0064 Is the much-advertised “Western Enlightenment” merely the historical rendering of a new Renaissance, in subjugation to the authority and prestige of the blossoming empirical sciences?
This is one implication of the alternate ending to Redpath’s tale.
0065 Here is a picture of the Western Enlightenment.
Figure 13
0066 Do I see a small flaw that may grow into a catastrophic unraveling?
Will political slogans reverse the inevitabilities of mathematics and mechanics and render the natural and social sciencesinto servants to a new science, occulting out of the chaos of the social sciences, just as the social sciences coalesce out of the neglected noumena of the natural sciences?
0067 Redpath does not articulate this particular scenario.
Twenty years later, his actions demonstrate that he intuitively senses its theodramatic implications.
Redpath pioneers an academy promoting “uncommon” common sense.
He proposes a return to the analytic and synthetic logics of Thomas Aquinas.
0068 Scholastic logic, Aristotelian causality, mathematical learning and abstractions are key features of what ought to befor the scholastic judgment, as shown below.
Figure 14
0069 What does that imply?
What ought to be works on principles available to sensible reason.
In this examination of Redpath’s essay, I phrase the implication as follows, “The world exhibits regularities in all three of Peirce’s realms: possibility (firstness), actuality (secondness) and normal context (thirdness). Each realm manifests its own logic. The Baroque scholastic tradition identifies the sign as a triadic relation and Peirce picks up this thread. Peirce goes on to identify the three categories that are implicit in the arc of Thomism, from Aquinas to Poinsot.”
0070 In contrast, for Renaissance visionaries, what ought to be is a world constructed by oracular and occult beings. Our world is composed of social constructions. The discipline of poetic theology aims to discover those beings capable of restoring the political glory of Rome.
To this, Redpath says, “These oracular and occult beings excite our judgments. They tingle our sensations. They color our perceptions. Yet, they neglect logic.”
0071 In contrast, for mechanical philosophers, what ought to be is a world that can be modeled with mathematics and mechanics.
To which I say, “Mathematics and mechanics apply to Peirce’s category of secondness, which is subject to the laws of non-contradiction. The other categories are subject to scientific inquiry only in so far as they manifest secondness. The logic of the empirical sciences is radically incomplete.”
0072 Redpath tells a tale in order to magnify Aquinas’s note of caution. Small errors at the start of an enterprise produce significant errors at the end.
Redpath’s tale concerns the Italian Renaissance, which neglects logic at its beginning, eventually falling into subjugation to the radically incomplete logic of the empirical sciences.
There is a historical sequence. Renaissance innovators are followed by mechanical philosophers and mechanical philosophers are followed by the thinkers of the Western Enlightenment.
An alternate option, concocted here, says, “The Western Enlightenment may well be the rebirth of the Renaissance, under the conditions of its subjugation to the empirical sciences.”
0073 Here is a diagram of what the Enlightenment judgment can be.
Figure 15
Oh, it looks the same as the Renaissance judgment.
0074 So, what does that suggest?
Does the Enlightenment, retaining the Renaissance’s neglect of logic, cover up the radically incomplete logic of the empirical sciences, so that the normal contexts of the liberal arts3 and scientific disciplinary languages3 together exclude the richness of natural reason3, available in scholastic arguments, Aristotelian causalities, mathematical learning and abstractions?
Ah, such is the Age of Ideas.
0075 Perhaps unwittingly, Redpath unveils the two contenders facing the Homeschooling Renaissance. One disregards logic and proposes occult beings bursting with final and formal causalities. The other channels logic into mathematics and mechanics and says that material and instrumental causalities explain all things.
No wonder Redpath calls for a return to “uncommon” common sense.
I call the alternative the Age of Triadic Relations.
0076 Twenty years ago, Redpath concludes that we need to learn from the mistakes of the founders of the last great Western Renaissance. He addresses the upcoming Homeschooling Renaissance. It must not devolve into a battle among the arts. Rather, it must offer a restoration of ordinary sense experience as the foundation of reason. Philosophy, as well as the literary and fine arts, will naturally follow.
Order will return to human learning.
