), available at smashwords and other e-book venues, as well as Razie Mah’s blog for the months of April, May and June, 2024.
On the one hand, the mirror of theology embraces the noumenon.
On the other hand, the mirror of theology reflects models proposed by science. Science is not interested in the noumenon, the thing itself. Scientists are only interested in a noumenon’s phenomena. Phenomena are the observable and measurable facets of a noumenon. Scientists build models based on observations and measurements of phenomena. If the model “works”, then scientismists want to say that the model is more real than the thing itself. At this point, natural philosophers and theologians object and say, “No, the scientific model is not more real than the thing itself.”
0006 After an awkward pause, triumphalist scientists reply, “Well, then, how are you going to know anything about the noumenon without our models?”
“Well,” the natural philosophers say, “What about matter and form? I can know these about the noumenon through experience of it.”
“So how are you going to do that when the noumenon is evolutionary history? How can you grasp that though determining its matter and form?”
To which the theologian sighs and says, “Listen, whatever the noumenon is, it cannot be reduced scientific models of its phenomena. So, I will set up a mirror that will reflect your scientific model, so you can be assured that your models are not ignored when I contemplate the metaphysical structures intrinsic to the thing itself, while keeping my mind open to revelation (including the the Bible). I will call it ‘the mirror of theology’.”
0007 To which the scientist counters, “And, we will correspondingly set up a mirror in our domain, a mirror of science. We will look at the theological statements concerning the character of the noumenon, which really should just be replaced by our mathematical and mechanical models. Then, we will laugh at and ridicule them.”
0008 Now, I once again present the odd coincidence pictured before as an application of the two axioms.
Do I have that correctly?
Does the scientist project his model into the mirror of theology?
Does the theologian project his metaphysical analysis into the mirror of science?
How confusing is that?
0008 It seems to me, a mere semiotician, that these two images actually reflect a single real being. The theologian looks into the mirror of theology and sees what evolutionary scientists project, then looks at revelation and locates an appropriate correspondence. Then, when the theologian’s correspondence is viewed by the scientist in their mirror of science, it says, “That is superstitious nonsense!”
“It”?
I thought male and female he created them.
“It” must be a first approximation.
0009 Of course, to the semiotician, the whole situation is sort of funny, because it implies that there is a body of wisdom that is independent of science, but not subject to science, because it concerns the noumenon, the thing itself.
0034 Yes, Razie Mah covers what postmodern scientists should project into the mirror of theology.
Our current Lebenswelt (German for “living world”) is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The discontinuity is called “the first singularity”.
0035 The discontinuity entails a change in the way humans talk.
The hypothesis is technically described in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace.
The scientific discovery is dramatically portrayed in An Archaeology of the Fall.
Both texts are available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0036 The hypothesis, along with the hypotheses proposed in The Human Niche and How To Define the Word “Religion”,pose significant challenges to the way that human evolution is currently conceptualized. See Comments on Michael Tomasello’s Arc of Inquiry (1999-2019), as well as Razie Mah’s blog for January through March 2024.
0037 Arnold drills down into the ideological substance of etiology. With the hypothesis of the first singularity,the theologian’s focus on etiology bifurcates precisely along the fault-line between two genres.
Shall theology project this nested form into the mirror in the domain in science?
0038 The first step in Albright’s development scenario corresponds to the stories of Adam and Eve through the Table of Nations (following the stories of Noah’s flood). Here, Albright’s intuition hits the mark. This step corresponds to a phase of human reason, that may be correctly labeled, “proto-logical”.
Not surprisingly, the “proto-logical” label also applies to all the literature of the ancient Near East that is listed by Arnold.
Indeed, the label, “proto-empirical”, also applies.
Imagine passage from a world that thinks in hand-speech talk to a world that thinks in speech-alone talk. The former allows a diversity of implicit abstractions. The latter does not, because explicit abstraction gums up the works of implicit abstraction. In the proto-empirical phase, explicit abstraction starts to establish a life of its own.
0039 Arnold adds that the next etiological phase corresponds to the stories of Abraham. The founding of the people of Israel touches base with Albright’s “empirical” phase. The Biblical text changes in clarity and focus when passing from the mythohistories of Noah to the tales of Abraham. Terah does not move from his long-established home city lightly. He moves for empirical reasons. Yes, it is history, but it is rendered as myth.
