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.

08/14/25

Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism” (Part 15 of 33)

0157  If all I wanted to do is acquire a clay pot by exercising my social and technical know-how, then the story would end with content-level understanding.

But, in the prior examples, it does not.  Here is a picture of a virtual nested form in the category of secondness.  A perspective-level actuality2c virtually brings a situation-level actuality2b into relation with the potential of a content-level actuality2a.

0158 If I ask the clay, “What do you get out of this?”

The answer comes back, “Nothing.”

And weirdly, it is the nothing inside the clay where people brew their tea.

Does that sound like “a pair of lacks”?

0159 Now, when I shift from a piece of clay on the content level, to an adept training in the Buddhist tradition, can I say that the adept is a piece of clay?

Does the adept empty himself or herself in order to gain happiness?

0160 The adept, like the clay, creates a hollow in which the objet a of the day can brew, releasing its aromatic [petit objet a], which tells the untrained mind, “This is the reality that you should buy into.”

This will make you happy.

A beautiful, high quality, clay pot is on sale today, at reduced price!

0161 But, what about the one my grandmother gave to me?

Destroy it. Replace it. Then, brew your tea with improved satisfaction.

The adept can see through the disturbance, contain the disturbance, release the disturbance.

It is as simple and as elegant as brewing a pot of tea.

Zen style.

0162 In sipping an illusion down to its dregs, the adept feels happiness.  This is the happiness of the {acquisition of enlightenment [wealth and power] release from the illusions that people are buying}2c.  [Wealth and power] is not what we think it is.  The contiguity between acquisition and the exercise of order is dangerous.  So, why not simply let the suffering go?

“Oh wait!”, the Master intones, “Remember your form.”

0163 Surely, the greatest manifestation of [wealth and power] is what evolutionary anthropologists call [altruism].  Who can afford to give with no expectation of return?  No one can.  The adept begs for his food and for alms, so others can give and expect no thing in return.  Giving to a Buddhist monk is a moment of enlightenment.

0164 Zizek is correct in that Buddhism does not really grasp how jouissance1x, objet a2x, [petit objet a]2x and the big Other3x are radically intersubjective… or should I say?… “suprasubjective”.  They are inscribed, so to say.  But, they are not inscribed like pen on paper.  They are inscribed like the contiguity between pen and paper. {Pen [inscribe] paper}2is the actuality2 that requires understanding.  The inscription itself only requires recitation.

0165 With that, allow me to inscribe an observation.

Buddhism seems to put the evils of Soviet and Chinese Communism into the basket labeled “suffering”.

But, what about “evil”?

Are show trials evil?

Here is the observation as a virtual nested form in the category of secondness.

0166 On the content level, the normal context of a Stalinist state3a brings the dyadic actuality of {policy failures [need for blame] show trials}2a into relation with the possibility of ‘continuing current operations’1a.

On the situation level, the normal context of broadcasting3b brings the dyadic actuality of {accusation [constitutes] theatrical drama}2b or {illusion [transaction] hollow satisfaction}2b into relation with the possibility of ‘mollifying dissatisfaction with current operations’1b.

On the perspective level, the normal context of the Relativist One3c, the one who stands outside of all other jurisdictions, brings the dyadic actuality of {the projection of guilt as a judicial acquisition of “righteousness” [wealth and power] the social ordering of all when the accused confesses guilt}2c into relation with the potential of  ‘a synthetic truth’1c, which claims that current operations are both necessary and inevitable and well… do we feel the jouissance1c?

0167 Oh, it all must make sense, since, if current operations fail, then we enter the night of the world.

Nobody wants that.

08/9/25

Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism” (Part 19 of 33)

0205 What does Zizek do?

He investigates the contiguity between a noumenon [and] its phenomena, as if it might be a feature and not a bug.

He gives examples of Bell’s theorem.  He talks about anxiety, when it comes to relying only on phenomena.  What about the noumenon, the thing itself?  Oh, I can take the model, framed within the disciplinary languages of quantum mechanics, and account for the data, the observable and measurable features of the phenomena of really tiny things.  But, I have to take a lot of measurements, because these things are really small.  Plus, I cannot predict the behavior of any single small particle, because they are all identical as far as the measurement apparatus is concerned.

In a fashion, scientists transcend the ontological thing itself.

Scientist prefer to replace the noumenon with what the noumenon must be, according to their models.   Then, the model (standing in the place of the noumenon) [can be objectified as] its phenomena.

0206 Zizek considers space.

Zizek ponders time.

But, these excursions only bring the author to admit that space and time may well be located on the content-level, along with what it is3a and the potential of ‘the thing itself’1a.

You know, that is location with the “Please disregard…” sign.

Zizek writes something like this.  Science?  How crazy is science?  Science pushes symbolizing the real with formulas that don’t make sense to the point where we substitute our own encounters with the thing itself with what we imagine that our symbol-laden formulas are telling us what the noumenon must be.

