The “evolution of talk” covers the evolution of the human capacity for language as well as the modes in which that capacity is expressed. Aspects are discussed in chapters 1,2 and 7 of An Archaeology of the Fall.
My thanks go to Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith for publishing her essay.
0070 Perspectives is the flagship journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, a Christian association of scientists and those interested in science. Their website is www.asa3.org. Here is an association worth joining.
0071 When it comes to the doctrine of original sin, the science needs to change. This change comes in the hypothesis of the first singularity. The hypothesis addresses a question that modern evolutionary theory fails to utter and asks, “Why is our current Lebenswelt not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?”
0072 The hypothesis of the first singularity is a portal to a new age of understanding.
0001 Josh Hammer authors an opinion piece for The Epoch Times. Zerohedge reprints the opinion on Friday, June 4, 2021 at 9:00 p.m. The full title is “Covid-19 Has Forever Destroyed America’s Trust in Ruling Class ‘Experts'”.
0002 I only want to look at the first paragraph.
0003 I will look at this paragraph in two ways.
First, I will use the Greimas Square. The Greimas Square is introduced in Comments On Philip Marey’s Post (2021) “Insurrection”, appearing in this blog in January 2021. To date, no series has been generated for the Greimas Square in smashwords.
Second, I will use the first two levels of the society tier. The two-level interscope is introduced in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (available at smashwords). The society tier is posited in the masterwork How To Define the Word “Religion” (also available at smashwords).
The two-level interscope recently appears in this blog with Saturn-Jupiter Conjunction in Aquarius (Jan. 2021), Be Little Men (Sept. 2020) and Comments on Yoran Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Sept. 2020).
0004 Here is the first paragraph of Josh Hammer’s opinion piece, reproduced for examination in the following two blogs. There are three sentences in this paragraph. I present them in sequence.
Hammer writes, “As even many casual observers of America’s fractious politics are aware, the overwhelming majority of lawmaking at the federal level no longer takes place in Congress as the Constitution’s framers intended.
“Instead, the vast majority of the ‘rulemaking’ governing Americans’ day-to-day lives now takes place behind closed doors, deep in the bowels of the administrative state’s sprawling bureaucracy.”The brainchild of progressive President Woodrow Wilson, arguments on behalf of the administrative state are ultimately rooted in, among other factors, a disdain for the messy give-and-take of republican politics and an epistemological preference for rule by enlightened clerisy.”
0019 Second, I look at the confounding of the sovereign and institution levels of the society tier, implicit in Josh Hammer’s opinion piece, and intrinsic to BG(il)L corporate media’s use of the word, “expert”, in reference to a federal bureaucrat.
0020 The following two-level interscope portrays the first two levels of the society tier. The interscope for the society tieris developed in the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”, available at smashwords.
0021 Here is a diagram.
0022 According to the first paragraph of Josh Hammer’s opinion piece, bureaucrats exercise federal power2b within the “bowels” of the administrative state3bC. They do so by filling in legislative ambiguities and authorizations2bC. Bureaucratic decrees2bC establish the order1bC that vague legislation2bC mandates.
0023 How do federal bureaucrats develop their rule-based protocols?
They follow their “guts”… I mean… their “experts”.
0024 Of course, the metaphors of bowels and guts point to digestion. Digestion nourishes the body. What body? The administrative state?
0025 So, I ask, “What if the administrative state is a body?”
Well, the body is animated by a soul.
What is the soul of the administrative state?
0026 Well, why do the legislators pass vague laws2bC that authorize federal bureaucracies to do what they deem appropriate in order1bC to achieve certain organizational objectives2aC?
They do so on the basis of righteousness1aC.
0027 Does this imply that the Congress confounds the potential for order1bC with the potential for righteousness1aC?
Yes, for the past century, Congress establishes institutions3a within the federal government3bC on the basis of righteousness1aC, leaving the (federal) institutions themselves3aC to fill in the details of the authorizations2bC.
0028 This confounding constitutes one of two types of religion. Infrasovereign religions are institutions3aC arising out of righteousness1aC and bounded by the necessity of order1bC. Sovereign religions are institutions3aC that require (and exercise) sovereign power3bC in order to implement their organizational objectives2aC.
The other type of religion is suprasovereign3cC.
0029 While Josh Hammer’s point concerns the manipulative use of the word, “expert”, to refer to a federal bureaucrat, there is a deeper current in his opinion. Vaguely-wordedlegislation authorizing bureaucracies to fill in the details2bCconfounds order1bC and righteousness1aC and constitutes the formation of a sovereign religion3aC. Such legislation2bCviolates the first amendment of the Constitution, forbidding the federal government from establishing a religion.
