11/16/22

Looking at Daryl Domning’s Book (2006) “Original Selfishness” (Part 5 of 16)

0030 In chapter nine, on evolution and human ethics, Domning envisions a short step from an amoral psychology (original selfishness) to a moral psychology associated with Original Sin (human selfishness). All that is required is the evolution of creatures capable of self-reflection.

Is that the same as the evolution of self?

Or, is that the evolution of cupid, the self in the presence of others?

Uh oh, the term, “cupid”, now has a technical definition.

0031 Is our capacity for self-reflection an adaptation into an ultimate niche or is it an evolutionary spandrel, an architectural feature of adaptations into diverse proximate niches?

Domning suggests the latter, by noting that intelligence is a composite of a wide variety of faculties, many of which are contradictory. Trade-offs favor a psychological ambivalence, which looks more and more like free will.

Does this imply that human free will arises from a diversity of “original selfishnesses”, each specific to a dilemma in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, psychologically expressed as behaviors consistent with the emphatic, I-myself?

So, the “self” seems to be a spandrel, where all these architectural (and archetypal) psychologies come together to form something, that ends up labeled as “self”.

0032 Remember this one?

0033 Item A entails no moral deliberation.

Item D involves moral deliberation.

0034 Item B, the consolidation of psychological expressions of I-myself into a single entity, the self, does not entail moral deliberation.

Item C, the tendency to put one’s own interests above other interests in the exercise of human free will, implicates moral deliberation.

0035 Now, I would like to substitute my newly minted technical term, “cupid” (B’), in for “self” (B) and see what happens.

0036 Right off, the nature of “cupid” as an adaptation accounts for the spandrel-like “self”. Its niche entails some sort of judgment (a triadic relation) in which the self is socially constructed out of a variety of psychological expressions of I-myself.

Here is the key.

Psychologically, self-interest is composed in response to other selves. Cupid is the self becoming aware of its own self-interests in a social world where others exhibit their own interests through psychological expressions of I-myself. In order to consolidate my self, from my own expressions of I-myself, I must consolidate the selves of others, from their own expressions of I-myself.

In brief, the self (B) does not arise in a vacuum. Cupid (B’) designates that fact.

11/15/22

Looking at Daryl Domning’s Book (2006) “Original Selfishness” (Part 6 of 16)

0037 In prior blogs, I associate a sequence of four waystations in the history of the word, “selfishness”, to four elements in Domning’s visualization of original sin.

0038 Traditional theological accounts of original sin fuse its universal and its moral realities.

The universal reality is direct descent from Adam and Eve, as proposed by Saint Augustine seventeen centuries ago. This universal reality has been debunked by modern genetics.

The moral reality is a corruption of human free will. People tend to be selfish, even with moral deliberation. This implies a fall from full rationality and self-control.

0039 Domning’s theological account separates original sin’s universal and moral realities. But, the separation is not complete, because original selfishness (A) evolves into the self (B).

Evolutionary selfishness (pre-A) culminates in psychological expressions of I-myself (original selfishness, A), which I associate to the initial terminus of the term, “human selfishness” (D). The passage involves the terms, “self” (B) and “selfish” (C). Moral deliberation enters the picture with the term, “selfish”.

The moral reality, the disordered practices of human selfishness, is nothing more than original selfishness, but now with moral deliberation.

0040 The association between four waystations in the history of the word, “selfishness”, with four elements in Domning’s visualization of Original Sin appears convincing.

So, I want try my luck with another composite term, “concupiscence”.

“Concupiscence” builds upon three technical expressions. These technical expressions associate to waystations (B, C and D) in this development of the word, “selfishness”.

Note that these technical definitions do not correspond to traditional definitions of these words. I will get to that difficulty later.

0041 Once again, where am I going with this?

0042 The development of the word, “selfishness”, parallels Domning’s argument about the nature of original sin, once its universal and moral realities are separated.

The key step is the transition from the emphatic, I myself (A), to self (B), a noun. Domning attributes this step to evolution. The next step is the adjective, “selfish” (C), describing a tendency towards placing one’s own self above others. Here, moral constraints may come into play. “Selfishness” (D) reifies the adjective.