0207 I suspect that is why Zizek is paid the big bucks.

He says it so much better than me.

Lacan was also paid well.  This fact pissed off competing psychoanalysts.  Lacan did not regard their urinations when he coined the French term, “achoses“.  Achoses gets transliterated into no-things.

For, example, a superposition of states/waves2a is an achose.

Decades later, Zizek nicely ties the ribbon by noting that the “a” of achose is the a of objet a, which I have already encountered as the actuality2x that emerges from (and situates) jouissance1x, as the potential of ‘truth and synthesis’1x.

Or, is it the possibility of ‘a synthetic truth’1x?

0208 How about the following?

What if data1c are syntheses1c of the truth1c of measurements2b?

Then I can use a Lacanian… um… a Peircean re-articulation of a Lacanian schema… to boldly rip the banner of “Please disregard…” from the imaginary noumenon level and reveal the fully exposed achose2a, as what the model says that the thing itself must be.  Oh… what?… a particle composed of superimposed waves2a?… that is not it2a, is it2c?

0209 Here is a picture of the three-level interscope.

0210 Well, it2a may not be the noumenon1a, but it2a is objectified by um… its phenomena1b.

On the content or imaginary or noumenon level, the normal context of what it is3a brings the thing that the model says it is2a (that is, an achose2a) into relation with the possibility of ‘the thing itself’1a.   Or, should I say, “the possibility that it2a can be the thing itself1a, which it2a obviously is not, because it2a is what scientists say it2a must be”?

On the situation or real or phenomenon level, the normal context of a measurement apparatus3a brings the actuality of the dyad2b, {the collapse of states/waves [yields] a measurement}2b, into relation with the possibility of ‘phenomena from what is of the Positivist’s judgment’1b.

On the perspective or symbolic or model level, the empirio-schematic judgment more or less unfolds.  The disciplinary language of quantum mechanics3c brings the actuality of the dyad2c, {acquired data [fits into] mechanical or mathematical model}2c, into relation with the possibility of ‘data’1c, which is obviously a mask for jouissance1cdesignated as the potential of ‘a synthetic truth’1c.

0211 After all, doesn’t “data2c” manifest synthetic truth1c?

And, doesn’t “data2c” (as matter) fit into a mathematical or mechanical model2c (as form)?

And, just like Jesus sees Satan fall from the heavens, like a lightning bolt, does not the symbolic cast its own image down to the imaginary?

Lacan follows a sacred vision to its obscene essence.

Metaphysics is not allowed.The achose is the discharge of radical materialism2c into the hollow2a between what it is3a and the potential that it is1a.

08/9/25

Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism” (Part 20 of 33)

0212 Once the perspective, the symbolic, and the model2c constellates, then BOOM!

In a flash of… um… illuminatingling… discharge, the believers speak in the tongues of disciplinary languages.

Here is the previous diagram at the moment when the tension between the perspective and content levels cracks down.

The form of a mathematical or mechanical model2c instantiates the achose2, a representation of the thing itself2a.

0213 The transmigration of the symbolic into the imaginary is what every ambitious scientist dreams of. 

Ferdinand de Saussure’s model of language as two arbitrarily related systems of differences shocks the discipline of linguistics, then begins to seep into the content-level of psychology, sociology, anthropology and various humanities.

Albert Einstein’s model of relativity shocks the science of physics, then permeates into the content levels of a diversity of disciplines unrelated to physics, as if what it is3a and the possibilities of ‘the thing itself’1a have changed.

0214 It happens in all sorts of sciences.  The model transmigrates into the slot for the noumenon, constituting an imaginary noumenon that can be objectified as its phenomena.  Here, the term, “imaginary”, does not comport with common use.  “Imaginary” is technically a Lacanian label for a psychological being.

Here, the psychological being is the content-level of the above interscope.

The achose corresponds to the content-level actuality2a.

0215 “Imaginary” overlays the level containing the noumenon.

The other two overlays are “real” and “symbolic”.

If I add Peirce to the mix, “imaginary” associates to the category of firstness, “real” to secondness, and “symbolic” to thirdness.  The symbolic virtually brings the real into relation with the possibilities of the imaginary.

The following figure compares the content-level that is disregarded by Copenhagen orthodoxy and the content-level that is electrified by scientists who triumphantly place their model2c into the slot for the noumenon2a. 

0216 I immediately notice that the actuality2a in the content-level disregarded by Copenhagen orthodoxy is already tracing upwards towards a quantum mechanical model2c.  It is only a matter of opportunity for the normal context of what it is3a and the potential of ‘the thing itself’1a to feel the impact of a symbolic discharge.

0217 What does this imply?

Does this imply that Lacan’s theoretical configuration of one particular level in an interscope fractally scales to the entire interscope?

Say what?

0218 Here is a picture containing both Lacan’s and Hegel’s terminology.  It applies to all levels, but most boldly to the perspective level (and Zizek’s configuration).