0077 To me, the prior diagrams place Redpath’s lesson and tale into a new way of looking at our current condition. Each diagram expresses a triadic relation. All the diagrams engage one another.
At the same time, there is a center, the interscope that is formulated by scholastics, dismissed by Renaissance humanists, and ignored by mechanical philosophers. Redpath calls the center “scholastic psychology”. I call this interscope, “the individual in communityA“.
0078 Here is a picture.
Figure 16
0079 Yes, here is a picture, working on principles available to sensible reason. Sensible reason transcends secondness, the realm of actuality, where the principle of non-contradiction applies. Sensible reason includes thirdness and firstness. In order to understand, we must place an actuality2 into its appropriate normal context3 and potential1.
0080 Aquinas stands at the spring of a great philosophical river. John Poinsot stands at the harbor, where this river enters the sea. Charles Peirce plans to sail the sea. Razie Mah is a sailor on Peirce’s ship.
0081 Twenty years ago, Redpath offers one guidance. Watch for small flaws, for they become terrors at the end.
Today, Redpath offers another. The enterprise begins.
0082 There is only one house open for us all. There is only one boat navigating an ocean of deception. Every parent knows this. The house of God is built on revelation. Reason, grounded in ordinary sense experience, allows us to see its designs. The ship of God sails into both calm and storm. Logic, grounded in triadic relations, allows us to characterize the winds. Our creation starts with winds moving over the waters. Our creation ends with a place that we call home.
Razie Mah offers his wares to the Big Schoolhouse.
0001 The overview under consideration appears in 2005 in the Journal of Creation (volume 19(3), pages 14-20).
The article is attractive because it considers affirmations and denials that appear in The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, published in 1978 in J. Evangelical Theological Society (volume 21(4), pages 289-296).
0002 The author of the article, Andrew S. Kulikovsky, earned a Bachelors of Applied Science (in Computer and Information Science) from the University of South Australia, then a Masters of Arts in Biblical Studies and Theology from Louisiana Baptist University. His Master’s thesis was on biblical theology of creation. At the time that his overview was published, he worked for his law degree at Deakin University, Melbourne Australia.
Single quotes and italics are used to group words together.
0003 Kulikovsky starts his brief overview, titled “The Bible and hermeneutics”, with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
0004 But, before entering that first section, I must wonder, “What is ‘hermeneutics’?”
In dictionaries, the term signifies the formal process by which an interpreter derives the author’s intended meaning.
0005 In terms of the category-based nested form, there are two actualities in hermeneutics. One actuality virtually situates the other.
The text itself2a emerges from (and situates) the potential of the author’s intended meaning1a in the normal context of writing3a. An interpretation2b virtually situates that text.
An interpretation2b emerges from and situates the potential of the text and a hermeneutical process1b in the normal context of proper reading3b.
0006 The following relational structure is called a two-level interscope. Two-level interscopes are typical for sensible construction, according to A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.
Figure 01
0007 The text2a in question is the Bible, particularly Genesis 1-2.3, the Creation Story, and Genesis 2.4-11, the Primeval History.
0008 I now move to the section on biblical inerrancy.
Kulikovsky recounts articles nine and twelve of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. The following table does not report the complete affirmations and denials. These are in the overview. However, I hope they are close enough.
Here is a table.
Figure 02
0009 Even though these statements mention the contrast between hermeneutics and scientific narrative, the focus is on the contrast between true and false (Article XII) and honesty and deception (Article IX).
The Evangelical Theological Society affirms that Genesis is true. Plus, Genesis is not deceptive.
The denials reject what others may affirm. One aspect of the denial in Article XII is particularly worthy of repetition. No scientific hypothesis about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
In order to frame the denial in the most nuanced manner possible, I say, “If the content of a denial is affirmed, then that affirmation may negate the original affirmation. For this reason, the denial is really an affirmation that must be rejected, because it can be carried too far.”
0010 Of course, the affirmations and the denials of the Evangelical Theological Society proclaim that Biblical exegesis comes first, and stands before, purported scientific challenges. But, their very structure calls to mind a semiotic construction called the “Greimas Square”, which I won’t further capitalize, unless in a title. The greimas square is the topic of the next blog.
