0009 Words refer to things.

When one talks about literal interpretations of a text, things are typically sensible.

This is where Walton’s terms, reference and affirmation apply.  Reference points out the presence the thing.  If there is no presence, then reference is not relevant.  Affirmation indicates the form of the thing.  If the thing is present, then it should have a form.

Aristotle comes to mind.  Literal interpretations of a text make sense when it comes to things.  Things contain two contiguous real elements, matter and form.

0010 Things belong to Peirce’s category of secondness, the realm of actuality.  Peirce proposes three categories: thirdness, secondness and firstness.  The name represents the number of elements in the category.  Thirdness includes an element that brings the other two categories into relation.  Secondness consists of two contiguous real elements.  For proper notation, I place the contiguity in brackets in the following figure.  Firstness contains one monadic element.

0011 Aristotle’s hylomorphe is an exemplar of Peirce’s category of secondness.

Plus, the contiguity between matter and form may be labeled with the much abused term, “substance”.

0012 How does this apply to a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Consider the following application.

0013 Now, if a literal interpretation regards the text as a thing, then matter must be presupposed, because the text is present.  For the Bible, matter is revealed.  Matter may include being (in Latin, ens, being itself).  Beings are relational.  So, revealed matter may be called “being substantiating”.  In Latin, this corresponds to the term, “esse”.  Esse_ce is the matter (or being) of what goes into a literal interpretation.  In other words, the text portrays something real that substantiates form.

If the text is a thing, then it must take a form.  For a literal interpretation of the Bible, scripture is a form that literally portrays forms.  This is the essence of the literal interpretation of scripture. 

0014 Here is a diagram.

In Walton’s terminology, “reference” corresponds to esse_ce (that is, matter or being substantiating).

“Affirmation” corresponds to essence, (that is, substantiated form).

0015 Literalism assumes that the esse_ce and the essence of what the Biblical text says is as real as the presence and the form of the Biblical text itself.

0016 Now, if I know a person and that person tells me something, then what that person tells me is a real as the person that I know.

This may seem to be an odd way to consider how literalism works.

Literalism presumes that what the Bible says is as reliable as the person writing the text.

According to the Old Testament, that person is Moses.

But, for the past two centuries, an academic movement called higher criticism strives to ascertain who wrote the Old Testament, by analyzing writing styles within the text itself.  Each writing style indicates a different person.

0017 Perhaps, there is an additional complication.

I suppose that I need to figure how the person that I know (the author) makes what the person says (the biblical text) real.

One answer is that the person that I know serves as a mediator that turns the matter of something into the form of an… um… text.

The triadic structure of mediation comes to mind.

A triadic relation is a relation that employs all three of Peirce’s categories.

0018 Here is a picture.

0019 The mediation₃ itself belongs to thirdness.  Thirdness contains three elements, one from each category.  The subscript indicates the category.  Thirdness is the realm of triadic relations, including mediations, signs, judgments and category-based nested forms.

Peirce’s concept of precission is on display in the structure of mediation₃.  Precission underscores the fact that each higher level emerges from the adjacent lower level.

Thirdness prescinds from secondness.

Note how there are two real elements that support the mediation₃.

The first is efficient causality₂.  Efficient causes₂ are at work in turning matter₁ into form₂.

The second is called “formal requirements₂“.  Every design₁ has formal requirements₁.

For example, a text (as form₂) has a formal requirement of an author saying something₁ (as matter).  If the author says nothing, then the text is blank.  So, a text₂ (as form) implies that someone₃ (the mediator) is saying something₁ (as matter) according to the author’s design₁.

Design₁ belongs to the realm of possibility, so the author’s design₁ can somehow manifest God’s design₁.  For example, a warning of an impending event could also be God’s way of telling future generations that the author is prophetic,because the warning turns out to be applicable to an event far into the future.

0020 The form₂ belongs to secondness.  Secondness is the realm of actuality.  Secondness prescinds from firstness.  In this case, the form₂ prescinds from intention₁.  Like formal design₁, final causes₁ belong to firstness, the realm of potential.