0219 Now, consider the thunderstruck three-level interscope, where triumphalist science has covered the noumenon2aover with its model, so that the model (in the slot for noumenon) [can be objectified as] its phenomena.

What if the model2c and model2a correspond to an objet a writ large?

With that question in mind, consider the following figure.

Red denotes the objet a writ large.

06/4/25

A Brief Overview of What Razie Mah offers Biosemioticians in 2025 (Part 2 of 3)

1285 Biosemiotics challenges the current scientific vision of human evolution (as of 2025).

Okay, maybe I should correct that.

Razie Mah presents a challenge that biosemioticians should explore.

Human evolution comes with a twist.

1286 The transition between the Lebenswelt that we evolved in and our current Lebenswelt starts with the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia, nominally, 7800 years ago.  That makes the current year, 7825 U0′ (Ubaid Zero Prime).  The year is merely a formality.  Perhaps, astrologers will have something to say about the year when the Ubaid settles as the world’s first speech-alone talking culture.

At its inception, the Ubaid is the only speech-alone talking culture on Earth.  All other cultures practice hand-speech talk.  The power of speech-alone talk makes the Ubaid disposed to unconstrained social complexity.

1287 The Ubaid archaeological period is followed by the Uruk (starting around 1800 U0′).  The Uruk archaeological period is followed by the Sumerian Dynastic (2800 U0′).  The Egyptian Dynastic starts at the same time, showing precocious development after exposure to speech-alone talk from the the original source in southern Mesopotamia.

1288 As the first singularity spreads, nearby hand-speech talking cultures drop the hand-component of their hand-speech talk in favor of speech-alone talk.  Why?  Speech-alone talk is the practice of wealthier and more powerful neighboring cultures (starting with the Ubaid). Speech-alone talk permits explicit abstraction.  Explicit abstractionfacilitates specialization.  As soon as explicit abstraction is practiced, trends towards labor and social specializationmanifest.

Wealth and power.

What is not to like?

1289 The potentiation of unconstrained social complexity shows up in various guises in the written origin myths of the ancient Near East.  Of course, one well-known myth comes from an oral tradition that lasted for thousands of years, before being committed to writing.  Yes, I am talking about the biblical stories of Adam and Eve.

Notice that the talking serpent does not have hands.  It could not have performed hand talk.  It is an exemplar of speech-alone talk.

1290 What does the speaking serpent accomplish?

It demonstrates the nature of speech-alone talk.

Surely, the serpent enjoyed the game… until the boss showed up.  Once Adam and Eve leave the garden, trends towards unconstrained social complexity follow.  The social circles of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in cannot withstand the onslaught of labor and social specialization.  Brother turns against brother.

1291 Of course, a drama is the best way to tell the tale of the first singularity, that is, the beginning of our humanity… er… current Lebenswelt.

Consider Razie Mah’s fiction, An Archaeology of the Fall.

1292 Nominally, the year of this examination is 7825 U0′ (Ubaid Zero Prime).

And, postmoderns are beginning to realize the power of spoken words to create reality.

That is the nature of our current Lebenswelt.

1293 Here is a list of Razie Mah’s masterworks.

01/10/25

Looking at Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnessen’s Book (2021) “Semiotic Agency” (Part 19 of 24)

0161 Today, in 2025, the psychometric Positivist’s judgment looks something like this.

0162 Yeah, the figure looks busy.

But, it still reads like a judgment.

The psychometric intellect (relation, thirdness) brings disciplinary languages honed to produce capitalist and socialist models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with a noumenal overlay of what people think, that can be objectified as what people say (what is, firstness).

0163 But, I thought that what people think cannot be fully objectified as what people say.

Ah, capitalist and socialist models substituting in for what people think can be objectified as what people say.

No wonder the judgment associates to the term, “the post-truth condition”.

0164 Remember, experts in the psychometric sciences make a lot more money than the practitioners of biosemiotics, even though the psychometric sciences are, like cybernetics, closely related to biosemiotics.

0165 Allow me to discuss the entire judgment starting with the relation (thirdness).

The psychometric intellect employs two normal contexts, a positivist one3c and expertise3b.  Note the subscripts.  The subscripts apply to a three-level interscope developed in Looking at Steve Fuller’s Book (2021) “A Player’s Guide To The Post-Truth Condition” (appearing in Razie Mah’s blog in July 2024).  Subscripts 1, 2 and 3 correspond to potential1, actuality2 and normal context3. Subscripts a, b and c correspond to contenta, situationb and perspectiveclevels.

The psychometric intellect has a rule.  That rule is not quite the same as the mandate of the positivist intellect.  The positivist intellect says, “Metaphysics is not allowed.”  This constitutes a ban on Aristotle’s formal and final causes.  But, what of the psychometric sciences?  What do they permit?

0166 Allow me to elaborate.

Natural sciences depend on “truncated” material and efficient causes, because they are necessary for mathematical and mechanical models.

