01/1/26

Looking at Melinda A. Zeder’s Article (2025) “Unpacking the Neolithic” (Part 1 of 4)

0001 If I may present my conclusion at the beginning, “I suggest the following motto: First the bauplan, then the twist.”

0002 The full title of the essay under examination is “Unpacking the Neolithic: Assessing the Relevance of the Neolithic Construct in Light of Recent Research”. The article appears in the Journal of World Prehistory (2025) in volume 38:11, pages 1-58 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-025-09198-0). The author is affiliated with the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

0003 The author’s argument follows the Greek tradition of (A) setting out prior propositions, (B) adding further information and assessments and (C) proposing one’s own solution.

Prior propositions (A) are covered in the section titled, “The Origin of the Term ‘Neolithic'”.

Further information (B) includes sections on neolithic emergences in southwest Asia and other regions, including China, Japan, eastern north America, Mesoamerica and the northwest America.

The author’s proposal (C) appears in a section titled, “Repackaging the Neolithic”.

0004 I examine each movement in the sequence A, C then B.

0005 In regards to the historical origin of the term, “neolithic” (A), the word appears in the 1850s in the context of prehistoric lithic technology. A distinction between old “paleolithic” and new “neolithic” tools reflects a fairly recent change in the human condition. The Paleolithic extends very far back into the evolution of the Homo genus. The Neolithic is fairly new and applies only to Homo sapiens. By “new”, I mean, say, starting less that 20,000 years ago.

0006 As it turns out, stone tools and fossilized bones are the most recoverable items from the distant past. So, the idea that our kind evolves will of course rely of this type of data. The implications are significant. If lithic technologies are like matter, then the archaeologist may speculate on forms of prehistorical human (or “hominid” or “hominin”) conditions.

0007 For example, the earliest paleolithic stone tools are labeled “Oldowan”. These tools can be made on the fly. If I strike one rock with another, I can fracture off a shard and expose a sharp edge. Of course, one must choose the right rocks for this trick. Plus, technique is important.

Later stone tools are labeled “Acheulean”. These stone tools are made ahead of time, by the same technique of hammering off shards to reveal an intended form that… somehow… is intrinsic to the original rock.

0008 So, what am I suggesting?

Is the actuality of matter and form intrinsic to rocks, and ancestral hominins learn to tamper with one real element (matter) in order to sculpt the other real element (form)?

0009 I am suggesting more than that.

Aristotle’s hylomorphe (hylo = matter, morphe = form) is an exemplar of Peirce’s category of secondness. Secondness consists of (at least) two contiguous real elements. For paleolithic hominins, a rock (matter) could be sculpted into a stone tool (form). From the point of view of the archaeologist, the hylomorphic structure still applies. The question is, “How?”

Paleolithic stone-tool technology “sculpts” prehistorical human conditions.

0010 Of course, the word, “sculpts”, serves as an aesthetic metaphor for the contiguity between paleolithic technology as matter and hominin conditions as form.

0011 The challenge for nineteenth-century anthropology is clear. Propose a better, more scientific, or at least, less metaphysical, label for the contiguity.

With only geological strata, stone tools and fossilized bones as evidence, proposals were necessarily speculative. But, archaeologists continued digging, and by the 1850s could make the distinction between paleolithic and neolithic. Also, they figured out a reason for why the advance from Oldowan to Acheulean stone tools “sculpted” more advanced hominin conditions. Man was making himself.

0012 What do these evidential and rational developments suggest?

For a Peircean, secondness is the dyadic realm of actuality. Secondness is only one of Peirce’s three categories. The other two are thirdness (the triadic realm of normal contexts, judgments, signs, mediations and so forth) and firstness (the monadic realm of possibility).

Each of these categories manifests its own logic. Also, each higher numbered category prescinds from the adjacent lower category. Thirdness prescinds from secondness. Secondness prescinds from firstness. Prescission allows the articulation of the category-based nested form, as described in Razie Mah’ e-book, A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

0013 Thirdness bring secondness into relation with firstness.

A triadic normal context₃ brings a dyadic actuality₂ into relation with the possibility of ‘something’₁.

0014 Now I can slide the above dyad into the slot for actuality₂ for the category-based nested form intimated by the title of V. Gordon Childe’s 1936 book, Man Makes Himself.

0015 The slide clarifies the contiguity, paleolithic technology constellates a substance, which I label, “technique”, that manifests an essence for the conditions of evolving hominins (that is, a substantiated form).

Consequently, the appearance of a new stone tool technology indicates a change in techniques as well as a change in the essence of the prehistoric human condition.

0016 According to Childe (1892-1957), the “neolithic” label encompassed more than a change in lithic technology. The prehistoric human condition gets entangled with all sorts of other matters, including sedentary communities, economies of delayed returns, various modes of storage and so forth. A long list of material arrangements gets entangled.

0017 As it turns out, once matter substantiates form, then form can entangle other matter, which is a confounding. Here, “confounding” is a technical term, precisely labeling one form originating from one matter and entangling another matter.

Historically, a confounding is an idea that belongs to Aristotle’s tradition. It is stumbled upon long after Aristotle’s campus went out of business. It is the brainchild of the Byzantine and Slavic civilizations.