0028 Our spoken words2a weave the fabric of our subjective reality1a by telling us what is happening3a.
The observer states her impression that the cat is evil. The statement would be accurate if the cat is a person. However, the cat is just a cat. The cat is not a symbol of a person. It is a natural being.
0029 In section three, Kanzelberger states that no living animal or plant strives for privation. Each strives for its own good, its own fullness of being. Since the fullness of one may conflict with the fullness of another, privation is proportioned according to the food chain. The bird knows that. The cat knows that. Well, if they don’t, they certainly behave as if they do. The bird flits nervously. The cat stalks its prey.
In nature, agents for privation and death stand ready at hand. They carry the aura of inevitability. Not even the mountains stand forever. Is there a cosmic beauty to this pervasive evil? Everything is tested, horribly, relentlessly and in reality, by conflicts among diverse goods and forces.
Yes, outcomes vary. Some conflicts end as win-win. Some end as lose-lose. Most end as win-lose. In these win-lose contests, the agent who wins is satisfied, but may symbolize “evil”. The unsatisfied agent may escape the label of “evil”, but at what cost? Starvation? The sufferer loses and may be granted the symbol of “victim”. The one who avoids danger becomes “happy go lucky”.
0030 What does this imply?
First, obviously, a lot of energy flows through biological systems. An animal or plant cannot rest in the fullness of its being. Metabolism demands fuel. Metabolism drives many of these conflicts.
0031 What if I declare that metabolism is evil?
Surely, it is a common denominator in the good of all living things. Without it, there would be no conflict. The lion would lie with the lamb.
Yes, both would be dead.
0033 Natural evil does not make sense. Surely, we need not imagine that rocks or photons suffer when annihilated, but the same cannot be said for animals and plants. Natural evil, the conflict among subjective goods and the playing out of privations, makes no sense, in a world where each subject has its own metabolism.
It makes far more sense to imagine that all the actors are human.
0034 On the situation level, animals prepare to act2b.
In contrast, humans generate phantasms2b. What does the thing or event2a mean to me3b?
0035 But, I am not alone.
Therefore, moral meaning plays out in my phantasm2b. The objective object2b may not necessarily trigger action. But, it2b activates a moral order. It triggers an intersubjective being2b.
On one hand, the intersubjective being2b is contiguous with the objective mind-dependent being2b and may be willing to face the test of suprasubjectivity1c.
A phantasm2b will not suffer privation, when its intersubjective reality1b seeks to be contextualized by suprasubjective potential1c.
On the other hand, a phantasm2b may be stated as blather2a. Instead of facing the test of suprasubjectivity1c, the phantasm2b comes out as an event, a statement2a, that seeks to be objectified1b as agreement1a. Agreement1a coordinates perceptions2b and appears to support an intersubjective reality2b that does not need to face the test of suprasubjectivity1c.
After all, if we all agree1a, it2b must be true1c, doesn’t it2b?
This phantasm2b suffers privation, because intersubjective reality1b should be elevated to its suprasubjective potential1c.
Instead, it2b seeks agreement1a, through its own expression2a, in the presence of others.
The observer plans to go to law school.
0036 The graduate student, in some capacity (remember, alcohol is consumed at these parties), knows this.
So, inadvertently, “he” brings what the observer says to generate agreement1a into the suprasubjective realm1c, by questioning “her” opinion.
0037 Here is a picture of the resulting judgment2c.
0038 I see what is happening3a, I ask, “What does this mean to me3b?”.
This business about phantasms2b is crucial. If our mind-dependent beings, our phantasms2b, are to stand the trial of the suprasubjective1c, then their symbols2b must be true1c. Plus, they must be able to be subjectively1a communicated. They must be witnessed as things and events2a.
0039 There is a profoundly biological reason for this. Our genus evolves by cooperating in teams. Each team is like the cat. It disposes privations to others, in order to achieve its perfection. One team hunts rabbits. Another team digs up tubers. Human teams hunt and gather, all in the pursuit of their fullness of being. The One Who Gives, Without Us Knowing Why, provides in many different ways.
Just as metabolism resides in every living being, the One Who Gives, resides in each social circle. As noted in Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big, the One Who Gives is an object that brings all teams into relation. Otherwise, teams might come into conflict. Like metabolism, this relational object stands undifferentiated from the organization objectives of each team. This relational object sustains them all.