The social sciences fudge, as one sees with the phenomenologist’s Positivist judgment.  Social scientists ignore metaphysics.  As a result, novel “mechanistic” models reduce observations and measurements of social phenomena to material and efficient causes that slyly incorporate formal and final causation.  Metaphysics slips into social science models through an open backdoor.

The cybernetic sciences admit that metaphysics is allowed (and is not ignored).  Formal and final causes may appear in mechanistic models of habit.  At the same time, “metaphysics” changes its definition to “religious”.  So, cybernetic models are “not metaphysical”, because they are “not religious”.

The psychometric sciences apply the cybernetic approach to the political sciences.

0167 The psychometric sciences constitute the situation-level of a three-level interscope.  Rather than ignoring metaphysics (like social sciences) or grudgingly accepting them (like cybernetics), the psychometric sciences play a language game.  Metaphysical mechanisms are not “metaphysical”, therefore the label cannot apply.

Ah, that makes sense.

This is about politics.

0168 Take a look at what ought to be (secondness) and what is (firstness) for the psychometric Positivist’s judgment.

Expertise involved in the psychometric sciences is geared to explaining observations and measurements of what people say in response to an interventionalist “sign”.  Whenever the “system” takes an action, that action impacts people who are not involved in… um… “the decision2c” to take action.  Nevertheless, people3a are effected1a.  People3a will talk about those impacts1a.  Those statements2a become the phenomena2a that experts2b observe and measure1b.  Then, the experts3b produce capitalist and socialist models2b, couched in the language of science3c.  These models2b offer opportunities1c for “the system”3c to make another “decision”2c.

0169 A cyberneticist may portray the above paragraph as a functional… er… dysfunctional circle.

What does this suggest?

Is there more to the functional circle than meets the eye?

0170 Take a moment and examine the first item in point 0152 and the figure in 0153.

I ask, “What is a metaphor for the receptor?”

The answer is, “What people are saying.”

Note that phenomena2a for the psychometric sciences2b are strictly conditioned by a noumenon (what is, firstness) consisting of content-level personal experiences3a,1a of an interventional sign-relation.  In other words, phenomena are what people say about an interventional sign-relation.

0171 Where does this interventional sign-relation come from?

Some deciding body (technically, the relativist one3c) makes a decision2c based on an opportunity1c justified by capitalist and socialist models2b, constructed by experts3b, on the basis of psychometric data1b.

0172 What about this “strictly conditioned” business?

Well, people say a lot of things.  The expert is only interested in statements that (1) concern the person’s experiences2ain regards to an interventional sign-vehicle2c and (2) are capable of becoming data1b for capitalist and socialist models2b.  So, the psychometric expert3b dismisses almost everything that anyone says and only record statements relevant to their models2b.

0173 Now, look at the title of the above figure.

The cyberneticist does the same conditioning for observations and measurements.

The cyberneticist triggers the receptor that initiates the functional circle.

12/31/24

Looking at Bill Arnold’s Article (2020) “Genesis and the Challenges of the 21st Century” (Part 1 of 5)

0001 This article records a presentation at a symposium on Adam, the Fall, and the goodness of God.  The text is published in the journal, Pro Ecclesia (2020), volume 29(4), pages 387-406.  I request that the journal to unlock this issue.  After all, this lecture is not the only gem, covering a topic that is seldom broached.

0002 The author steps to the podium and posits two axioms.  One addresses the evolutionary sciences, in a minimalistic sort of way.  The other addresses biblical hermeneutics in the modern age.  Ironically, another science hides in the shadow of the second axiom.  That science is archaeology.

0003 Here is a picture of the two axioms.

0004 The science axiom poses a double difficulty.

Currently, the biological sciences present all evolution as continuous developments in time, although there are moments of radical… um… “re-organization”, hence the theory of punctuated equilibrium.  When the evolutionary sciences cast their models of human evolution into the mirror of theology, the theologian sees a picture that does not quite sync with the wild change of… um… “genre” that occurs the moment after God wraps up the Creation Story, by telling humans that they should give food to the animals (Genesis 1:30).

Speaking of that, here is an application of the two axioms in action.

0005 Mirror of theology?

See Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2014), available at smashwords and other e-book venues, as well as Razie Mah’s blog for the months of April, May and June, 2024.

On the one hand, the mirror of theology embraces the noumenon.

On the other hand, the mirror of theology reflects models proposed by science.  Science is not interested in the noumenon, the thing itself.  Scientists are only interested in a noumenon’s phenomena.  Phenomena are the observable and measurable facets of a noumenon.  Scientists build models based on observations and measurements of phenomena.  If the model “works”, then scientismists want to say that the model is more real than the thing itself.  At this point, natural philosophers and theologians object and say, “No, the scientific model is not more real than the thing itself.”

0006 After an awkward pause, triumphalist scientists reply, “Well, then, how are you going to know anything about the noumenon without our models?”

“Well,” the natural philosophers say, “What about matter and form?  I can know these about the noumenon through experience of it.”