0018 Here is a picture of Childe’s confounding.

0019 The upper three lines presents the neolithic thing. Neolithic stone-tool technology [substantiates] the prehistoric human condition. The nature of the [substance] is labeled, “technique”.

The lower two lines presents the entangled matter. The [entanglement] is difficult to label, because its nature is.. well… a long list of material arrangements.

0020 A list of material arrangements appears in Table 1 of the article. Even the social components of social mechanism, magico-religious sanctions and trade can be shoved under the rug labeled, “material arrangements”.

0021 As such, the “neolithic” may serve as an adjective to a noun, “revolution”, that appeals to academics sympathetic to Marxist formulations. Yes, they are the ones who only promote academics with similar sympathies. Also, Childe was… um… a sympathizer.

The question is not about whether prehistoric folk are “communist” or “fascist”, even though these labels may apply to this or that anthropologist of the 1930s.

The question is whether the Marxist formula applies to prehistoric folk.

0022 The answer becomes obvious, when Childe’s confounding resolves into the following hylomorphic structure.

0023 The above figure depicts a Marxist version of Aristotle’s hylomorphe, {matter [substantiates] form}. Childe’s hylomorphe lasts for nine decades (that is, until the present day at the start of 2026). Man makes himself through a standard Marxist formulation. Soon, Soviet era archaeologists adopt the stance that the appearance of pottery is a hallmark of neolithic emergence. Pottery is a material arrangement. The emergence of the neolithic is a human condition.

01/1/26

Looking at Melinda A. Zeder’s Article (2025) “Unpacking the Neolithic” (Part 4 of 4)

0056 Okay, I will continue drinking my cocktail in the following exposition.

I regard the last two figures, along with the figures that appear in the article under examination.

0057 There is something in B that suggests two bauplans₃. Early Neolithic Bauplan 1 marks the terminus of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Late Neolithic Bauplan 2 denotes the start of our current Lebenswelt.

0058 Bauplan 1 looks like this.

The early Neolithic bauplan₃ does not permit untrammeled social and labor specializations. Rather, all social circles_2m (family (5), friends (5), teams (15), bands (50), and community (150)) are optimized_2f in the pursuit of the final cause of ‘settling down’₁. It is the same way that different organs and organ systems are optimized for ‘settling down’ into an individual.

Details of optimization will be specific to each location (because efficient causes differ), yet produce something ‘general’, that manifests in excavation sites as varied as Catal Hoyuk and Tepe Gobekli. Domestication includes the local geography, plants and animals. Domestication may even include settlements more than a day’s walk away. Domestication may include the heavens.

0059 Once rendered in this manner, the slow, seemingly reversible, spiral into the neolithic thing₂ gets depicted as thin dotted horizontal lines along the axes of arrangements versus time.

0060 The late Neolithic bauplan₃ permits individual social and labor specializations. Something significant has changed. The key final cause of ‘settling down’ remains relevant. However, another key final cause cannot be ignored. The optimization of the early Neolithic somehow breaks down and the late Neolithic initiates a search for order₁ that continues to this day.

0061 Here is a picture of what Bauplan 2 might look like.

0062 It is as if an individual, having been formed by a bauplan 1 gestation, gets born.

What a rude awakening.

0063 What about the timeline?

If I replace the increasing boldness of the horizontal dotted lines with a slowly rising bauplan 1 slope, and if I depict the most bold horizontal dotted lines as a bauplan 2 phase transition, then I get the following graph.

0064 What does this imply?

Obviously, bauplan 1 ends in a twist, that is, bauplan 2.

I noted this slogan at the start of my examination.

0065 Less obviously, the Neolithic revolution is not in the actuality of {material arrangements [substantiating] the neolithic condition}₂.

“The Neolithic Revolution” involves a transition from the Lebenswelt that we evolved in to our current Lebenswelt.

0066 Fortunately, for the author, the American Marxist academic candle is about to exhaust itself, just as the Soviet Marxist illumination did decades ago.

Yes, the crisis begins.

0067 The impending change of cognitive grounds will be at least as great as the following transition from Karl Marx (1818-1883) to Juri Lotman (1922-1993). This transition goes sigmoidal in 1989.

0068 The following hylomorphic transition is derived in Razie Mah’s blog for December 2025, titled Looking at Igor Pilshchikov and Mikhail Trunin’s Article (2016) “The Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics”.

0069 Marx’s actuality₂ is supposed to arise from the potential of scientific models₁, even though the actuality₂ served as doctrine, rather than a mechanical or mathematical formulation. Remember, Marx’s actuality₂ conforms to the structure of Peirce’s secondness. Secondness is the realm of actuality. How easy is it to confuse this actuality with the realness of a mechanical or mathematical model? Yet, they are not the same.

0070 Lotman’s actuality₂ arises from the potential of the semiosphere₁, the universe of sign-relations. Semiotic arrangements are not the same as material arrangements. They are not even close.

0071 So, what am I saying?

The author senses that ‘something’ is coming and she figures out that it must concern a bauplan.

After all, bauplan is a term that is familiar to evolutionary biologists.

0072 Happily, the semiotician, Razie Mah, has already explored human evolution from the point of view of Peirce’s categories. The human bauplan is an adaptation to the niche (or the potential) of triadic relations. Plus, human evolution comes with a twist.