0040 We choose our teams based on disposition and natural abilities. Or maybe, our teams choose us. After all, if a prosperous team lasts long enough, generation after generation, our kind will adapt to its challenges. The tasks will become more intuitively natural. Evolutionary psychologists will call these adaptations, “mental modules”.
0041 In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, there is no contradiction between the phantasm2b simultaneously touching base with the potential of truth1c and the potential of subjective agreement1a. That is because hand talk2a and hand-speech talk2a image and indicate their referents1a. A referent1a defines the objectivity1b of each gesture word2a. The referent1a is also suprasubjectively evident1c. If it1a were not real1c, it1a could not be imaged or indicated2a.
In our current Lebenswelt, there is a contradiction. Speech-alone2a talk is purely symbolic. It2a does not image or point to anything1c. So, the phantasm2b suffers a privation, opening the door to a condition where the potential of subjective agreement1a may be actualized without the simultaneous realization of the potential consilience1cunderlying the One Who Gives, Without Us Knowing Why3c.
In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, we join a team and our commitments2c are plain to see. Each person has a role1cand communicates that role1c through behavior, including manual-brachial gestures2a. These gestures2a are natural signs. They are icons and indexes. They are subjectively experienced as images and indications1a.
0044 But, there is a caveat, the more obvious the gesture, the more distinct from any other gesture, the more likely the gesture will be instantly understood. So, each gesture-word2a becomes more and more distinct from every other gesture-word. Language consists in systems of differences.
0045 Word-gestures2a are symbols, purely relational beings, striving for fullness within an ever more effective system of differences. Language evolves within each team. Humans, as a kind, adapt to what each team does2b.
0046 What does this mean in regards the prior interscope?
Here is a diagram of the social construction where the situational phantasm2b (including its manifestation as langue2b) aligns with both things and events2a (including parole2a, hand and hand-speech talk2a) and a judgment2c (which cannot be symbolized, so is expressed as a commitment2c).
0047 Our capacities for phantasms2b are adaptations to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Each team talks in icons and indexes that are so distinct that they function as symbols in a symbolic order (a finite system of differences). This is parole2a. Langue consists of the sign-objects of word-gestures that picture or point to their referents2b.
Our genus innately assumes that gesture-words2a image and indicate things and states of things2a. Our human ancestors continue to think this, even when a new way of talking, speech2a, gets added to hand talk2a. In the beginning, Homo sapiens practices hand-speech talk. They do so for around two-hundred thousand years. Then, something radical happens.
0047 Humans drop the hand-component of hand-speech talk. This is no accident. There is an archaeology to the Fall. Humans adopt speech-alone talk. The semiotics of speech-alone talk potentiates civilization.
Speech-alone words do not image or indicate their referents. Speech-alone deprives us of an automatic, intuitive answer to the team-oriented question, “What does this mean to me3b?” The thing that we picture and point to in our gesture-word2a, where is it?
Oh, I know. Let’s build an artifact2a, an idol2a, that will validate our spoken words.
0048 In our current Lebenswelt, we are deprived of the fullness of gesture-words2a.
Evil is privation. So, is speech-alone talk evil? Are our phantasms evil? Are our judgments evil?
They all suffer privation of the fullness of what they evolved to be.
0049 Kanzelberger writes, “Moral evil deflects from a norm which the voluntary agent is conscious.”
0050 What about the agent’s unconscious?
Does the story of Adam and Eve bring, to consciousness, the arrival of an evil, a privation, that natural selection ruled out by grounding talk in gesture, even in its final incarnation, hand-speech talk?
0051 In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, our hand and hand-speech talk words overflow with meaning, because they image and indicate the things that they refer to. The referent itself defines the word. How can a gesture-word be false? How can a gesture-word be deceptive? They are pictures and pointings, even though they operate in a symbolic order.
In our current Lebenswelt, our spoken words do not image or point to anything.
0052 How horrifying and unbelievable is that? How deep does the privation go? Does it trap our desire? Does it entangle our will? What does this mean to me3b brings the actuality of moral thinking in phantasms2b into relation with the possibility of objectivity1b, on the basis of a thing or event2a which now, consists of spoken words2a, which are sequences of formant frequencies.
Moral evil arises when our spoken words2a, which are purely symbolic, sow and reap the joys of symbolic privation within our phantasms2b. We find the right words to both express and conceal our falsehoods and deceptions. Prostitution is not the world’s oldest profession. The oldest job is to tell someone something that they want to hear.