“So how are you going to do that when the noumenon is evolutionary history?  How can you grasp that though determining its matter and form?”

To which the theologian sighs and says, “Listen, whatever the noumenon is, it cannot be reduced scientific models of its phenomena.  So, I will set up a mirror that will reflect your scientific model, so you can be assured that your models are not ignored when I contemplate the metaphysical structures intrinsic to the thing itself, while keeping my mind open to revelation (including the the Bible). I will call it ‘the mirror of theology’.”

0007 To which the scientist counters, “And, we will correspondingly set up a mirror in our domain, a mirror of science.  We will look at the theological statements concerning the character of the noumenon, which really should just be replaced by our mathematical and mechanical models.  Then, we will laugh at and ridicule them.”

0008 Now, I once again present the odd coincidence pictured before as an application of the two axioms.

Do I have that correctly?

Does the scientist project his model into the mirror of theology?

Does the theologian project his metaphysical analysis into the mirror of science?

How confusing is that?

0008 It seems to me, a mere semiotician, that these two images actually reflect a single real being.  The theologian looks into the mirror of theology and sees what evolutionary scientists project, then looks at revelation and locates an appropriate correspondence.  Then, when the theologian’s correspondence is viewed by the scientist in their mirror of science, it says, “That is superstitious nonsense!”

“It”?

I thought male and female he created them.

“It” must be a first approximation.

0009 Of course, to the semiotician, the whole situation is sort of funny, because it implies that there is a body of wisdom that is independent of science, but not subject to science, because it concerns the noumenon, the thing itself.

12/26/24

Looking at Bill Arnold’s Article (2020) “Genesis and the Challenges of the 21st Century” (Part 5 of 5)

0034 Yes, Razie Mah covers what postmodern scientists should project into the mirror of theology.

Our current Lebenswelt (German for “living world”) is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

The discontinuity is called “the first singularity”.

0035 The discontinuity entails a change in the way humans talk.

The hypothesis is technically described in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace.

The scientific discovery is dramatically portrayed in An Archaeology of the Fall.

Both texts are available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0036 The hypothesis, along with the hypotheses proposed in The Human Niche and How To Define the Word “Religion”,pose significant challenges to the way that human evolution is currently conceptualized.  See Comments on Michael Tomasello’s Arc of Inquiry (1999-2019), as well as Razie Mah’s blog for January through March 2024.

0037 Arnold drills down into the ideological substance of etiology.  With the hypothesis of the first singularity, the theologian’s focus on etiology bifurcates precisely along the fault-line between two genres.

Shall theology project this nested form into the mirror in the domain in science?

0038 The first step in Albright’s development scenario corresponds to the stories of Adam and Eve through the Table of Nations (following the stories of Noah’s flood).  Here, Albright’s intuition hits the mark.  This step corresponds to a phase of human reason, that may be correctly labeled, “proto-logical”.

Not surprisingly, the “proto-logical” label also applies to all the literature of the ancient Near East that is listed by Arnold.

Indeed, the label, “proto-empirical”, also applies.

Imagine passage from a world that thinks in hand-speech talk to a world that thinks in speech-alone talk.  The former allows a diversity of implicit abstractions.  The latter does not, because explicit abstraction gums up the works of implicit abstraction.  In the proto-empirical phase, explicit abstraction starts to establish a life of its own.

0039 Arnold adds that the next etiological phase corresponds to the stories of Abraham.  The founding of the people of Israel touches base with Albright’s “empirical” phase.  The Biblical text changes in clarity and focus when passing from the mythohistories of Noah to the tales of Abraham.  Terah does not move from his long-established home city lightly.  He moves for empirical reasons.  Yes, it is history, but it is rendered as myth.

0040 So, the Primeval History, along with other written origin stories of the ancient Near East, may be gathered under the catchment of “mytho-history”.  This term has the same semiotic structure as “proto-logical” and “proto-empirical”.  Yes, it is logical, but it is before formal logic.  Yes, it is empirical, but it is before the empirical takes on a life of its own.

0041 Arnold notes that Albright sees how the term, “adamah”, changes from “humanity” to “a personal name”, in the course Genesis 2.4 through 4.

He sees the change as significant and unsettling.

But, he does not have a vision where the stories of Adam and Eve are located in the tourbillion of increasing unconstrained social complexity manifesting in the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia.

0042 Barth smiles at this unsettlement.  For this theologian, as soon as Adam is with us, so is Christ.

In the construction of the temple of the heavens and the earth, God creates humans in His image in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

In the manufacture of Adam’s body and the inspiration of Adam’s breath, God creates humans in our current Lebenswelt.

0043 Thus, the discontinuity of the first singularity that appears in the mirror of theology, located in the domain of theology, is reflected back in the mirror of science, located in the domain of science, as the discontinuity between Genesis 2:3 and Genesis 2:4.

I wonder.

Can I imagine that there is only one mirror?