0021 Finally, matter₁ belongs to firstness.  And that is quizzical, because in Aristotle’s hylomorphe, matter belongs to secondness.

0022 Okay, mediation₃ portrays that matter₁ becomes form₂ in a triadic relation.

Aristotle’s hylomorphe says that {matter₂ [substantiates] form₂} in a dyadic relation.

How am I to understand these two configurations?

0023 Oh, the term, “understanding”, calls to mind the category-based nested form.

We encounter things as actualities₂.

We can understand the thing that we encountered₂ by placing it₂ in a normal context₃ and potential₁.

0024 Here is a picture.

0025 For further reading, consult A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other book venues.

If I put the above figure into words, I say, “A normal context₃ brings an actuality₂ into relation with the possibility of ‘something’₁.”

0026 For a literal interpretation of the text, the text tells us things, corresponding to Aristotle’s hylomorphes.  A thing is present because of matter.  A thing is what it is because of form. 

0027 I know what you are thinking.

What about John H. Walton’s book?

Is it about literalism?

0028 If so, from the introduction, I gather that matter has something to do with what makes Genesis 1-11 present.  Or maybe, what does Genesis 1-11 make present?

I label Genesis 1-2.3, “the Creation Story”.  I label Genesis 2.4-11, “the Primeval History”.  Some authors differ on this nomenclature.

0029 Okay, Walton wants to narrow these explorations to Genesis 1-4, the Creation Story and the Story of the Fall.

0030 The form is the scriptural text itself.  In particular, the form is written in Hebrew, using particular words.  The form is substantiated by the cultural circumstances of authors living in ancient Near East civilizations.

Indeed, the canonized form reflects the circumstances of redactors living some time after the return to Jerusalem after the exile to Babylon.

0031 Here, I am getting ahead of myself.

Why? 

Literalism presumes that what the Bible says is as reliable as the person writing the text.

Walton asserts that what Genesis 1-4 says is as reliable as the redactors who composed the text.

0032 In order to understand this, we must look at the Creation Story and the Story of the Fall as a thing₂ that enters a category-based nested form.

Plus, this nested form corresponds to a redaction₃ as the mediation₃.

0033 Here is the general picture.

This figure expresses a mediation as if it is a category-based nested form.

Mediation₃ becomes the normal context₃.  The formal design₁ and final attributes₁ go into potential₁.  Matter_1(?)substantiates form₂.  The substance contains efficient causes₂ and formal requirements₂.

0034 Now, the redactor₃ operates in the name of Moses.  So, it is my understanding that the mediation₃ involves divine inspiration₃ and the formal design₁ concerns what the redactors are constructing₁ (with God’s permission) and um… their intentions₁ (again, with God in the picture₁).

The normal context₃ and potential₁ are on display in the introduction in a section titled, “Synopsis of the Message of Genesis 1-3”.

0035 A mediator₃ compiles Genesis.  That mediator is the redactor₃.  The redactor₃ operates on a design₁ and with intentions₁. 

0036 In the Creation Story, one intention is to show that God’s acts of creation bring order, where order grounds a stable and properly working world.  God’s design is for humans (His image bearers) to work alongside God as partners for bringing order.  God is sovereign, and His royal presence in His cosmion… er, temple… establishes a patronage relation with humans.

0037 In the Story of the Fall, the intention is to describe people’s inability to create meaning.  Genesis 2.4-4 portrays several attempts to establish order, like naming the animals, obtaining a side-splitting helper, going naked and not being ashamed, as well as obeying the command not to eat from that poisonous tree.  I don’t know whether these activities are designed to establish order.  To me, they sound like things to do in the royal gardens of a deity who will let one get away with anything but one thing.

0038 After doing that one thing, the humans get evicted from the royal gardens and have to figure out how to achieve order on their own.  Civilization follows.

Well, in Genesis 4-11 civilization does not offer an improvement.  A reader can argue that the revelation (matter) is designed to show how the usual ways for seeking order do not work.  Only a covenant with God will save the people of Israel.

0039 I hope that I report the author’s text correctly, because I know that literalism presumes that what my text says is as reliable as the person writing the text.