Here is a list of works by Razie Mah that pertain to Bauplan 1 and Bauplan 2.

0073 Surely, this is a lot to unpack. But, that is precisely what Melinda Zeder’s article calls for.

My thanks to the author for publishing this thought piece.

Happy New Year.

11/29/25

Looking at Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) “Adam and the Genome” (Part 1 of 22)

0001 This essay comments on a 2017 book by biologist, Dennis Venema, and theologian, Scot McKnight. The title is Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science. The publisher is Brasos Press in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The book consists of two equal parts. The geneticist shows that Adam and Eve cannot be a single pair who founded the human species. The theologian wrestles with how to read Genesis in light of modern archaeology.

0002 My goal is to supplement these arguments in two ways. I will re-articulate ideas about evolutionary biology using the specialized language of the category-based nested form. I will present a scientific hypothesis that re-images the Adam and Eve stories as ancient Near Eastern fairy tales.

Perhaps, at the end of these comments, I can declare, “The old historical Adam is dead. Long live the new historical Adam.”

0003 Before I begin, I attend to some housekeeping items.

‘Words that belong together’ are denoted by single quotes or italics.

Suggested readings include Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form (#1), Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (#2), and the chapter on message in How to Define the Word “Religion”. These works, by Razie Mah, are available at smashwords and other e-book venues, along with the compilation of this blog, titled, Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome.

0004 In order to see where many evangelicals are coming from, consult the September 2010 issue of Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith. This particular journal of the American Scientific Affiliation presents a snapshot of some of the difficulties posed by the early chapters of Genesis.

0005 The 2017 book, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science, addresses one conundrum with a simple admission: Adam and Eve cannot be the progenitors of all humans, as proposed by Saint Augustine, 1600 years ago. The admission rebukes Christians striving to locate the primal couple in a genetic bottleneck event between 50 and 150 thousand years ago.

0005 Unfortunately, their solution provides little defense for Christian doctrine. Big government (il)liberals (BGilLs) claim that evolution disproves the second creation story in Genesis, just like the mercantilists, fascists and communists before them. BGiLs also insist that the Bible is the stuff of myths.

0006 Evangelical communities continue to bleed students.

Why?

Original Sin.

Christians think it describes the human condition.

BGilLs do not.

0007 Christians believe that humans are disoriented. Jesus provides orientation. Jesus is the way.

For BGilLs, the human condition is perfectible through a never-ending revolution by an administrative state. The human condition may be fulfilled by knowing one’s self. Or, is it – constructing – one’s self?

With Original Sin, we are actors in a theodrama that transcends critical theory. Indeed, critical theory may typify the corruption of Original Sin.

Without Original Sin, we are foolish players strutting on the world’s stage, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. So why not accept the ministrations of a totalitarian government? Why not construct oneself?

11/3/25

Looking at Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) “Adam and the Genome” (Part 22 of 22)

0243 Certainly, Venema and McKnight lower two curtains on the historical Adam envisioned by Saint Augustine.

0244 With these comments, each curtain takes on a life of its own.

0245 The fact that descent with modification embodies the same relational structure as the message underlying the word “religion” suggests that there is more to evolutionary biology than meets the eye. The discussion ends with the “university” becoming the “ulistentome”, the “college” getting relabeled as “harangue” and the seminary turning into “hope for salvation”.

Genetics rules out Adam and Eve as the biological parents of all humanity along with Augustine’s version of Original Sin.

What about the word games that speech-alone talk allows?

0246 The fact that the stories of Adam and Eve are written in the style of (excavated) ancient Near East literature suggests that all these stories came to us through a process of descent with modification.

All written origin stories of the ancient Near East point to the trauma of the first singularity. They cannot see beyond this particular time-horizon.

The same goes for the Genesis stories starting with Adam and Eve. The stories of Adam and Eve mark the start of our current Lebenswelt.

0247 Here is a new image for Original Sin.

Indeed, the new version accounts for the old version.

0248 So, instead of pursuing ulistentome or harangue, seek hope for salvation.

Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science lowers the curtains on Augustine’s stage play about the nature and consequences of the Fall. Yet, the curtains come alive with the category-based nested form and the hypothesis of the first singularity.

0249 The curtains may become the rage.

0250 Don’t lose faith.

Enter the fourth age of understanding.

10/6/25

Adam and Eve and Original Sin: The State of the Debate (Part 1 of 2)

AEOS 0001 In this age of… how shall I say it?… “Let the consumer beware.”, many parents withdraw their children from bigilib-run schools in favor of guided- and home-schooling.

0002 Bigilib?

Big Government (il)liberal.

They say that they are “liberal”, but the bigger the government gets, the more illiberal they become.

0003 The problem that the parent faces is, “How to proceed?”

The problem faced by those who would market to this consumer-base is, “How to encourage customers to try the product?”

One answer says, “Offer free samples.”

0004 So why not offer sample courses on the state of debate for one of the most interesting questions in virtual Christendom?

Whatever happened to Original Sin?

0005 Razie Mah’s blogs contain so many reviews of books on this topic, two sample courses are available. This blog offers the first.