0044 A twenty-first century reading of Genesis challenges evolutionary scientists.

Genesis joins all the written origin stories of the ancient Near East, in proclaiming what evolutionary scientists ignore,humans are created by the gods in recent prehistory.  Indeed, a causal observation of the archaeological data demands the proposal of a hypothesis like the first singularity, if only the separate two million years of evolution within constrained social complexity from the 7800 years of theodramatic madness within unconstrained social complexity.

But, there is more, see Razie Mah’s blog on October 1, 2022, for a research project for all of Eurasia.

0045 The stories of Adam and Eve precisely capture the theodramatic character and the absolutely crazy turns of events that typify our current Lebenswelt.  One does not know whether to laugh or to cry.  Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do.

Meanwhile, the Creation Story intimates a deep prehistory, confounding the construction of the temple of the heavens and the earth with a counter-intuitive sequence of events that weirdly coincides with a phenomenological vision of the Earth’s evolutionary “progression”.  

0046 A twenty-first century reading of Genesis challenges theologians interested in the noumenon of humans, in our current Lebenswelt.

If the hypothesis of the first singularity becomes more and more plausible, so does a second doctrine of original sin,where the deficits of Augustine’s first attempt are amended, yielding a doctrine that applies to the post-truth condition. See Razie Mah’s blog for January 2, 2024 for a call to action.  Also see Razie Mah’s blog for July through October 2024.  These blogs will be assembled (for user convenience) as a three-part commentary, Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

12/24/24

Looking at Tomasz Duma’s Article (2023) “The Specificity of Secundum Dici Relations…” (Part 1 of 14)

0001 In 2017, the author publishes a book, in Polish, with the English title, “The Metaphysics of Relation: At the Basis of Understanding the Relations of Being”.  This article slices out one topic among many.

Thomas Aquinas uses the Latin term, relationes secundum dici, in ways that lead to a variety of interpretations.  Consequently, the complete title of this work is “The Specificity of Secundum Dici Relations in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Metaphysics”.  The article appears in Studia Gilsoniana 12(4) (October-December 2023), pages 589-616.

0002 I know that this article is scholarly, because the summary (abstract) appears at the end of the text.

0003 Why does this article capture my attention?

The term translates into relations (relationes) according to (secundum) speech (dici)… er… talk (dici).

I don’t think the Romans have a word for forms of talking other than speech.

They are so civilized.

0004 The term applies to various questions, such as when a pagan calls his god, “Lord of the heavens”, as well as the relation between matter and form, the relation between accident and substance, qualities of things, one’s orientation in labeling one side of an auditorium “right” or “left”, and so.  These are just samples.  Duma presents five cases in detail.

0005 The dici term contrasts to a similar term, relationes secundum esse.

The latter translates into relations (relationes) according to (secundum) existence (esse)… er… esse_ce (esse).

Esse_ce?

Esse_ce is a written play on the Latin term, esse.

Esse_ce is the complement to essence.

Whatever has esse_ce also has essence.  Whatever has essence also has esse_ce.

0006 Those two statements sound like relationes secundum esse even though they may be relationes secundum dici.

Why?

The relation between esse_ce and essence is another way to state the relation between matter and form.

0007 Plus, the relation between matter and form is an exemplar of Peirce’s category of secondness, the dyadic realm of actuality (that contrasts with thirdness, the triadic realm of normal contexts, and firstness, the monadic realm of possibility).

Secondness consists of two contiguous real elements.  For Aristotle’s hylomorphe, the real elements are matter and form.  The contiguity is not named.  However, a name stands ready-at-hand.  That name is “substance”.  So, I can take the word, “substance”, and place it in brackets (for notation), to arrive at the following figure.

0008 Now, my interest in Duma’s article begins to clarify.

The relation between matter and form is a relation where the terminus of the relation is a word, so to speak, that denotes either the presence (matter) or the shape (form) of a thing.  But, it does not denote a thing (which expresses both esse_ce and essence).

The same goes for the creature calling his creator, “master”.

When I watch the ritual proclamation, I encounter two real elements, the creature and the proclaimed word.  I must figure out the contiguity between these two real elements.  Both real elements are locked in a literal relationes secundum dici (a relation according to talk).

So, I place my guess into the slot for contiguity.

0009 Because Aristotle’s hylomorphe is a premier example of Peirce’s secondness, the creature [calling Creator] aspect of the dyad carries the feel of matter [substance], esse_ce, or “existence”.  Also, the [calling Creator] “Master” aspect carries the feel of [substantiating] form or essence.

May I go as far to say that much of Aquinas’s philosophy carrries the feel of matter [substance] form, even as Aquinas transcends the esse_ce and essence of Aristotle’s philosophy in an intellectual flight towards a recognition that is so… so… divine?

God is Substance.

God is the contiguity between all real elements in Peirce’s secondness.

0010 According to John Deely’s massive book, Four Ages (2001 AD), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is an important waystation between St. Augustine (354-430), who poses the question of sign-relations, and John of St. Thomas (John Poinsot (1589-1644)), who finally and correctly identifies signs as triadic relations.