I call this, “authorial authority”.

0040 If I look at the above figure, I conclude that my own authorial authority may be questionable when it comes to laying out the mediation₃ (by the “redactor” or “compiler”), the formal design₁ (to orient the people returning after the exile) and the final causes₁ or intentions (to communicate about the nature of order in the ancient Near East cultural milieu… er… river).

0041 After that confession, I turn to chapter two, concerning methodology, and happily report that the Lost World booksare grounded on the premise of biblical authority.

God’s authority is vested in human instruments (as a formal requirement₂).  Human agency operates through the Hebrew language, communication styles, genres and cultural understandings (efficient causes₂).

0042 The focus shifts to actuality₂.

0043 Here is the general picture.

0044 Savor this image, because I am about to mess it up.

Yes, this is as clear as the thing₂ gets.

0045 Matter should belong to secondness, but because the thing is a mediation, that secondness is really a questionable expression of firstness.

Questionable expression?

Well, let me say that I am looking for a piece of wood in a woodpile.  Of course, each piece₁ is potentially the piece that I will choose.  I choose only one peice₂.  An observer may wonder_1(?) what I am doing (mediation₃) and whether that piece with fulfill₂ my design₁ (formal potential₁) and satisfy my intent₁.

0046 Now, apply that lesson to Hebrew words.

Apply that to scripture.

Who is choosing the words?

0047 Let me present the theological hylomorphe, once again.  Notice that mediation₃ is the unspoken normal context.  Also, God’s design₁ and God’s intentions₁ are out of the picture.  Only the actuality₂ remains for examination.

0048 This is the standard application for a mediation-based hylomorphe of Genesis 1-11.  Matter_1(?) belongs to firstness.  Revelation brings matter₁ into secondness.  Yet, there is always the tag of possibility, because our view of what is revealed may change.

At this point, the theological question may be formulated as, “What does Genesis 1-11 reveal?”

0049 As soon as the substance (per mediation) translates into efficient causes₂ and formal requirements₂, then the literalist has an easier time.  Revelation₂ as matter₁ now works mechanically in order to render the form₂ of Genesis 1-11.

For example, for the six days of creation-activity, each “day” as form₂ implicates, through the efficient causation of celestial periodicity₂ and the formal requirement that the period manifests God design₂, a variety of schools of interpretation.

One of those schools is a day-age correspondence, where a day in the life of a human is like an age in the um… experience?… of God.

Another is a “day”-Earth rotation correspondence, which speeds the creation business up a lot.  But, not for the variation of a “day”-human vision correspondence, which comports with the day-age school.

0050 John H. Walton’s Lost World Inquiry endeavors to make the literalist’s work more sensible, because he joins the civilizational conditions of the ancient Near East (ANE) to revealed matter_1(?).  He labels these ANE conditions as a “cultural river”.  The biblical author (redactor) floats in a river of cultural assumptions, just as we all do.

0051 The Lost World thing presumes biblical authority.

How is “biblical authority” configured?

The revealed matter_1(?) aspect still touches base with the off-screen divine mediation₃₍₁₎.

But, the revealed matter_1(?) must be couched by the author’s presence in an ANE cultural river₂.

If God’s authority₃ is vested in the human instruments that he used to produce Scripture (formal requirement₂), and if human agency operates within a cultural river₂, then the literalist is required to engage ANE languages, rhetorical styles, genres, and cultural understanding.

0052 Walton labels the substance of the Lost World hylomorphe, “accommodation”.

All effective communication requires accommodation to the audience.  The audience of the first publication of the Pentateuch… er, the five books of Moses… is the folk coming back from exile in Babylon, hoping against all odds to re-establish the kingdom of… what used to be Judah, but is now Israel.

0053 At this point in the section on method, Walton states that the purpose of Lost World Inquiry is to recover the literary intentions built into the text.

Is that the same as revealed matter_1(?)?

If one looks off-screen, this actuality₂ is contextualized by the normal context of divine mediation₃ and potentiated by the formal cause of God’s design₁ and the final causes of God’s intentions₁.

