Category Archives: The Evolution of Talk

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.

07/26/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 DT

Summary of text [comment] page 82

[If Rousseau is correct, then the word “property” is a socially constructed term that allows the sensible construction of civilized economic and political systems.

If this coagulation of social and sensible construction did not have surviving power, then it would not exist today.

Civilization, an expression of unconstrained complexity, relies on the social construction of “property”. We project the referent “property” into our experience of the word “civilization”.]

07/24/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 DR

Summary of text [comment] page 82

[How did speech-alone talk potentiate unconstrained complexity?

Consider the word “property”.

Property is not a thing. One cannot see, hear, touch, taste or smell the referent. The referent cannot be pictured or pointed to.

The purely symbolic word ‘property’ did not exist in hand-speech talk. Its referent cannot be imaged or indexed.

Speech-alone talk can label anything, even non-sensual things like “property”.

Real things and patterns no longer receive iconic and indexal words. Instead, we project iconic and indexal qualities into words that label things that we figure must be real, like the word “property”.]

05/30/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 CG

Summary of text [comment] page 82

[At this point, ‘concupiscence’ is a word supported by two oppositions, one belonging to Church doctrine and one belonging to Schoonenberg.

The technical difference may be described, using the Greek opposition, as follows:

For Church doctrine, ‘flesh’ is different than ‘reason’. ‘Flesh’ is subject to ‘the state of being with Cupid (a pagan god of desire)’. The fancy word for this state is ‘concupiscence’.

For Schoonenberg’s speculation, ‘flesh and reason’ are distinct but inseparable. Both are different from ‘spirit’. Both ‘flesh and reason’ are subject to concupiscence. Concupiscence encompasses both material and immaterial desires, as well as personal and social conditions.]

05/24/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 CC

Summary of text [comment] page 82

[Paul and John’s letters try to make sense of the mythos of Jesus the Christ.

Yet, I see another movement, another mythos, opening before me. First century Greek, Roman and (most likely) Aramaic languages were changing. Schoonenberg did not see that opening. But, he did see a crucial point.]

Schoonenberg noted that the oppositions between ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ and between ‘the world’ and ‘the Father’, in Paul and John respectively, called for a new theology.

This new theology saw concupiscence, not only in man’s material nature, but also in his whole human being, including his being among other human beings.

‘Concupiscence’ encompasses both our (post-first-singularity human) material and immaterial natures, as well as our personal and social natures.

05/5/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BQ

Summary of text [comment] page 82

[ The re-ordination of the symbolic order during the first century of Christianity applies to Greek as well.

The original Greek opposition between ‘flesh’ and ‘reason’ had the same drawbacks as the original Semitic opposition of ‘flesh’ and ‘God’s law (that is, what one felt in one’s bones)’.

The drawback, in an age of Empire, was that one’s reason and one’s blood & bones could betray the truth. They were not as reliable as once imagined. One could betray one’s own people, and one’s own God, through reason and blood & bones, just as easily as through flesh and … um … flesh.

Both metaphors were adopted by the ruling elites to fashion idols (of ‘who they were’).

In Greece, the rulers became ‘paragons of reason’.

In Israel, the rulers became ‘the blood and bones of Yahweh’s cult’.]