Aquinas mentions relatives in his discourses on various theological and philosophical questions and disputes.  The diciand esse relations stand out.  They are are similarly worded. The formula is relationes secundum X, where X is either esseor dici.  Esse relations pose few difficulties.  Dici relations lead to confusion and debate.

0011 Here is a table listing some of the characteristics of each.

0012 In this examination, I have already brought Duma’s article into relation with one aspect of Peirce’s philosophical schema.

I hope that no one is surprised.

The next step adds another layer and that may take the reader off guard.

12/11/24

Looking at Tomasz Duma’s Article (2023) “The Specificity of Secundum Dici Relations…” (Part 14 of 14)

0119 The conceptual-flow apparatus of A,B,&C also applies to Peirce’s category of firstness as explicit matter (A).

0120 An explicit definition of firstness (B) stands as form in the dicey bucket, then as matter in the esse bucket.  

In the esse bucket, dici (speech-alone talk acting as hand-talk) relates to whatever follows the logics of inclusion and allows contradictions.

0121 Rather than giving another example, I proceed to section four, where the author formulates how we should understand relationes secundum dici.

Since this examination is already disruptive, let me proceed to some suggestions that sort of correspond to the author’s points and some that do not.

0122 First, let go of the distinction between categorical and transcendental.  Even though the distinction is helpful, it does not appear to be critical to the speculations at hand.

0123 Second, all dici relations have two termini, the relation itself (portrayed as a hylomorphic dyad consistent with Peirce’s definition of secondness) and the elements that go into the relation (for Aristotle’s hylomorphe, “matter” and “form”, and for the dici relation, “dici” and “relationes“).

0124 Third, as soon as relationes secundum X (where X = esse or dici) is formulated as a dyad in the realm of actuality, the relation is subject to the laws of contradiction and noncontradiction.  The label for the contiguity is placed within brackets for clear notation.  The contiguity’s label is selected on the basis that [it] minimizes contradictions between the two real elements.

[Secundum] may be regarded as a contiguity that minimizes contradictions.

0125 Fourth, relationes secundum X (where X = esse or dici) is an actuality2.  A normal context3 and potential1 are required to attain understanding.   An entire (filled-in) category-based nested form associates to understanding.  Understanding encompasses the three distinctly different logics of thirdness, secondness and firstness.

In hominin evolution, our genus adapts to the potential of triadic relations, including “understanding”, defined as “the completion of a category-based nested form”.  Implicit abstractions produce complete nested forms holistically (that is, without explicit articulation of the three elements).  Hand-talk favors implicit abstraction.

Explicit abstractions may articulate elements within a relation, by using the purely symbolic labels of speech-alone talk.  At the same time, the conceptual-flows of A,B,&C suggest that speech-alone talks engages implicit abstraction (and visa versa).

Nonetheless, A and C are not precisely the same relationes, even though they are contiguous with B, dici.

Nor, are A and C the same dici, even though they are contiguous with B, relationes.

0126 Fifth, what does [secundum] (translated as [according to]) in relationes secundum X (where X = esse or dici) imply?

Secundum compares to substance, in Aristotle’s hylomorphe of “matter [substance] form”.

Secundum also associates to either implicit abstraction or explicit abstraction, depending on the dyad.

Secundum entangles the distinction between categorical and transcendental relations, for those who cannot let go (see first point).

0127 Sixth, Peirce’s diagrams allow an inquirer to consider labels (from explicit abstractions) within a visual framework (that coheres with implicit abstraction).

0128 This examination adds value to Tomasz Duma’s contribution to our current appreciation of relationes secundum X,by suggesting that the philosophies of Aristotle, Aquinas and Peirce are (1) congruent and (2) illuminate cognitive features of both our current Lebenswelt as well as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0129 Furthermore (3), this congruence allows contemporary philosophers to consider the difference between explicitly abstracted relations that act as matter to dici (speech-alone talk) as form and implicitly abstracted relations that act as form to dici (hand talk) and esse as matter.

Now, that is one complicated “furthermore”.

0130 Oh, one more “furthermore”!

Recall that Duma gives five cases where relatives appear in the writings of Thomas Aquinas.

In this examination, I also provide five examples for relationes secundum X.

The Oldowan stone tool is a case for X=esse.

The hand-talk gesture-word, [RAVEN], is a case for X=dici (hand talk).

[WOLF][FINGER] is a case for X=dici (hand talk) and then X=dici (speech-alone talk).

“Ravenous chairperson”, “cushy job” and “drought” are cases for X=dici (speech-alone talk).

“A bridge that meets code” is a case for X=dici (speech-alone talk).

0131 Is this what the author anticipated when he sent his article for publication?

I suppose not.

0132 Okay, the author may chuckle during the course of this examination, as it tracks from Aquinas’s relatives straight into a key question concerning human evolution.