0006 But, what about the product?

If these sample courses are interesting (and don’t neglect the articles and books that they are reviewing), then the natural follow up is A Course on An Archaeology of the Fall, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues. The course comes with an instructor’s guide for the mature reader to consult.

0007 The intended class consists of a mature adult (as guide) and novice readers, two or more novice readers working together, and the occasional intrepid self-guided individual. Simply purchase the e-books and read on a tablet. The text is broken into points. Each point allows discussion. The technique is to read and discuss.

0008 What about the sample online course?

Here is a list of seven commentaries that appear on Razie Mah’s blogs. Remember that WordPress publishes the later date at the top of the list for each month. Click on the month and search down.

0009 Here is the list, in chronological order.

One: Looking at Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) “Adam and the Genome”

(November 2025, 22 blogs, 250 points)

Two: Looking at Bill Arnold’s Article (2020) “Genesis and the Challenges of the 21st Century”

(December 31-26, 2024, 5 blogs, 46 points)

Three: Looking at Bandon Wanless’s Article (2023) “…on the State of Original Innocence”

(December 10-2, 2024, 12 blogs, 118 points)

Four: Looking at Daniel Houck’s Book (2020) “Aquinas, Original Sin and the Challenge of Evolution”

(November 30-2, 2024, 23 blogs, 254 points)

Five: Looking at Andrew Ter Ern Loke’s Book (2022) “The Origin of Humanity and Evolution”

(November 30-1, 2023, 22 blogs, 192 points)

Six: Looking at Paul Domining’s Book (2006) “Original Selfishness”

(November 22-1, 2022, 16 blogs, 99 points)

Seven: Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin”

(October 31-3, 2022, 21 blogs, 135 points)

0010 Total: 121 blogs, 1094 points, 18 hours at 1 minute per point.

Maybe, this online course lasts around 4 weeks.

Enjoy this sample and consider purchasing Razie Mah’s online courses.

10/4/25

Adam and Eve and Original Sin: The Subject Matters (Part 2 of 2)

AEOS 0011 Yes, there is more.

Here is another online course on the same subject matter. All parts appear in Razie Mah’s blogs. Click on the month, then scroll downwards.

0012 These are sample courses. So, one may pick and choose points and reviews as one pleases.

Plus, there are lots of pictures. Pictures can be interesting and informative.

How so?

For the most part, the pictures are diagrams of purely relational structures.

0013 What am I selling?

Three online courses that cover the topic of human evolution. All are offered by Razie Mah. All are available at smashwords and other e-book venues. Merely purchase the e-books, print the pdf or read on a tablet. Each point can be discussed. The texts are designed to read and discuss.

A Course on the Human Niche contains the masterwork, plus four commentaries. This course introduces the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

A Course on An Archaeology of the Fall, contains the masterwork, plus outside reading (Paul’s letter to the Romans and Sura 5). An instructor’s guide is available. This course pertains to the hypothesis of the first singularity.

A Course in How To Define the Word “Religion” contains the masterwork, plus 10 primers. This course concerns our current Lebenswelt, which is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. A “how-to” instruction appears in Razie Mah’s blog in December 2022.

0014 With that said, here is the second online course on this topic.

One: Looking at William Lane Craig’s Book (2021) “In Quest of the Historical Adam”

(September 31-1, 2022, 21 blogs, 120 points)

Two: Looking at John Walton’s Book (2015) “The Lost World of Adam and Eve”

(August 30-1, 2022, 22 blogs, 192 points)

Three: Looking at Andrew Kulokovsky’s Overview (2005) “The Bible and Hermeneutics”

(May 27-16, 2022, 10 blogs, 85 points)

Four: Looking at Carol Hill’s Article (2021) “Original Sin with Respect to Science”

(February 25-7, 2022, 15 blogs, 72 points)

Five: Looking at Roy Clouser’s Article (2021) “… Support of Carol Hill’s Reading…”

(March 8-1, 2022, 6 blogs, 34 points)

Six: Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil”

(January 31-13, 2022, 16 blogs, 100 points)

0015 Total: 90 blogs, 603 points, 10 hours at 1 minute per point.

Maybe, this online course lasts around 2 weeks.

Enjoy this sample and consider purchasing Razie Mah’s online courses.

08/30/25

Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism” (Part 1 of 33)

0001 The book before me is a paperback, published in 2024 by Bloomsbury Academia (London, Dublin, New York) with the subtitle: How to Be a Real Materialist. The author, Slavoj Zizek, is one of the most entertaining intellectuals on the circuit for the contemporary left.

The inner panel of the cover claims that this book is Zizek’s most extensive treatment of theology and religion to date.

This is enough to inspire me to test out Zizek’s analytic expertise.

Surely, Zizek offers food for thought.

0002 In order to pluck the… um… fruit from Zizek’s tree of knowledge, one should proceed to the final chapter, titled, “Conclusion: The Need for Psychoanalysis” (pages 235-266). I know that that sounds like cheating, but a more extensive examination of the remainder of the book is promised.

0003 What does the label “Christian atheism” imply?

First, when the Son dies on the cross, the Father dies as well.

If I frame the relation of Father [and] Son as a hylomorphe, a dyad consisting of two contiguous real elements, the two real elements are Father and Son and the contiguity, placed in brackets for proper notation, should be something like [begets]. Here is the resulting hylomorphic structure.