0043 Now, I want to repeat the procedure with the word, “concupiscence”. Concupiscence is traditionally used to describe the moral reality of original sin. The universal reality is descent from Adam, which now has been debunked by science.

11/11/22

Looking at Daryl Domning’s Book (2006) “Original Selfishness” (Part 8 of 16)

0049 In the competition to cooperate (D’), one must have theories of mind. One must be able to anticipate the desire to belong (concupiditas, C’) of others. One must fashion the selves of oneself and others (B’) through clues, including the expression of emphatics, such as I-myself, in various situations (A).

0050 In the end, a deep irony emerges.

These alternate technical formulations of cupid (B’), concupiditas (C’), and concupiscence (D’) describe original justice, not original sin. In other words, the niche of triadic relations allows forms of cooperation (associated to the goddess Venus) that are so rewarding that original selfishness drives us to compete (associated to the god Mars) in order to participate and flourish in cooperative social circles.

Does the term, “original justice”, describe the state of humans in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

Concupiscence (D’) is so adaptive that we evolved a willingness to sacrifice, even die, for one another.

0051 The most productivity-oriented social circle is the team. Being a member of a successful team increases self-preservation and reproductive success. Teams are task oriented, voluntary, opportunistic and spontaneous. Teams are most effective in scavenging resources in mixed forest and savannah, where opportunities are seasonal and varied. Teams are so successful that they share their bounties with family, band and community. Hand talk is an adaptation to team activity.

So, why do I say that the human niche is triadic relations, rather than cooperation?

0052 Cooperation and competition already are adaptations into the niche of evolutionary selfishness. Domning is clear on this. Original selfishness is a psychological adaptation that spontaneously expresses one’s presence. That psychological adaptation opens the door to the realization of self. That realization is not a thing. It is a triadic relation.

Is this way the technical definition of cupid (B’), proposed here, is precisely the opposite of the thing known in Greek mythology as Cupid, who is not a relation at all.

11/3/22

Looking at Daryl Domning’s Book (2006) “Original Selfishness” (Part 14 of 16)

0084 Of course, there is an explanation for why our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

The explanation is called the hypothesis of the first singularity.

The hypothesis is plainly laid out in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace.

The hypothesis is dramatically rendered in An Archaeology of the Fall.

The hypothesis is reflected upon in Comments on Original Sin and Original Death: Romans 5:12-19.

0085 Here is a snapshot.

0086 There is a reason why all the origin myths of the ancient Near East depict recent creations of humans. The myth tellers cannot see beyond the time horizon set by the first singularity. In particular, the people of the Ubaid, then Uruk, then Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods in southern Mesopotamia could not remember the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

The Creation Story is the sole exception. But, it does not stand alone. The creation of Adam and Eve immediately follows the first chapter of Genesis, giving the impression that Adam and Eve are the first humans.

Consequently, humans are created twice in Genesis 1-4. In Genesis 1, humans are created as images of God in an evolutionary framework. In Genesis 2.4-3, the preamble to the creation of Adam clearly places the Garden of Eden at the confluence of four rivers, including the Tigris and Euphrates, during the Wet Neolithic of southwestern Asia.

11/1/22

Looking at Daryl Domning’s Book (2006) “Original Selfishness” (Part 16 of 16)

0097 Original sin is the absence of original justice.

That is what Saint Thomas Aquinas claims.

The association between original justice, the state of Adam before the Fall, and the Lebenswelt that we evolved in is developed in Comments on Daniel Houck’s Book (2020) “Aquinas, Original Sin and the Challenge of Evolution”.

0098 This examination of Daryl Domning’s book adds depth to that commentary.

By separating the universal (descent from common ancestor) and moral (the traditional definition of concupiscence) realities of original sin, Domning offers me a path to discover one of features of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, as well as one of the features of our current Lebenswelt.

0099 What games we play with words.

My thanks to Daryl Domning and Monica Hellwig for their speculative effort, trying to reconcile evolutionary science and Christian doctrine. Original Selfishness: Original Sin and Evil in Light of Evolution is first published in 2006 by Ashgate. My copy is published in 2016 by Routledge. The first edition in paperback is issued in 2021. ISBN is 978-1-03-224358-0.