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

Are relationes secundum dici integral to an answer to this question?

What if.

0133 Indeed, laughter is an appropriate response.

Who would have guessed that Aristotle, Aquinas and Peirce, all strangely brilliant yet incomplete philosophers, are (inadverently) in the business of illuminating differences between who we are and who we evolved to be?

0134 My thanks to Tomasz Duma for his article on this very intriguing topic.

10/5/24

Looking at N. J. Enfield’s Book (2022) “Language vs. Reality” (Part 23 of 23)

1060 Chapter eleven completes Part III.  This chapter concerns sense making.

How am I to make sense of the inverted interscope that arrives after the story of Adam and Eve enters into Enfield’s science-inspired interscope?

1061 How do I capture the Gestalt shift in speech-alone talk?

For Enfield’s scientific frame, the perspective-level contiguity is [translates into].

For the inverted frame, the perspective-level contiguity is [transubstantiates into].

Does this suffice?

The Gestalt switches from one to the other interscope.

1062  What else?

The change of Gestalts reconfigures the title.

1063 What Enfield cannot say is this.

Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

In 2022, he simply is not aware of the hypothesis of the first singularity.

1064 What Enfield cannot say may be formulated in terms of science, as an evolutionarily recent cultural transition from hand-speech talk to speech-alone talk, starting with the emergence of the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia, nominally 7824 years ago.

One day, science may present how hand and hand-speech talk potentiates constrained social complexity and speech-alone talk potentiates unconstrained social complexity.

Science may investigate how hand and hand-speech talk facilitates implicit abstraction and how speech-alone talk has a unique ability to label anything, even referents that cannot be pictured or pointed to, even referents that are quite fantastic and alluring and that exist only in the realm of possibility.

1065 Perhaps, explicit abstraction is more cunning than any animal that the Lord God creates.

Like sin, it couches at our door.  It is our job to tame it.

1066  In conclusion, Enfield’s well-written book testifies to what he is not aware of.

The background Gestalt of his scientific discourse is a story, and this story steps forward in this examination of Part III, entitled “Reality Made By Language”.  But, the inversion does not manifest a full Gestalt shift, because that is precisely what Enfield wants to avoid.  He wants to remain a scientist, speaking the disciplinary languages of linguistics and cognitive psychology, as if they could warn us about the near impossibility of practicing Wittgenstein’s rule, because our kind evolves the trait of ‘agreeability’1a, so that our ‘imaginations’1b may align in the virtual normal context of ‘coordination’1c.

1067 Enfield’s interscope is beautiful to behold.

His interscope appears in the mirror of science.  I say this while casting a glance at Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2024) by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.  Portions appear in Razie Mah’s blogs for April through June, 2024.  When a theologian looks at Enfield’s interscope, shimmering in the mirror of science, he responds with a theological question, asking, “What is this image revealing?”

The answer cries out for a Gestalt inversion.

One Gestalt hinges on the contiguity, “translates”.

The other Gestalt hinges on the contiguity, “transubstantiates”.

1068 The invert interscope is a wonder to behold.

Saint Thomas Aquinas might chuckle.  Aquinas coined the word, “transubstantiates”.

Note how a physical reality, as simple as water, poured over the head of a baby or a child or a repenting adult,transubstantiates into the social reality of washing away the stain of original sin2c.  Water is more than physical reality.  Washing the stain of original sin is more than social reality.

1069 This is what the theologian projects into the mirror of theology, standing in the jurisdiction of science, as he contemplates the implications of what Enfield has written.

1070 In the sacrament of baptism, everyone in the ritual co-ordinates, in one particular recitation, starting with an answer to the question, “Do you reject Satan?”

Lucifer is an angel of light.  Everything that Lucifer says tells more about Lucifer than the referent that Lucifer’s words conjure.  Indeed, the referent that Lucifer’s words conjure is a lie.  Just look at the seven of cups in a deck of illustrated Tarot cards and tell me that Lucifer’s words do not conjure this image in the mind of poor, unsuspecting Eve, who, after all, is only trying to be agreeable.

1071 Perhaps, this examination is an invitation for Dr. Enfield and other linguists and cognitive psychologists, to realize that their science has isolated us in rigid containers of empirio-schematic thought.  We are creatures who evolved to live as images of God, not as subjects for the psychometric sciences.

Do not let your scientific commitments get in the way of an origin story of the ancient Near East2a, rising through the observable and measurable use of spoken words2b, and blossoming into a sacrament instituted during the most amazing revelation coming from the promised land2c.

When John the Baptist pours the waters of the Jordan over the head of Jesus, the heavens rejoice.

Here is what we evolved to be, standing at the confluence of language and reality.

1072 John Deely, the author of Four Ages of Understanding (2001), offers a label for this new world view.  Welcome to the Age of Triadic Relations.

1073 My thanks to Dr. N. J. Enfield for his book, written at the cusp (yet without awareness that there is a cusp) of a new age of understanding.