0004 This actuality… er… hylomorphe… is typical for Peirce’s category of secondness. Secondness consists of two contiguous real elements, as discussed in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

Secondness is the dyadic realm of actuality. Secondness prescinds from firstness, the monadic realm of possibility. Thirdness, the triadic realm of normal contexts, signs, mediations, judgments and so on, channels this precission. Thirdness brings secondness into relation with firstness. Such is the nature of the category-based nested form.

0005 So what happens when the Father, the thesis of the Old Testament, begets His Son, Jesus, his antithesis in the New Testament? Well, the good book tells the stories. Jesus ends up dying on a cross after crying out, “Father, why have you abandoned me?”

Surely, this is a psychic trauma that Lacanian psychoanalysis might be interested in. But above, there is only the divine actuality₂. Actuality₂ is encountered, it is not understood. In order to understand an encountered actuality₂, one needs to figure out a normal context₃ and potential₁. The category-based nested form has all the ingredients for understanding (that is, all three categories get labeled and constitute a single triadic relation).

0006 Zizek says that, when the Son dies, so does the Father.

Here is a picture of this actuality₂, along with my guesses concerning the normal context₃ and potential₁.

0007 The normal context of the Holy Spirit₃ brings the dyadic actuality of {the Father [dies with His] Son}₂ into relation with the monadic possibility of ‘divine oneness’₁, that some Christians want to call “Love”. But, Muslims seem to call, “Allah”.

Even though Zizek is well-trained in Lacan’s psychoanalysis, he is also versed in Hegel’s philosophy and Marx’s materialism. So, he notes that after Jesus dies… and the Father dies too… Christ becomes the Holy Spirit, as a new emancipatory collective (page 242). Well, he calls the Holy Spirit, “the Holy Ghost”, so it makes sense that Jesus would be the Ghost instead of His Father, if that helps.

0008 So who or what is this emancipatory collective?

Uh oh, is it the so-called “bride of Christ”?

0009 The actuality of Father [begets] Son₂ associates to an encounter in the Real.

How real?

0010 On one hand, Protestants make the point that the Old and the New Testaments are more real than the Catholic church. But, there is a distinction between an encounter (actuality₂) and understanding (a complete category-based nested form). Surely, the Old and New Testaments witness encounters. I wonder whether the Protestants can pass to understanding. There are questions about the words. What do the words in the text signify?

Zizek takes the words literally when he says that Jesus, the Christ, becomes the Holy Ghost. But, there is a lacunae, because the Holy Spirit₃ is the one who speaks from the cloud above the soon-to-be severed head of John the Baptist. There, in the Jordan River, the king of kings is baptized. The Holy Spirit₃ is already present as a purely relational being, the normal context for the actuality of {Father [and] Son}₂.

0011 The Catholic church, on the other hand, codifies one particular encounter, the Eucharistic sacrament (otherwise called “the Mass”). Yes, Catholics can join in the potential of divine oneness₁ through this sacrament₂, which celebrates the simultaneous death of the Son and Father.

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” applies to the Father as well as all humanity. Just as elites of Roman Guard and Second Temple are monsters for murdering Christ under the pretext of their laws, the Father is a monster for offering his own Son as a sacrifice. During the Mass, we humans remind ourselves of our own culpabilities and the Father, too, reminds Himself of His own, by transubstantiating the consecrated bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Yes, the Father brings Jesus back to life, at the Resurrection and the consecration.

0012 The Mass is far more twisted than most theologians will admit. But, a Lacanian can concede the deal. The Father allows us into mystical union through the Son while saying, “If you eat of my monstrosity, I will accept your monstrosities.”

Of course, some qualifications apply.

That is what the sacrament of confession is for.

Here is a picture for the emancipated collective that associates to the Holy Ghost.

The triadic normal context of the church, as the Bride of Christ₃, brings the dyadic actuality of {Jesus’ last supper [re-enacted in] the Mass}₂ into relation with the potential of ‘my (human) mystical union with God’₁. The sacraments are mediators between human and divine.

0013 Well, this is not precisely what Zizek has in mind.

Zizek mentions the Holy Ghost in light of Freud’s death drive. Freud uses the term, “death drive”, to label repetition disorders that basically say, “I am still alive.” Or maybe, “If I keep doing this, I will not die.”

It’s like the fellow who loves fishing, encounters a massive illness that almost kills him, then returns to fishing. I am still alive. The death drive creatively sublimates the trauma. Fishing becomes an obsession. Fishing borders on the sublime. The fish that struggles against the line is a symbol. The life that the fish fights for is imaginary, because all of us are mortal. But, one never knows until death arrives. The death drive continues to repeat until we have reached the destination.

0014 So, what precisely does Zizek have in mind?

Well, I suppose that Zizek wants to capitalize on the idea of the Holy Spirit as an “emancipated collective” for his socialist theory. Does Zizek buy into the hocus-pocus of the Catholic church as the Bride of Christ₃? Or, does he want to make Christ₂, who belongs to the category of secondness, into a figure₃, belonging to the category of thirdness, that operates on the potential of ‘truth’₁?