0040 So, the Primeval History, along with other written origin stories of the ancient Near East, may be gathered under the catchment of “mytho-history”. This term has the same semiotic structure as “proto-logical” and “proto-empirical”. Yes, it is logical, but it is before formal logic. Yes, it is empirical, but it is before the empirical takes on a life of its own.
0041 Arnold notes that Albright sees how the term, “adamah”, changes from “humanity” to “a personal name”, in the course Genesis 2.4 through 4.
He sees the change as significant and unsettling.
But, he does not have a vision where the stories of Adam and Eve are located in the tourbillion of increasing unconstrained social complexity manifesting in the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia.
0042 Barth smiles at this unsettlement. For this theologian, as soon as Adam is with us, so is Christ.
In the construction of the temple of the heavens and the earth, God creates humans in His image in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
In the manufacture of Adam’s body and the inspiration of Adam’s breath, God creates humans in our current Lebenswelt.
0043 Thus, the discontinuity of the first singularity that appears in the mirror of theology, located in the domain of theology, is reflected back in the mirror of science, located in the domain of science, as the discontinuity between Genesis 2:3 and Genesis 2:4.
I wonder.
Can I imagine that there is only one mirror?
0044 A twenty-first century reading of Genesis challenges evolutionary scientists.
Genesis joins all the written origin stories of the ancient Near East, in proclaiming what evolutionary scientists ignore,humans are created by the gods in recent prehistory. Indeed, a causal observation of the archaeological data demands the proposal of a hypothesis like the first singularity, if only the separate two million years of evolution within constrained social complexity from the 7800 years of theodramatic madness within unconstrained social complexity.
But, there is more, see Razie Mah’s blog on October 1, 2022, for a research project for all of Eurasia.
0045 The stories of Adam and Eve precisely capture the theodramatic character and the absolutely crazy turns of events that typify our current Lebenswelt. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do.
Meanwhile, the Creation Story intimates a deep prehistory, confounding the construction of the temple of the heavens and the earth with a counter-intuitive sequence of events that weirdly coincides with a phenomenological vision of the Earth’s evolutionary “progression”.
0046 A twenty-first century reading of Genesis challenges theologians interested in the noumenon of humans, in our current Lebenswelt.
If the hypothesis of the first singularity becomes more and more plausible, so does a second doctrine of original sin,where the deficits of Augustine’s first attempt are amended, yielding a doctrine that applies to the post-truth condition. See Razie Mah’s blog for January 2, 2024 for a call to action. Also see Razie Mah’s blog for July through October 2024. These blogs will be assembled (for user convenience) as a three-part commentary, Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).
0106 In Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II proposes that original innocence entails a gift of holiness given to man and to woman, enabling them to participate in the inner life of God, through their radical giving of self to one another, in purity of heart.
He concludes that the ethos of the gift may serve as the basis for a truly adequate anthropology.
0107 To this examiner, Pope John Paul II stands on the soapbox of the theology of Thomas Aquinas. He proclaims biblical teaching.
At the same time, he points toward the prelapsarian Adam… or adamah… and subtly suggests that a truly adequate anthropology may be found in… an application of Aquinas’s metaphysics and biblical teaching to who we evolved to be.
0108 Male and female we evolved to be?
And more…
Male and female in mutual self-giving, we evolved to be.
0109 Here is a picture with another way to appreciate the relation between John Paul II’s specific application and the broad application that The Theology of the Body intimates.
This schema may be applied to all social circles.
0110 Adamah is “humanity”, when the hominin and the social circle may be distinguished but not separated. Adamah do not articulate triadic relations using explicit abstractions. Rather, adamah live them and, over generations, adapt to them. We live by implicit abstraction. Implicit abstractions are built into our souls and bodies. Adamah associates to the “image of God” of Genesis verses 1:26-31.
0111 The foundational social circles are family (5) and friends (5).
The social circle for obligatory collaborative foraging is the team (15). Here is where our lineage learns to be productive and have fun. Proto-linguistic hand talk is an adaptation to teams. Teams engage in sensible construction.
The social circle that provides safety in numbers in travel and at night is the band (50).
The social circle that brings harmony to diverse teams is the community (150). Here is where we learned to be more than productive and experience more than fun. Fully linguistic hand talk is an adaptation to community. Communities engage in social construction. Social construction is the meaning underlying the term, “religion”.