0054 Am I suggesting that the cultural river₂ of ANE civilizations is potentiated by God’s design₁ and intentions₁ in the normal context of divine mediation₃?

If so, then the thing₂ that is the object of Lost World Inquiry may be regarded as a “high-context mediation”… er…. “communication”.  The topics of reference (esse_ce) and affirmation (essence) are introduced here.  I have already covered them in point 0014.  The thing is not the text of Genesis 1-11_2, per se.  The form is the text of Genesis1-11 as substantiated by the matter of revelation_1(?) and the cultural rivers of the ANE₂.

0055 A reader may ask, “What type of methodology is this?”

Consider the construction of the book under examination.  There five sections: introduction (chapter 1), methods (2), results (3-8), discussion (9) and conclusion (10).

0056 I ask, “What is the genre indicated by this construction?”

Of course, science comes to mind.

In terms of genre, this book is a scientific publication.

According to the empirio-schematic judgment, a disciplinary language (relation) brings mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is).

0057 A reference is appropriate here.  Razie Mah derives the empirio-schematic and Positivist’s judgments in Looking at Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy.  The book is available for purchase at smashwords and other e-book venues.

In the scientific publication that is under examination, the disciplinary language (relation) includes expertise in the languages and cultures of the ANE.  Walton, as a scientist, observes and measures, not only the Genesis text, but other literature of the ancient Near East (what is).  Finally, the hylomorphe of Lost World Inquiry is the model (what ought to be).

0058 Now, hold onto your seat, because I am about to go off the rails.

How can Aristotle’s hylomorphe constitute a model when the positivist intellect rules out metaphysics?

The positivist intellect is the relation in the Positivist’s judgment.  Aristotle’s hylomorphe as matter [substantiating] form, should not apply.

0059 This is where the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics assists.

During the 1960s through the 1980s, a loose confederation of academics, experts in Slavic languages and literature,struggles with a mandate of the socialist regime of the USSR.  All scientific inquiry must conform to the fact that material arrangements substantiate human conditions.

This fact… is really a doctrine… I mean, a model… that is, a thing.

0060 Here is a picture.

0061 Does this imply that the hylomorphe of Walton’s Lost World Inquiry is a fact… a doctrine… a model… and a thing?

Yeah, read the section on methodology and decide for yourself.

Instead of Marxist materialism, insert the hylomorphe of the Lost World Inquiry.

0062 How is that for going off the rails?

The train doesn’t stop. 

0063 I now refer to Razie Mah’s blogs for December 2025, titled Looking at Igor Pilshchikov and Mikhail Trunin’s Article (2016) “The Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics”.

The story is absolutely implausible.  These experts in Slavic languages labor to accommodate the Marxist model, whereby material arrangements [substantiate] human conditions, while retaining their… um… “academic integrity”.

Is there really referent to that term?

How about “academic turf”?

The problem is that they are not psychologists.  So, material arrangements cannot be reduced to brain processes.  They are not sociologists.  So material arrangements cannot be reduced to sociological conditions.  They are not experts in communication, so material arrangements cannot be reduced to signal-to-noise ratios.  But, they are sort of compatible with cyberneticists, because no one knows what a cyberneticist actually studies.

0064 Okay, this loose affiliation of experts in Slavic languages and literature propose their own version of the cybernetics option.  Their research seeks to penetrate various levels of signs and structure that are intrinsic to the production of a literary text and then recover the literary intentions that are built into the text.

Does that sound familiar?

In order to perform such penetrations and recoveries, they adopt methodologies called “semiology” and “structuralism”to fashion a bridge from the literary text as form to a scientific language of meaning, presence and message as matter.

0065 In this performance, they make a discovery.

0066 Aristotle’s hylomorphe has an unexpected fraternal twin.

Together, they constitute a very dangerous pair.

A single form is substantiated by one matter and then entangles another matter.

Any adult can come up with an example that is dangerous, but what about enriching?

0067 If Jesus turns his apostles into fishers of men, then he creates an confounding.

For the hylomorphe, Jesus [empowers] the apostles to preach.  The substance is [empowering].