0015 Zizek’s configuration is corroborated at the very end of the chapter (page 265) when he comments on a 1918 poem, titled “Twelve”, by Aleksandr Blok. At the end of this poem, an apparition of Jesus walks before a team of twelve Red Guards, patrolling the snow-filled streets of revolutionary Petrograd. Christ is not a leader₂ (in the realm of actuality₂), Christ₃ is a shadow who contextualizes the actuality of a group of comrades₂ who, in turn, both emerge from (and situate) their Cause₁ (the potential of truth₁).

So, I wonder, what type of king is this?

Does the kingdom of God dwell among us in such a strange and mysterious manner?

08/1/25

Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism” (Part 33 of 33)

0339 So, why compare the two interscopes?

Well, there are two Relativist Ones, one belonging to Zizek’s configuration and one contained in the post-truth condition.

That is a tad confusing.

Plus, it seems to me that the following association of Lacan’s terminology with open slots of the perspective level applies to both interscopes.

All these items may be regarded as writ small.

Plus, the pattern repeats within Zizek’s interscope. Jouissance₁ writ large coincides with the virtual nested form in firstness.

Similarly, objet a_2c(2a) writ large matches the actualities₂ on the perspective_c and content_a levels. The petit objet a writ large matches the situation-level actuality_2b.

Uh, does that also apply to the interscope for the post-truth condition?

If it does, then there are two Relativist Ones_3c, one corresponds to a little Big Other_3c(2b₎ (in Zizek’s configuration as a psychometric valuation_2b) and one corresponds to a big Big Other_3c (for the interscope for the post-truth condition).

0340 Okay, the little Relativist Big Other_3c(2b) dwells within the big Relativist Big Other_2b.

What about Christian atheism?

Zizek’s configuration resides within the slot for psychometric valuation_2b.

Does Zizek’s Christian atheism_3c(2b) deny the divinity of the big Big Other_3c?

If it does, then the following comparison offers another reason why modern politics is immanently theological and supports Zizek’s concluding chapter, arguing that the post-modern West should not disregard psychoanalysis, simply because it questions postmodern scientific-sounding capitalist and socialist valuations_2b.

0341 So… uh…. why does Zizek propose Christian atheism_3c(2b)?

Isn’t Slavoj Zizek an expert_2b operating on the formalized knowledges of Lacanian psychoanalysis, Hegelian philosophy and Marxist materialism_1b?

Excuse me while I scribble a note saying, “Of course, he sees the light…”

0342 I want to note, if the big Relativist One_3c is divine, as preached by the banquet dinner speaker, Baelzebob Jones,speaking, way back when, to the CPP on the evening when I was conceived, then psychoanalysis should be disregarded, because “wealth” and “power” are two distinct and separate entities_2c, just like photons as waves and… um… photons as particles.

“… yeah, the light.”

Photons as particles_1b(2b) and photons as waves_1b(2b) produce distinct and separate measurements_2b(2b), as far quantum-physics apparatuses_3b(2b) are concerned. Data_1c(2b) is the potential_1c(2b) of measurements_2b(2b). And, measurements_2b(2b) virtually situate a model standing in the place of the noumenon_2a(2b).

Consequently, an irreconcilable distinction between particle and wave_2b constitutes an opportunity_1c that supports the divinity of the big Relativist One of the Physics of the Quantum Universe_3c.

Fortunately, all hell broke loose before Dr. Jones finished his address.

0342 The logics of thirdness are exclusion, complement and alignment. Here the little and the big normal contexts align, but the little cannot replace the big. Nonetheless, the same term is used for both perspective-level normal contexts, even though the two normal contexts differ. Both are Relativist Ones.

0343 The logics of secondness are those of contradiction and non-contradiction. If the two actualities of {capital, acquisition [wealth and power] social, exercise of order}_2c(2b) and psychometric valuation_2b do not contradict, then I can regard one as an example of the other… or maybe… the little one pays tribute to the big one.

0344 The logics of firstness are inclusion. Firstness allows contradictions. Here, the same principle noted above applies. A synthetic truth_1c(2b) supporting a situation-level little Relativist one_3c(2b) offers opportunity_1c for a perspective-level big Relativist one_3c.

In Zizek’s book, a synthetic truth_1c(2b) undergirds an intellectual configuration of the dyad, {capital, acquisition [wealth and power] social, exercise of order}_2c(2b) for Zizek’s little Relativist One_3c(2b). Zizek’s psychometric valuation_2b may contextualized as a possible opportunity_1c by a post-truth big Relativist One_3c.

Surely, opportunity_1c is potentiated by the little Relativist one_3c(2b).

But, what opportunity_1c is potentiated by Christ_3c(2b)?

Oh, I must not forget, Zizek calls for psychoanalysis.

So, Christ_3c(2b) must be an intervention.

0345 The perspective-level nested form in Zizek’s configuration neatly fits into the slot for psychometric valuations_2bon the situation-level of the post-truth interscope.

Does this explain why the names of post-truth levels should be totally juiced up?

0346 Okay, the entire interscope for Zizek’s configuration resides in the slot for psychometric valuations_2b for the post-truth interscope.

This remarkable finding adds value to Zizek’s argument.

Zizek’s Christian atheism is designed to challenge current psychometric valuations_2b arising from the potential of ‘a postmodern formalization of knowledge’_1b within the normal context of a stylistic union of capitalist and socialist expertise_3b.