10/31/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 1 of 21)

0001 Loren Haarsma is an old man, a physics professor and a Christian. As a fellow of the American Science Affiliation, he has lectured on the intersection of science and faith. He is a scholarly voice in the Biologos network.

The full title of his book is When Did Sin Begin: Human Evolution and The Doctrine of Original Sin (2021, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI).

If one goes to the resources page for the Biologos.org website, then selects the topic, “Bible”, and the subtopic, “Adam and Eve”, one will find an extensive collection of essays on the concerns in Haarsma’s title: timing, evolution and original sin.

0002 How do these concerns fit into a category-based nested form?

Timing calls forth a normal context₃. The question, “when?”, implies an event. Here, the event is a transition. For evolution, the transition is a topic of natural inquiry. For original sin, the transition is a topic for theologians.

Human evolution and original sin belong to the realm of actuality₂.

The only item not mentioned is potential₁. Here, the question mark applies. For human evolution₂, the potential must be adaptive change₁. For original sin₂, the potential is the start of sin in our current Lebenswelt₁.

0003 To me, these concerns yield two category-based nested forms.

Here is a picture, following the recipe in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

0004 These two normal contexts exclude one another.

0005 The upper normal context₃ associates to evolutionary science. The focus of attention is on natural history and genetics.

Typically, an adaptive change produces speciation. However, in human evolution, an adaptive change may be cultural. Human evolution is both biological and cultural. Since natural history and genetics do not adequately describe culture, they may not be enough to scientifically describe human evolution. Indeed, no natural science convincingly addresses cultural change.

0006 The lower normal context₃ associates to theological science. The focus of attention is on special and general revelation.

Special revelation includes Genesis 1-11. Genesis 1-11 divides into two parts. In the Primeval History (chapter 2:4-11), Adam is brought to life as the first human, even though um… in the Creation Story (chapter 1-2.3), humans are already intended, created and blessed, in the framework of six days of creation.

General revelation includes Greek philosophy, among other traditions. Greek philosophy is useful for resolving contradictions. For example, some theologians resolve the contradiction inherent in the two parts of Genesis 1-11 by claiming that Adam (in Genesis 2.4-4) is the male and female “them” that God intended, created and blessed (in Genesis 1).

Say what?

In the Creation Story, God creates them, male and female. So, Adam must have had some sort of divided consciousness, one operating in his mind and the other working in his ribs.

Just kidding.

0007 Greek philosophy’s usefulness is not limited to resolving contradictions, no matter how silly the resolution may be. Greek philosophy may also be used in situations where contradictions cannot be resolved. Such a situation occurs here. Human evolution₂ and original sin₂ belong to a single actuality. They both pertain to one realness₂.

Here is a picture.

0008 Two (apparently independent) category-based nested forms intersect in the realm of actuality₂. The two constituting actualities cannot escape the one realness, because they constitute the one realness. Certain contradictions are accidental. Certain contradictions are essential. Greek philosophy is useful for separating the accidental from the essential. A set of essential contradictions is called “a mystery”.

10/28/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 2 of 21)

0009 The actualities of human evolution₂ and original sin₂ intersect.

Here is the diagram of the intersection for this example.

0010 The intersection is a relational structure. The e-masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, available at smashwords and other e-book venues, introduces the intersection. This relational structure associates to the message underlying the term, “religion”.

0011 Note how all the items in Haarsma’s title are captured by elements in the above intersection.

Two transitions (3H and 3V) touch base with the question, “When?”.

Two actualities (2H and 2V) go with human evolution_2H and the doctrine of original sin_2V. These two actualities join into a single reality, which I currently label as one realness.

The potentials (1H and 1V) are implied. Let me examine each.

0012 The potential of adaptive change_1H arises in response to a niche. Typically, the niche involves some material advantage (to be exploited) or disadvantage (to be ameliorated). For our lineage, the niche involves immaterial advantages and disadvantages. How so? The Homo lineage adapts into the niche of triadic relations, as discussed in the e-masterwork, The Human Niche.

0013 The potential of the start of sin_1V is not so different than the potential of the Genesis Primeval History_1V. For this reason, I enter the potential of the stories of Adam and Eve_1V, as the possibility underlying original sin_2V. I could also have entered the potential of the letters of Saint Paul_1V.