0112 The social circle that gathers bands and communities in seasonal celebrations is the mega-band (500). Here is where singing is first used for social synchronization. The gathering cannot last long, in order to avoid disease. So, rapid social synchronization is required.
Once the voice is under voluntary control due to social and sexual selection, the voice is exapted at the start of our own species, Homo sapiens, over 200,000 years ago. Humans practice hand-speech talk until the first singularity.
The social circle that calls for wisdom and offers deep witness to the signs of The One Who Hand Talks the World Itself is the tribe. The tribe is a linguistic community.
0113 Unbeknownst to Pope John Paul II, a theology of original innocence as a disposition towards interpersonal self-giving may be precisely the metaphysics needed to conceptually elucidate the dynamic harmonies within and among social circles that characterize hominin evolution.
0114 Man is not meant to be alone, as a radical individual, whose sexuality is a tool to satisfy “needs”, according to some theoretical -ismist construction.
Yet, man is alone, caught in a web of explicit abstractions promising to solve his alienation, by incorporating him into an idea, an “-ism”, concocted by some “Western Enlightenment inspired” political philosopher. If he buys into the agenda, then he may be a person, among an ideologically defined people.
Such theory may be technically correct, but it is wholly misleading. Now, -ismists are increasingly discredited.
0115 In our current Lebenswelt, we live in the state of original sin.
We are not alone in contemplating our condition.
Alexander Dugin calls for a fourth political theory.
Pope John Paul II offers a theology that complements Dugin’s vision.
Dugin offers a political theory that complements the pope’s theology.
0116 Just beyond Adam, representing our current Lebenswelt, there is adamah, prelapsarian humanity, representing the Lebenswelt that we evolved to be. Philosophical inquiry into biblical teaching may allow us to see that humans and social circles co-evolve, so man was never meant to be alone.
The people are beginning to realize that the -ismists are wrong, the narod is where we could be, and the ethnos is where we can never return to. We long to return. But, we cannot. So turn around and see what God has to offer.
0117 Perhaps, now, in a confused and exploratory fashion, we can modify our scientific interpretation of human evolutionand stand on Aquinas’s soapbox just like the the pope does, and greet the prelapsarian adamah, as who we evolved to be.
0118 My thanks to the author for publishing an article worthy of examination.
Surely, this examiner goes to places that the author never envisioned.
Such is the way of scholastic inquiry. Commentaries follow commentaries. Then, everything changes.
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.”
0001 Let me start with an admission. In this particular examination, I am not myself. I am someone who I am not. I own a dog named, “Daisy”.
The book before me is by Daniel C. Dennett and is titled, “From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds”. The book is published by W.W. Norton (New York, London). The book wrestles with issues both philosophical and scientific. How does our world come to be? How do we come to be?
Who are we? We are people with minds. Minds intelligently design artifacts using tools of production and tools of the intellect. The first tools are handy. The second are… well… not exactly the same as “handy”.
0002 The hand grasps a tool then uses it to manipulate things. The word, “prehensile” applies. Our hands are full of prehensions. We are aware of the heft and feel of material instruments.
The mind grasps an intellectual tool with its… um… brain. Is there such a word as “comprehensile”? How about the term, “comprehension”? Once we become competent using an intellectual tool, we comprehend. We become familiar with its heft and feel.
0003 The hand is unlike the appendages of other mammals.
For example, cats and dogs only have feet. The cat uses its front feet as “paws”, in a manner similar to the way humans use their hands. Not really, because the cat’s paws cannot hold anything. The cat cannot pick up a tool. May I say that the cat’s front paws are part of the feline toolkit? Evolution builds tools right into the cat’s body. Most mammals are fashioned this way. Tools are part of their bodies.
0004 The mind serves as a metaphorical appendage, because it grasps ‘something’, and in doing so, may manipulate it. The dog, whose practical toolkit includes feet and a formidable mouth, has an advantage over the cat, in this respect. The dog’s mind grasps ‘something’ and, in doing so, manipulates humans into serving as the leader of its pack.
To me, the dog is testimony to the inhospitality of wolf “culture”, in general, and the inadequacy of wolf “leadership”, in particular. Wolf pack-leaders often behave like aristocrats, always expecting deferential treatment. They are often filled with paranoia and treachery. Yet, their followers know that they need a leader. Otherwise, there is no pack. Without the pack, there is only death.