Christian atheism_3c(2b) can substitute for the little Relativist One_3c(2b).

But, what about the union between the big Relativist One_3c and the little Relativist One_3c(2b)?

Would some say… “the unholy union”?

0347 See Razie Mah’s blog for February 11, 2023 for that one.

This blog serves as the first exercise for exploring the utility these arguments.

First, associate features of the music video to elements in Zizek’s configuration.

My hint is that the dyad, {money and political influence [pays for] the Body Shop} associates to the imaginary actuality, {raw materials [construct] specified product}_2a(2b).

The rest is left to the exercise.

Second, place the first step into the slot for psychometric valuations_2b in order to explain why this music video is produced and advertised by American corporate media.

0348 Do the producers and promulgators of this video want to influence what the white woman has to say?

Write your essay and send to raziemah@reagan.com with written permission for publication on Razie Mah’s blog.

0349 This first exercise reveals the comedy of locating Zizek’s configuration in the slot for psychometric valuations in the post-truth condition. It also reveals the tragedy.

Consider the tragic photon.

In order to reveal itself as either a wave or a particle, it must be annihilated.

Is that too high a price to pay?

I guess not, because a photon is neither living nor dead.

0350 Take a look at the preceding interscope.

On the obscene level, no-one cares what the photon thinks, because it is doomed to annihilation in the process of determining whether it “says” that it is a particle or a wave. How obscene is that?

On the undead level, experts in physics_3b operate the apparatus_3b(2b) that converts what the photon says_2a into measurements_2b(2b), that support an orderly model_2c(2b). The model_2c(2b) asserts that the photon will say, “I am a particle composed of superimposed states and waves”_2a(2b)“. In other words, the measured photon_2b(2b) says what the experts_3b predict that it will say.

0351 Does this demonstrate the potential of ‘formalized knowledge’_1b?

Formalized knowledge_1b makes the annihilation of the subject_2b(2b) possible.

The subject_2a(2b)‘s content-level autonomy converts into a situation-level measurement_2b(2b) that supports a model_2c(2b)that offers an opportunity_1c for an empirio-normative judgment_2c to stand for what people think and say_2a concerning the soon-to-be annihilated subject_2a(2b).

0352 On the sacred level, the One Physicist_2c formulates a judgment_2b weighing the intelligibility of what the experts report_2b and the universality of what photons are telling the experts_2a. This judgment reveals to human reason_3a(1a)that it_1b does not matter what photons think_2a.

Isn’t that obscene?

Indeed, reason_3a(1a), defined as “the intellect_3a operating on the will_1a“, is obscene.

Where the hell is truth_1a?

0353 Isn’t that what Zizek is interested in?

Isn’t that what Christian atheism is supposed to deliver?

0354 So concludes my independent approach to what Zizek argues for.

I end with a note on nomenclature.

Lacan is very clever in his terminology.

So is Zizek.

In the following picture on nomenclature, Lacan’s column applies to the entire interscope of Zizek’s configuration and Zizek’s “juiced up” column applies to the entire post-truth interscope.

Perhaps, these columns intimate future directions of inquiry during these crazy times, belonging to the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods.

0355 I thank Slavoj Zizek for a book that is worthy of examination.

07/31/25

Looking at Hugh Ross’s Book (2023) “Rescuing Inerrancy” (Part 1 of 25)

0001 The full title of the book before me is Rescuing Inerrancy: A Scientific Defense (2023, Reasons To Believe Press, Covina California). The author, Hugh Ross, is an excellent writer and a Christian scientist. The qualifier is crucial here, because biblical inerrancy is mysteriously conjunct the modern construct of scientific inerrancy. “Conjunct” means “stuck with”.

0002 The book has both a greek and a semitic architecture. As noted in The Instructor’s Guide to An Archaeology of the Fall (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues), the two literary styles represent different types of recognition.

The greek argument presents a variety of opinions, weeds out the inadequate ones, then proclaims the one left standing, the winner. One might call it “linear thinking”. The greek style dominates the second half of the book (chapters 12 through 20), concluding with the proposal of a “model approach”.

The semitic style presents various rhetorical tricks, aiming to induce the reader to recognize a possibility. Am I saying that the Bible is full of rhetorical tricks? I suggest the reader look at the appendix of Ross’s book on that one. Or, consider the Genesis use of the word, “day”, in the Creation Story. The word leads to a flight of fancy, so to speak, asking the reader to recognize that the reported events are themselves, a flight of… what?… not of fancies, but of revelations… or significations… that become more and more esoteric (or hidden) even as they appear more and more exoteric (or obvious).

0003 What about Adam and Eve, fashioned from dust and rib, respectively?

Oh, they end up getting fooled by a talking snake.

0004 Christians are fine following the exoteric lessons and scratching their heads about some of the esoteric implications.

The problem is that Christians are stuck with the sciences. Conjunct! Science is all about truncated material and efficient causalities. Truncated? Scientific causalities are shorn of formal and final causation. Formal and final causes are metaphysical (a step beyond physics) because they concern triadic relations. It is like being able to account for all the motions (the truncated material and efficient causes) of a mechanical clock without acknowledging that the clock has a design (formal cause) and purpose (final cause)

And, the purpose has ‘something’ to do with us!