For the entanglement, the preaching of the apostles [entangles and hooks] the imagination of humans.  The entanglement confounds the hylomorphe and makes it enriching.

And, that is very dangerous.

Just ask Second Temple Sadducees and Pharisees.

0068 Here is a picture.

0069 A confounding of substance, on one hand, and entanglement, on the other, can be either enriching or destructive.  So, watch out for confoundings.

0070 Atheists working for a socialist regime end up discovering an insight held deep within Slavic civilization.

How crazy is that?

0071 Indeed, the first Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics (1960s-1980s) never ideated the insight as an implication of the historic reality that the Slavic civilization has an unbroken line of tradition through Eastern Christianity all the way back to Aristotle.  This makes the Slavic civilization intrinsically distinct from Western Christendom, where only Platonic traditions survive the fall of Rome and Aristotle’s works are recovered during the Crusades.

0072 Here is a picture of the confounding.

0073 The Islamic civilizations of the Near East are still angry about the Crusaders trashing the place and setting up shop.  History adds insult to injury with Thomas Aquinas baptizing Aristotle’s philosophy and moving the logosforward into (what eventually gives rise to) the discovery of the sign as a triadic relation by John Poinsot (in the early 1600s) and Charles Peirce (in the late 1800s).

Strangely, these historic memories are supplemented by the modern Western colonization that yields the treasure trove that we currently label “the literature of the ancient Near East”.

0074 Be that as it may, let me write out the confounding discovered by the Tartu-Moscow School.

Two matters (one substantiating, one entangled) are contiguous with one form.

0075 The top three rows constitute the Marxist model of our current Lebenswelt.

The bottom three rows constitute a foundational insight of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics.

0076 Why are confoundings dangerous?

Here is how one atheist genius operating within the Tartu-Moscow School resolves the danger.

0077 This resolution only happens after the fall of the godless USSR.

This resolution is a tribute to the Aristotle-loving Christian faith of an Orthodox civilization.

0078 Yes, the business about the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics, at least its first manifestation (1960s-1980s), is off the rails.

No, I am still on the track of Walton’s methodology in chapter two.

0079 Here is an application to the interpretation of the Creation Story (Genesis 1-2.3) and the Primeval History(Genesis 2.4-11).

0080 In the scientific modern age, the Christian imagination is informed by science.  Since the positivist intellect rules out metaphysics (especially, when “metaphysics” means “religious presuppositions”), many aspects of the Christian imagination are already… how shall I phrase it?… “disallowed”.

After all, science is invented only after the plain-speaking traditions of the Reformation are hijacked by the speak-plainly exhortations of the mechanical philosophers.  Disciplinary languages are constructed in such a fashion that the meaning, presence and message of each technical term is obvious to all.  Technical terms are rigorously defined.

0081 This is absolutely the case for the disciplinary languages of mathematics, physics and chemistry and its derivatives, including astronomy, geology, biochemistry, and so on. 

This is a little less absolute for the disciplinary languages of biology and its derivatives.  After all, what do the words, “adaptation” and “niche”, really mean?

This is no longer absolute for the disciplinary sciences related to humans, but pretending to be scientific, ranging from economics to health sciences.

Finally, this is downright wooly when variations of Aristotle’s hylomorphe are taken to be models.

0082 Now, where was I?

Oh yes, the modern Christian imagination is informed by science.

This can be pictured as a confounding, as follows.

0083 Of course, confoundings are dangerous.

John H. Walton resolves the danger in the following fashion.

0084 Hmmm.

On page 36, it seems that the author explicitly rejects this resolution.  He does not suggest that the literature of the ancient Near East (ANE) carries authority or that it stands next to Scripture.  Instead, he insists that the literature of the ANE provides a reliable window into how people thought in the ancient world.  Therefore, it um… provides information… that is… um… essential to the process of interpretation.

0085 All this goes into the drawer labeled, “methodology”.

Before skipping over the frequently asked questions portion in this chapter, I want to review one caveat and introduce one implication.

0086 The caveat is that the Lost World hylomorphe descends from mediation as a triadic relation.  The substance is efficient causation₂ along with formal requirements₂.