At the same time, the mythological character of the Primeval History comes into play. The stories of Genesis 2:4-11 are set in the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods.This setting is discussed in the February 2022 blog series at www.raziemah.com, entitled, Looking at Carol Hill’s Article (2021) “Original Sin with respect to Science”.

10/27/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 3 of 21)

0014 In the Introduction, Haarsma states that human evolution_2H and the doctrine of original sin_2V seem dissonant.

0015 All intersections seem dissonant.

Why?

Two apparently independent actualities constitute a single actuality.

0016 I call the single actuality, “one realness”.

What should I label this “one realness”?

0017 Maybe, the term, “our current Lebenswelt”, will do.

The word, “Lebenswelt”, is German for “living world”.

0018 Here is an initial picture of two actualities constituting a single actuality.

0019 The problem?

Original sin_2V applies to our current Lebenswelt, the world after Adam and Eve.

Human evolution_2H covers a much longer timeline than our current Lebenswelt.

This introduces a wrinkle to the fabric of Haarsma’s work.

The natural_3H and theological transition_3V marking the start of our current Lebenswelt₂ involves only a fraction of the entirety of human evolution. It is like trying to fix one’s glasses with a tool kit designed for automobiles. It is like cutting a handkerchief from a bedsheet.

0020 Haarsma premises his book on the tenet that there are several possible ways to harmonize human evolution and the doctrine of original sin.

Plus, none of them are good.

Why?

None of them raise the following question, coming from the standpoint of original sin_2V and addressing experts on human evolution_2H.

Why is our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

0020 Clearly, a natural transition_3H and a theological transition_3V contextualize the start of our current Lebenswelt₂.

Furthermore, our current Lebenswelt₂ arises from two, apparently independent, potentials: an adaptive change in human prehistory_1H and a cultural change that is captured in the stories of Adam and Eve_1V.

As already noted, these two potentials point to the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods of southern Mesopotamia₂.

According to the e-work, The First Singularity And Its Fairy Tale Trace, these two potentials pertain to a cultural change that potentiates civilization (specifically) and unconstrained social complexity (generally)₂. This cultural change marks the start of our current Lebenswelt.

0022 In brief, the doctrine of original sin_2V challenges the discipline of modern Anthropology_2H, which currently proposes a litany of material causes for the potentiation of civilization, such as the birth of agriculture, or the use of irrigation, or population pressures, or this or that material condition.

0023 Original sin_2V forces the Christian to ask the scientist, “What if the natural transition_3H to our current Lebenswelt is not material?”

This is the location where Loren Haarsma cannot go, because he values the discoveries of natural history and genetics. For years, he has been working with human evolution writ large.

The result is that the initial intersection is lopsided.

On top of that, natural history and genetics cannot propose a scientific hypothesis for a cultural change in the way humans talk.

Semiotics can.

10/26/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 4 of 21)

0024 The first singularity_2H is a hypothesis in human evolution_2H.

The hypothesis explains why our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

The hypothesis pertains to the start of our current Lebenswelt.

The hypothesis is plainly stated in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

The hypothesis_2H is dramatically portrayed, in tandem with originating sin_2V, in the fiction, An Archaeology of the Fall.

This produces a balanced intersection.

0025 With this in mind, I digress, in order to discuss two complementarities between the contributing actualities (2H and 2V).

0026 The first complementarity matches the construction of what is in the Positivist’s judgment, as developed in Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy. What is presents itself as an actuality, composed of two contiguous real elements, characteristic of Peirce’s category of secondness. But, this presentation is an illusion, because the two elements are really the same thing, regarded from two different vantage points.

The real elements are a noumenon (the thing itself) and its phenomena (the observable and measurable facets of the noumenon). According to Kant, a noumenon cannot be objectified as its phenomena. So, the contiguity is [cannot be objectified as].

The two contributing actualities complement one another in the following manner.

The Fall is like a noumenon. The first singularity models its corresponding phenomena.

0027 The second complementarity matches the distinction between primary and secondary causation, which plays a role in Comments on Armand Maurer’s Essay (2004) “Darwin, Thomists and Secondary Causality” (see July 2020 of Razie Mah’s blog).