0005 Surely, a reasonable human would serve as a more hospitable leader, especially since humans know how to get food in surprising ways. Humans give dogs food. Until, of course, starvation fills the land.
0001 Lesley Newson and Peter J. Richerson research human evolution at the University of California, Davis. Richerson is an early proponent of culture-gene co-evolution, back in the 1980s. Since 2000, Newson tries to apply evolutionary theory to current rapid historical changes.
Perhaps, the first five chapters should be read with Richerson’s voice and the last three with Newson’s. Also, various interludes, colored with a gray background, should be read with Newson’s voice. These interludes contain acts of imagination.
0002 Acts of imagination?
In a book on human evolution?
What a surprise.
0003 To me, stylistic innovation is welcome. Imagination is called for. Razie Mah opens the curtains on the hypothesis of the first singularity with a work of imagination, titled, An Archaeology of the Fall.
0004 What about substance, in addition to style?
The full title of Newson and Richerson’s book is The Story of Us: A New Look at Human Evolution (Oxford University Press, New York). The new look is stylistic, not substantive. Indeed, much of this examination will entail a comparison of this text to a work of substantive innovation: Razie Mah’s The Human Niche, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
The Human Niche builds on four commentaries, also available for purchase.
Here is a list.
Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big
Comments on Derek Bickerton’s Book (2014) More than Nature Needs
Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) Why Only Us?
Comments on Steven Mithen’s Book (1996) The Prehistory of Mind
0005 These commentaries, along with the masterwork, The Human Niche, and A Primer on Natural Signs compose the series, A Course on The Human Niche.
0006 What does this imply?
At the time of their writing, these authors are not aware of the substantive hypothesis contained in The Human Niche.
In reference 2 of chapter one of Newson and Richerson’s book, the authors list a dozen books, none of which are listed above. This implies that Newson and Richerson, like so many of us, live and study in a cognitive bubble.
Their book is not a substantive new look at human evolution. Rather, it is a new look in terms of style, compared to the books on their list in reference 2 of chapter one.
0135 Chapter eight brings the reader to modern times.
What has the first singularity wrought?
Need a visual?
Newson presents a photograph (Figure 8.1) of a steampunk skull cyborg sculpture.
Here is an example of how speech-alone talk operates.
Unlike hand-speech talk, speech-alone talk permits explicit abstraction. In this sculpture, a resin-based human skull is explicitly extruded… oh, I meant to say… abstracted and converted into the foundation of what appears to be an audio-headphone machine. Body (skull) and mind (machine) fuse into a monstrosity.
0136 What are the authors not saying?
They do not say that this work of art initiates implicit abstraction. An innate relational structure for sensible constructiontells the viewer that social construction is needed. I know this from my visceral reaction to the photograph.
(See Razie Mah’s Comments on Religious Experience (1985) by Wayne Proudfoot, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.)
0137 Here is a picture of the failing sensible construction.
Figure 41
0138 This disturbing work of art characterizes modernity. Newson and Richerson tell a story in two interludes. Culture, originally defined as “shared information”, is now disorienting. The consequences? Throughout the world, fertility declines. Only local cultures, consciously avoiding modern urban cities, now have numerous children.
Surely, today, there are enough people.
The problem is that children are becoming more and more rare.
0139 Is this a problem of sign-processing? Does today’s “information” trade “something that adorns us” for children? Is there a foundational difficulty with speech-alone talk? What happens when words no longer picture or point to their referents, as they once did in hand-speech (and hand) talk? What happens when we construct artifacts in order to validate our spoken words? What happens when the artifacts fail to deliver?
These types of questions are raised in Razie Mah’s masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0140 All the words that we use today in public discourse seem to have two meanings: a traditional one and a new-fangled technical one.
Need an example?
Consider the new-fangled, yet technical terms, “phenotype” and “adaptation”, in the following figure.
Figure 42
Compare that to the simpler scientific use of the terms in points 34 through 38.
Figure 43
0142 The new-fangled terms cross categorical levels within a complete three-level interscope. The aesthetics of such conjunctions make this book very attractive.
The old-fashioned scientific terms cannot be reconciled. Adaptations associate to the discipline of natural history. Phenotypes associate to the discipline of genetics. Each biological discipline would seem to be independent except for one awkward fact. Both sciences deal with a single entity, which one may call an individual, a species or a genus.
0143 In the epilogue, the authors proclaim (more or less), “Let us abandon the idea of ‘human nature’.”
Why?