0087 Here is a picture.

Keep in mind that a thing is composed to two contiguous real elements.  So, the actuality₂ constitutes the object of Walton’s Lost World Inquiry.

0089 Walton assumes that the above category-based nested form is shared by fellow inquirers, especially evangelicals in the plain-speaking traditions of the Reformation.

One problem is that this assumption does not receive the attention that it deserves.  This category-based nested form is key to the success of the Lost World Project.

Unfortunately, the normal context₃ of divine mediation₃ and the potential of God’s design₁ and intentions₁ does not limit itself to the slogan, sola scriptura, now that God has revealed the archaeology of the ancient Near East to the still-Christian western civilization.

In other words, modern excavations and reconstructions of ancient Near East civilizations cannot be ignored by Christian theologians.

0090 As noted in points 0079-0084, Walton’s resolution occurs once the hylomorphe of traditional theological inquiry into the Creation Story and the Primeval History as objects of inquiry entangles the archaeological discoveries of the ancient Near East (ANE).

0091 Fortunately, Walton’s resolution resists entanglements with the science-informed Christian imaginations that were formulated before the Lost World Inquiry.

Here is a picture.

0092 Say what?

John H. Walton does not want entanglements.  He wants a plain reading of the Genesis 1-11 text in light of ANE civilizational conditions and history.  This permits the exclusion of all preceding science-Christian entanglements.

Indeed, the frequently asked-question section in the chapter on methodology beats back many expressions of Christian imaginations informed by science.

Many of these expressions are ruled out as not relevant, once one regards Israelite thinking as embedded in the conceptual world of the ANE.

0093 This examination suggests that Walton’s lockdown of the science-informed Christian imagination will not last long.

Why?

We have entered the fourth age of understanding, the Age of Triadic Relations.

0094 If Juri Lotman, a Marxist atheist, ends up convinced that we live in a semiosphere, a world perfused with signs, and if that conviction resurrects a theological insight buried deep within the Orthodox Church and Slavic civilization, then what happens when plain-speaking reformers embrace semiotic points of view?

Will such an embrace fire the Christian imagination, already informed by science?

Yipes!

0095 What happens when, in question number seven on page 36, scholars suggest that both Israelites and other people in the ANE believed that the sky is a solid dome?

Akkadian texts contain passages that proclaim that the stars are engraved on the underside of a solid sky.

Egyptian art portrays stars embedded in the underside of the body of Nut, the god of the firmament.

0096 The thing that is the “sky” is considered solid to the peoples in the ANE.  Solid matter substantiates the form of the term “firmament”.

But, this claim sets up the occasion for an entanglement with… gasp… the semiotics of natural signs.

0097 To the Israelites and the peoples of the ANE, the solid dome is a sign-vehicle (SV) that stands for the sign-object of the word “firmament” (SO) in regards to imagery, appearances and so forth (SI).

The referent (as matter) precedes the spoken word (as form).

At the same time, the referent (as sign-vehicle, SV) stands for the spoken word (as sign-object, SO) on the basis of imagery (a sign-interpretant, SI).

How confounding!

0098 Perhaps, the above figure may not offer a proper introduction to the way that semiotics gets entangled in the way that the appearance of a solid dome (SV) stands for the word, “firmament” (SO), in regards to the semiotic way that things can be pictured or pointed to (SI).

Semiotic way (SI)?

The appearance of the thing (the sky, SV) as matter is objectified by a spoken word, “firmament” (SO), as form, as if the spoken word pictures or points to the thing itself (SI).

The key point is “as if”.

0099 In terms of existence, the sky comes first.

Then, the person notices that the sky has the appearance of a dome.  Plus, that dome looks solid, even though the air… does not seem solid at all.

Now comes the label, “firmament”, which is the form that is substantiated by the matter of the solidity of the dome.

But, what is the basis of that substantiation?

0100 The normal context₃ of mediation₃ and the potentials₁ of design₁ and intention₁ are off screen.

But, if they were on screen, I imagine that the mediation₃ is something like the establishment of the natural order of things₃ and the design₁ would be a solid dome with the intention₁ of a structure to hang those shiny little stars, plus the planets, which are moving stars₁.