0011 The greimas square concerns four bound elements (A1, A2, B1 and B2) and consists of four sets of statements (C, D, E and F).
Here is a picture.
Figure 03
0012 (C) A1 is the spoken word, element, phrase or topic under consideration.
(D) B1 contrasts with A1.
(E) A2 stands against, or “contradicts”, B1. A2 complements A1.
(F) B2 contrasts with A2. B2 stands against A1. B2 complements B1.
0013 The technical term, “contrast”, means, “is different than”, in the same way that a denial is different from an affirmation.
The technical term, “stands against” or “contradicts”, means “is distinct from”, in the same way that true (or correct) is distinct from true (or honest).
0014 If I turn the denials into affirmations that must be denied because they can be carried too far, then Articles IX and XII fit into a greimas square in the following manner.
Figure 04
Surely, B1 and B2 carry their affirmations too far, since they do not give priority to the inspired word of God.
In the following discussion, B1 and B2 will be modified into affirmations that do not go so far as to reject their corresponding affirmations, A1 and A2.
0015 I begin the first statement, C.
(C) The focal word is “inspiration” (A1). Inspiration is not omniscience. Inspiration confers truthfulness.
(D) Distortion and falsehood (B1) contrasts with inspiration. This speaks of false, as opposed to true. Somehow, the inspired word of God may be incorrect because the authors are fallen, just like the rest of us. So, even though they may think that they are describing real events, they are not.
Or, maybe the biblical authors have not risen to our modern standards. Scientism-ists would say that these authors have an ancient, incorrect, magical, not scientific, phenomena-based worldview. So, of course, if there is an inspired message, then it is locked in the distortion and falsehood of the worldviews of the ancient Near East.
(E) No, Genesis 1-11 is not deceptive (A2). “Not deceptive” stands against false (B1); in the same way that deceit contradicts incorrect. Honesty (A2) complements inspiration (A1). An inspired author is an honest one.
(F) Well, perhaps the honesty extends only to religious themes. That is to say, the inspired messageis hidden in the smoke and mirrors of the worldviews of the ancient Near East (B2). In short, the inspired authors cannot be honest (A2) because the cultures of the ancient Near East are filled with evil and idolatry and deception. Consequently, the stories of Noah’s flood are as true as the flood narrative in the Epic of Gilgamesh. But, Utnapishtim’s flood is a clearly a fictional… er… deceptive account (B2 contradicts A1). Such fiction (B2) complements the incorrectness of the science of the ancient Near East (B1).
0016 In sum, the greimas square offers a relational structure that re-articulates the focal concept of Articles IX and XII, the divine inspiration of Genesis 1-11. The affirmations become more focused. The denials become more nuanced. Fallenness (B1) becomes entangled with the world of the ancient Near East (B1a). Plus, history and science, as moderns (B2) know them, do not exist in this world (B2a). Rather, the worldviews of the ancient Near East are fictions, about things that may be true, but we cannot know about such truth, because all we know is what the texts say.
0017 The prior blog allows me to present a modified greimas square of articles nine and twelve, for the hermeneutics of biblical inerrancy.
Figure 05
This modification contains contrasts (B1a and B2a) that do not reject their respective affirmations (A1 and A2).
0018 So, what does modern science accomplish?
Modern science tells us that the worldviews of the ancient Near East are deceptive (B2a) and incorrect (B1a).
For example, one Sumerian origin myth goes like this.
In the beginning, the god of the waters above co-mingles with the god of the waters below. Later, the latter gives birth to the air god, who then separates the two parents. Similarly, the dome above the air is solid, just like the dome under our feet. Clearly, these statements are not scientific. The first is pure fiction (B2a). The second is incorrect (B1a).
Questions arise.
Is there a scientific hypothesis explaining why the origin stories of the ancient Near East are inherently flawed (hence, incorrect) (B1a)?
Is there a scientific hypothesis explaining why the origin myths of the ancient Near East veil what may be real historical events (hence, deceptive) (B2a)?
Here is another modified greimas square of articles nine and twelve, for the hermeneutics of biblical inerrancy.