Secondary causation describes what goes on in the Peirce’s category of secondness, the realm of actuality₂. Primary causation describes what goes on in Peirce’s categories of thirdness and firstness, the realms of normal context₃ and potential₁.

The two contributing actualities complement one another as follows.

0029 This digression into the complementarity between the two contributing actualities reinforces the idea that they should balance.

In chapter four, Haarsma discusses human evolution_2H, as configured before the hypothesis of the first singularity. Indeed, he does not place any importance to the start of civilization, which is potentiated by the first singularity.

Does he realize that almost all of human evolution predates the stories of Adam and Eve?

I wonder.

Plus, I chuckle.

0030 Why?

Saint Thomas Aquinas, the great medieval philosopher, argues that original sin is the lack of original justice.

So, the long period of human evolution_2H is joined to original justice_2H in the single actuality₂ of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

Here is a picture.

0031 Wow. The size of the contributions match.

Plus, just as original sin_2V asks theorists in modern Anthropology about a recent (and immaterial) natural transition in human evolution_2H, which turns out to be the hypothesis of the first singularity_2H, original justice_2V challenges theorists in modern Anthropology concerning the nature of the ultimate human niche_2H.

0032 At present, modern Anthropology has not confronted the concept of an ultimate niche in human evolution, now elucidated in the e-masterwork, The Human Niche. The ultimate human niche is not defined by material conditions. It is defined by an immaterial condition: The realness of triadic relations.

0033 The modern scientific community follows a rule: Actuality is all there is. Models are built from observations and measurements of material actualities. These models are couched in various disciplinary languages. In the empirio-schematic judgment, disciplinary language brings mathematic and mechanical models into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena.

0034 The problem?

Material actuality is not all there is.

0035 This point is obvious in the category-based nested form, derived from the semiotics-friendly philosophy of Charles Peirce. The category-based nested form manifests the realness of triadic relations.

In the nested form, a normal context₃ bring an actuality₂ into relation with the possibility of ‘something’₁. The subscripts refer to Peirce’s categories of thirdness, secondness and firstness.

Material actuality₂ is real.

Immaterial normal contexts₃ and potentials₁ are also real.

But, don’t tell that to modern anthropologists.

As soon as the hear, they will become “postmodern”.

0036 When a human encounters an actuality, the human does not understand. The human can observe and measure the phenomena associated with the actuality. The human may model these observations and measurements. The human may discuss the model using well-defined disciplinary language. But, understanding is not modeling.

Understanding is a triadic relation. Modeling is a dyadic formulation.

0037 Understanding concerns the noumenon, the thing itself. Actuality₂ demands a normal context₃ and potential₁. Figuring out the normal context₃ and potential₁ leads to understanding.

Humans evolve to understand. Modeling things is only part of understanding.

10/25/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 5 of 21)

0038 I summarize.

Chapter four covers human evolution.

Haarsma engages in a discussion of human evolution_2H as if it does not intersect with original sin_2V. Yet it does, otherwise Haarsma would not write a book about it.

Haarsma’s titular question_2V, “When did sin begin?”, should place the hypothesis of the first singularity_2H side by side with the doctrine of original sin_2V.

But, since Haarsma is not aware of the hypothesis of the first singularity, the term, “human evolution”, goes into the slot for actuality_2H for the normal context of natural change_3H.

This does not work, of course, and leads to a winding path, back to the crucial intersection between the first singularity_2Vand original sin_2H.

0039 The path starts by asking, “What contributing actuality_2V, in a theological framework_3V, corresponds to human evolution, as Haarsma discusses the topic?”

The answer comes from Thomas Aquinas’s suggestion that original sin is the lack of original justice. Original justice is entangled with human evolution.

0040 If human evolution_2H is one of the actualities in an intersection, the corresponding actuality is not original sin_2H. The corresponding actuality is really the stuff of the Creation Story_2V.

The structure of Haarsma’s text validates this suggestion.

Chapter four, titled, “Human Evolution”, is preceded by chapter three, “Suffering and Death Before Humans”, and followed by chapter five, “The Soul, the Imago Dei and Special Divine Action”. Chapters three and five point to Genesis 1:26-31.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Category Archives: An Archaeology of the Fall