That is to say, the sign-interpretant (SI) is picture… or an indicator… or a symbol of the mediation₃ and its potential₁.

0101 With that said, I claim that what I imagine as an image, a pointing or a label may be regarded as one of the three types of the natural sign: icon, index and symbol.

In this instance, the solid dome as matter [substantiates] the term, “firmament”, as form.

Plus, this thing entangles an iconic natural sign-relation, where the solidity of the dome (SV) portrays the design and intention (SI) of a sign-object, a spoken word, “firmament” (SO), in regards to God’s establishment of the natural order of things (SI).

0102 How crazy is that?

If the spoken words (as forms) of the Israelites and the people of the ANE civilizations entangle a sign-relation as matter, as if it is perfectly routine, then we have a problem with spoken words.  Spoken words do not refer to things. Spoken words are forms in confoundings.  Plus, we already know that confoundings are dangerous.  Okay, they also may be enriching.  But, this looks unhinged.

Maybe, all that I need to do is tighten the screws.

0103 If I proceed to turn in the same direction, the reference of the solidity of the dome as esse_ce affirms the form of the spoken word, “firmament” as essence, on the basis that… um… spoken words picture and point to things?… no, it cannot be that…. appearances?… convention?… habits?… or maybe we can consult the breakthrough 20th century linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure and say, “arbitrary relations”.

If a thing as matter [substantiates] a spoken word as form, then the only way that the substance works is when a mediation₃, formal design₁ and a final cause₁ are present as entangled matter.

But, they are not directly entangled.  They are entangled by way of a natural sign-relation.  An icon, index or symbol corresponds to the entangled matter.

0104 Yes, that sounds perfectly logical and completely screwed up at the same time.

0105 To me, the entanglement of a sign-relation as matter demonstrates that there is more to Walton’s terms, referenceand affirmation, than meets the eye.  They do not actually₂ work without a normal context₃ and potential₁.  The normal context₃ is mediation₃.  The potential₁ include formal design₁ and final attributes₁.  These elements of the category-based nested form are off-screen.  A natural sign-relation brings them on-screen in a confounding manner.

0106 I ask, “What is Walton doing in his Lost World Inquiry?”

Well, let me switch matter and form around and present the entangled matter as a sign-relation.

The spoken word goes from form to matter.  The solidity of the dome goes from matter to form.

The “firmament” as matter [substantiates] the solidity of the dome as form.

Does the correspond to what Walton proposes concerning how the spoken word operates?  

The term “firmament”, as a sign-vehicle (SV) [substantiates] the solid dome, as a sign-object (SO).

I am turning in the same direction, aren’t I?

0107 Matter is the entangled SV.  Form is the entangled SO.  Some sort of natural picture, indicator or representation of the corresponding mediation₃ and its potentials₁ is the SI.

The spoken word as matter is the SV.  If the solid dome as form is the SO, then an originating natural sign… dare I call it relation?… maybe, “connection”, will do… is the SI.  

Here is a picture.

0108 What Walton is doing is in green.  The entanglement is in purple.

0109 First, what is Walton’s thing?

Walton’s thing is a hylomorphe that takes the shape of a sign-vehicle (as originating matter) and sign-object (as form) when entangled with semiotic matter (as a sign-interpretant).

0110 According to Ferdinand de Saussure, a spoken word (parole) is arbitrarily related to its corresponding thought (langue).  Consequently, each spoken word (parole) exists in a system of differences.   So does its corresponding thought (langue).

0111 Perhaps, Walton does not endorse semiology or structuralism, but I suspect that he regards the word, “firmament”(or whatever the Hebrew word is) as matter (SV) that stands for a solid dome as form (SO) in regards to the way people think in ancient civilizations (SI).

0111 Uh oh.  The Lost World Inquiry is supposed to recover the way people think in ancient civilizations!

Plus, as already noted, people in the ancient civilizations of the Near East apparently turn the screw the other way.

The solidity of the dome as matter [substantiates] the term, “firmament”, as form.