Figure 06
This is what science accomplishes, as of 2005 AD.
0019 What does modern science not accomplish?
Modern science has no explanation for why particular mythological (B2a) and mechanical (B1a) constructions might have occupied the civilizations of the ancient Near East.
0020 Are scientists missing an important clue, such as what all the origin stories of the ancient Near East actually say?
The origin myths of the ancient Near East portray a recent creation of humans by a differentiated (not primordial) divinity (or divinities) (B2a).
Also, as noted in the e-work, Comments on David Melvin’s Essay (2010) “Divine Mediation and the Rise of Civilization”, the origin myths of the ancient Near East depict the potentiation of civilization through gifts from the gods (B1a).
0021 All this changes starting in 2012.
A new scientific hypothesis is proposed, accounting for why our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The proposal is stated plainly The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace and dramatized in An Archaeology of the Fall, by Razie Mah, and available at smashwords and other e-book vendors.
0022 The hypothesis of the first singularity does not reject the affirmations (A1 and A2) of the Evangelical Theological Society. Plus, the hypothesis addresses questions that modern science cannot (before 2012) wrestle with.
The first singularity explains why the myths of ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia can do not envision their own ancestry, deep in evolutionary time.
The first singularity explains why the innovations of civilization seem to just appear out of nowhere, like gifts from gods.
0023 Kulikovsky’s section on biblical inerrancy opens questions of epistemology. Epistemology concerns Scripture and the problem of interpretation. Epistemology is the logos (word) of episteme (knowledge).
I have already encountered two contrasts. The first is truth versus falsehood, or correct versus incorrect. The second is truth versus deception, or honest versus deceptive.
0024 How does the talking serpent in Genesis 2:4-4 fit into this picture?
Science can prove that serpents do not speak, except, of course, for some of my old bosses and co-workers, if you catch my drift. This proof goes into B1b.
Also, the appearance of the talking serpent in the stories of Adam and Eve must be figurative, not real. But, the text depicts a real character. So, the talking serpent is a fiction… er… deception. This conjecture goes into B2b.
Figure 07
0025 What happens when I consider the hypothesis of the first singularity?
Well, the Genesis serpent ends up crawling on its belly. This means that it does not have hands or feet.
Also, the mythical talking serpent in Genesis misleads the naive Eve.
It does so using speech-alone talk.
0026 As it turns out, the hypothesis of the first singularity proposes that civilization is potentiated by a change in the way that humans talk, from hand-speech talk (two fully fledged ways of talking in a single language) to speech-alone talk (where hand-speech talk loses the hand component). The semiotic qualities of hand-speech and speech-alone talk are radically different. The change in semiotic qualities explains the potentiation ofunconstrained social complexity.
Plus, the first culture to practice speech-alone talk is the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia.
0027 Oh, suddenly, the story of the temptation of Eve makes more sense.
If the serpent has no hands, then it cannot practice hand-speech talk. Instead, the way the serpent talks makes it an exemplar of speech-alone talk (B1b).
This implies that the talking serpent is both figurative and real.
Plus, the talking serpent implies that speech-alone talk associates to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After all, that tree is the creature’s hangout.
0028 What else?
Presumably, hand-speech talk, which starts with the first anatomically modern humans over 200,000 years ago, associates to the tree of life.
0029 Yes, the semiotic differences between hand-speech talk and speech-alone talk are substantial. They are so great that the speech-alone talking serpent does not represent the traditions of hand-speech talk, characteristic of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Instead, the serpent draws Eve into the world that God commanded her not to enter, the world-building milieu of speech-alone talk.
Oh, speech-alone talk is the defining character of our current Lebenswelt.
0030 Here is a picture of the greimas square.
Figure 08
Consider the sequence of blogs for January 2022, at www.raziemah.com, titled, Looking at Mark Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil”.
0031 From the last few blogs, I show that the propositions that the Evangelical Theological Society affirm and deny, in 1978, may be placed into a greimas square.
Initially, this greimas square allows me to see that modern evolutionary science, before 2005, denies the Society’s affirmations and affirms its denials. So, either the Evangelical Theological Society or evolutionary theorists are correct.