0005 The positivist intellect has a rule. Metaphysics is not allowed.

So Christians are conjunct with a positivist intellect who has no idea that the purpose of the Genesis text may have something to do with us, right now, not as we once were at some time in the not-so-distant past. The positivist intellect cannot consider that the first chapter of Genesis may be like a clock or whatever mechanical analogy one wants to use. Is it a story designed to set the “time”? The time of what?

Truncated material and efficient causalities cannot ideate what Christians observe (and sort of… measure, in the sense of “weighing”) in Scripture. Christians struggle to discern what the early chapters of Genesis could possibly reveal. Plus, those possibilities are not obvious at all. Even a plain reading of these stories tells the inquirer, “A plain reading of this text is not enough.”

0006 The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, published in 1982, says as much. Ross lists the relevant articles in chapter three.

For example, in article eighteen, the convening theologians confirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatical and historical exegesis, so that Scripture is used to interpret Scripture. Then, they reject the legitimacy of various modern quests, including postulating extra-Biblical civilizational sources, relativizing the text by comparing it to evolutionary science, demonstrating that the accounts are not “historical” in the modern sense of the word, and rejecting the Bible’s claims to authorship.

Here is a picture.

0007 I ask, “Are these theologians affirming that Genesis 1-11 confronts the reader with the possibility of ‘something’, and that ‘something’ is not obvious from a plain reading of the text?”

They say, “Look at the grammar. Look at what the stories are saying in regards to history, in the widest sense of the term.”

0008 I ask, “Are these theologians denying that Genesis 1-11 can be assessed, compared to, and explained by scientific empirio-schematic inquiry?”

It sure looks that way.

And, that is a problem in a civilization where science appears triumphant.

07/5/25

Looking at Graham Langdon’s Book (2024) “The Mystery of the Navel Idols” (Part 1 of 4)

0001 The book before me is published by Archaic Lens Publishing (North Carolina). The author posts podcasts on youtube, writes on twitter, and has a website, www.archaiclens.com. The book’s subtitle is The Thread that Connects the Ancient World.

0002 The author documents navel idols that are readily identifiable to the human eye on the basis of several characteristics, as shown below.

0003 They appear at the dawn of history, in regions that will end up civilized, but before any advances in the direction of labor and social specializations. Later, the idols will associate to the Chalcolithic (the Copper Age), corresponding to the era before the Bronze Age (when copper is mixed with other ingredients to create effective weapons).

The oldest navel figure is Urfu man, recovered from Gobekli Tepe in Turkey (Anatolia) and dating to around 10,000 B.C. This is long before the end of the last interglacial. The megastructure site associates to the pre-pottery Neolithic, which comes before the pottery Neolithic. Subsequent Neolithic cultures throughout southwestern Asia will be labeled and identified on the basis of their pottery.

Also, Gobekli Tepe is not associated with a sedentary settlement, such as the contemporaneous Catal Huyuk.

0004 So, what am I saying?

Gobekli Tepe, Catal Huyuk and similar sites do not end up constellating into a tangle of unconstrained social and labor specializations, where social circles transmogrify into networks of economic and political-religious affiliations.

0005 In the section on Turkey, the author makes an interesting point. The body habitus of Urfu man appears in statuary and figurines in early civilizations around the world. The further from Gobekli Tepe, the later in time these navel idols appear.

Ironically, this point is precisely the rule of thumb held by archaeologists during the early twentieth century. The further from southern Mesopotamia, the later an early civilization forms.

0006 Coincidence?

Or is one observation swept up in the other?

0007 In the section on Turkey, the author includes a watercolor image of an awkward looking small artifact, with enormous alien-like eyes, v-neck adornment and hand on either side of navel. This clay figurine dates to around 5,000 B.C., during the copper age, according to the British Museum.

This artifact dates to 5,000 years after Gobekli Tepe.

The prehistoric cultures associated with the later artifact occur on the cusp of civilization, where the term, “civilization” is characterized by unconstrained labor and social specialization.

0008 A look at the sections on the Kosovo, Serbia and the Balkans support this association. The navel idols of the Vinca culture (5850-5750 B.C.) appear similar to the latter Turkey artifact. The Vinca culture practices farming, animal husbandry and copper smelting. A similar pattern occurs in Bulgaria. These cultures are on their way to increasing social complexity.

0009 The pattern will hold for all navel idols found to the west of the Aegean Sea. The navel idols and the Chalcolithic and other features, such as astronomy-related megalithic arrangements, spread west from southwestern Asia.

Since Gobekli Tepe is pre-pottery and pre-Chalcolithic, it cannot be the direct inspiration for the navel idol figures located the West, five millennia later. So, the old archaeologists’ saying of the early 20th century applies. Something from southern Mesopotamia sends out emissaries bearing the news of not talking with one’s hands, as well as copper manufacture and astronomy.

Indeed, it may be that the cultural efflorescence that builds Gobekli Tepe and other Anatolian sites spreads into northern, then southern Mesopotamia as the glacial climate gives way to the Wet Neolithic of southwestern Asia and northern Africa.

0010 The sea-level rise serves as a good way to demark the navel idols before pottery and copper and the navel idols after.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Category Archives: An Archaeology of the Fall