“Human nature” is just a spoken term. The traditional meaning loads the term with political messages and connotes the presence of immutability. The new-fangled meaning looks at the term in the same way that a traditionalist gazes upon a steampunk cyborg sculpture. Surely, there is something wrong with this term.
Here is how the category-based nested form, which may be an innate cognitive principle for humans, understands how to define the term, “human nature.
Figure 44
0144 Perhaps, abandoning the idea of “human nature” will free us from the notion that our gut feelings, our hearts, and our minds can help us mate and raise a family.
But, abandoning “human nature” would leave us open to cultural influences.
0145 Cultural influences?
Psychological researchers investigate how social interactions [stimulate] hormonal responses and how culture [informs] brains. Do these actualities sound vaguely familiar? The corporate sponsors of these psychological researchers want to learn how to make their products more addicting and more real that they otherwise would be.
Ah yes, cultural influences need brains to inform.
0146 Consider the three-level interscope that guides the authors. The beauty of their intuition is that a completed three-level interscope is inherently intellectually satisfying. Satisfaction gives a feeling of completeness and accomplishment. The reader says, “Yes, here is a story about us. Here is a new look at human evolution.” The reader cannot put spoken words to the feeling that the book provides. Here is the arc of human evolution and history, in content, in situation and in perspective.
0147 These comments add value to Newson and Richerson’s book by introducing an option that the authors do not know. Humans adapt to sign-processing. Yes, human evolution manifests culture-gene co-evolution. But, the human niche is the potential of triadic relations, such as signs, mediations, judgments and category-based nested forms.
Surely, this book is somewhat addicting. Surely, this production seems more real than it otherwise would be. Why? The authors offer a new look at human evolution. So what if the new look is in terms of style, rather than substance. The authors offer something that other books on human evolution do not.
It is worthy of financial support by people of good will.
Reality is the only journal, to date, closing the gap between Thomistic philosophy and Peircean semiotics.
0002 John Deely (1942-2017) finds the loops through which a thread of reality now runs. The two loops? A thread of reality? John Poinsot (1589-1644), a Baroque scholastic in the tradition of Thomism, and Charles Peirce (1839-1914), an American philosopher, chemist and intellectual voyager, formulate the same definition of sign. One marks the end of the Latin Age, the second age of understanding. The other starts the Age of Triadic Relations, the fourth age of understanding. The thread is the realness of sign-relations.
Reality is the only journal, to date, running more threads through these loops.
0003 In contrast, Razie Mah builds little figures, illuminating triadic relations. He constructs a grand theodramatic narrative, The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How To Define the Word “Religion”, where these triadic diagrams shine. They glimmer in the darkness of the current Age of Ideas.
The same darkness shrouds Reality.
0004 With this said, I open the pages of Kirk Kanzelberger’s essay, titled, “Reality and the Meaning of Evil” published in the inaugural issue of Reality (volume 1(1) (2020) pages 146-204).
0005 I also have, in hand, A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.
Perhaps, these triadic structures will serve as guides.
0006 Section one of Kanzelberger’s article, “Reality and the Meaning of Evil“, opens with a conversation between a party animal and a graduate student.
The exchange begins with the idea that evil is privation. As such, evil does not make sense.
The discourse ends with the idea that evil is real and, as such, evil makes sense.
Clearly, the conversation starts on one level and ends on another. Plus, the conversation wrestles with a very important caveat.
If evil is a positive entity, then it must have been created by God. But if God is good, and His creation is called “good” in Genesis, then evil must be privation, a lack of good. God does not create evil. We do.
0007 Does this fit into a category-based nested form?
Yes, it fits two of them.
On a content levela, the level below morality, evil is privation and does not make sense.
On a situation levelb, the moral level, evil is real and makes sense.
0008 On the content levela, we ask, “What is happening?3a” This is the platform for things and events2a, situating the potential of ‘something’ subjective1a. Here, evil is privation and does not make sense because it is subjective.
On the situation levelb, we think, “What does it mean to me?3b” This is where phantasms2b emerge from the potential of constructing objects, mind-dependent beings1b. Here is where evil is real and sensible, because it is objective.
0009 Objective?
‘Something’ objective can also be shared. It can be intersubjective. In order to become intersubjective, the phantasm2bmust be actualized. Intersubjective beings are objective and subject to rational judgment by oneself and others.