Before 2005, the greimas square, even with modifications, represents a standoff. The relational structure cannot hold, unless modern evolutionary science comes up with a new discovery, such as the hypothesis of the first singularity.
0032 With the hypothesis of the first singularity, the science-oriented stances that Christian theologians once denied for good reason (B1 and B2), may be now rendered as contrasts to affirmed theological propositions (A1 and A2).
Such a change marks a new age of understanding, hence the title in the following diagram.
0033 Here is a picture of the sensible construction of biblical Genesis 1-11.
Figure 09
0034 Allow me to compare this to the original diagram.
The content-level normal context changes from writing3a, which implies that there are authors, to composing3a, which implies that there are people who are reciting the stories of witnesses2a, reporting on real events1a as best they can. Scribes eventually record these recitals2a. These texts are then assembled… or… “redacted” into the canonical text.
Thus, as affirmed by Articles IX and XII of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, the biblical text is correct and honest2b.
0035 Certainly, there are intended messages1a, but these are locked within the realness of the biblical witness1a. The history that Genesis 2:4-11 portrays shows a world rife with falsehood and deception, both of which are associated with “world building”. The intended message of the witnesses1a concerns what is going on during the Ubaid, the Uruk and the Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods of southern Mesopotamia.
0036 The situation-level normal context remains the same, but now reading3b is more evocative, because a scientific notion is now entangled with the biblical text.
The hypothesis of the first singularity does not deny what the Evangelical Theological Society affirms1b. Yet, the hypothesis contrasts with their affirmations.
0037 Now, the truth and honesty that is presumed by theological interpretation2b, plays out against the backdrop of the “world building” in the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian archaeological periods of southern Mesopotamia1b. The reader can envision Genesis 2:4-11 as an insider’s view of the emergence of civilization in the milieu of the first culture practicing speech-alone talk.
0038 So, what happens to the scientific acolyte, who fashions the talking serpent in Genesis 2:4-4 as scientifically false, even though the serpent talks in precisely the same manner as someone who fashions himself a scientific skeptic?
There is more than one way to deny the Evangelical Theological Society’s affirmations in Articles IX and XII.
0039 Kulikovsky elaborates in the section titled, “The influence of postmodernism.”
Yes, “postmodernism” is a bell, clanging for modernists to flee the conflagration of their so-called “scientific” world building and run into new paradigms of falsehood and deception. Perhaps, we are entering a new age, The Age of Triadic Relations, where paradigms built on the manipulation and elevation of spoken words are revealed to be… well… as old as Adam and Eve.
0040 Kulikovsky starts with Soren Kierkegaard (7613-7655 U0′), who gets the bell tolling with the claim that true knowledge is completely subjective. Later, postmodern existentialism elevates the claim to a limiting condition, where it is not possible to express absolute truth in propositional form.
Of course, this limiting condition violates the terms of um… itself.
0041 Never mind that.
What postmodern existentialists propose is that it is not possible to express absolute truth in propositional form (B1), in um… speech-alone talk, so the Bible cannot be the inspired word of God (denial of A1).
Why?
Interpretations based on biblical inerrancy presume that absolute truth may be expressed in propositional form. Therefore, traditional interpreters of the Bible are deceiving themselves (B2 is denial of A2).
0042 So, if the intention of the biblical authors is to express absolute truth, then their propositions may asymptotically approach, but never attain, the theoretical limit.
That suggests that the greimas square of hermeneutics, as modified by the hypothesis of the first singularity, cannot reach the theoretical limit set by postmodern existentialists.
0043 To me, this sounds a lot like that divine command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
I ask, “What is wrong with that tree?”
Isn’t knowledge a good thing?
0044 Well, what about the knowledge of the proposition that no spoken proposition can express absolute truth?
Can this proposition express absolute truth?
Of course, by self-acclamation, it cannot.
0045 What does it express?
Perhaps, the proposition expresses themanipulation of spoken language in order to gain some sort of advantage.
0046 Ah, the hypothesis of the first singularity produces a scientific contrast (B1b) that suggests that the postmodern existentialist proposition can be made, but…
