08/30/25

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

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

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

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

Surely, Zizek offers food for thought.

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

0003 What does the label “Christian atheism” imply?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0008 So who or what is this emancipatory collective?

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

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

How real?

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, some qualifications apply.

That is what the sacrament of confession is for.

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

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

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

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

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

0014 So, what precisely does Zizek have in mind?

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

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

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

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

08/1/25

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

0339 So, why compare the two interscopes?

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

That is a tad confusing.

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

All these items may be regarded as writ small.

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

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

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

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

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

What about Christian atheism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“… yeah, the light.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This remarkable finding adds value to Zizek’s argument.

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

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

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

Would some say… “the unholy union”?

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

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

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

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

The rest is left to the exercise.

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

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

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

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

Consider the tragic photon.

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

Is that too high a price to pay?

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

0350 Take a look at the preceding interscope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn’t that obscene?

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

Where the hell is truth_1a?

0353 Isn’t that what Zizek is interested in?

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

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

I end with a note on nomenclature.

Lacan is very clever in his terminology.

So is Zizek.

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

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

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

07/31/25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a picture.

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

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

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

It sure looks that way.

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

07/1/25

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

0211 This examination adds value to Ross’s project in five ways.

First, it introduces a history that encompasses the modern conundrum presented in this text.

Hugh Ross and the Reasons To Believe Team are actors in a theodrama that is at least 800 years old.

Plus, that theodrama is about to undergo a pivot that is captured in the following figure.

0212 Yes, the redemption_2c offered by the party that exalts grace_3c over nature_3c and the protocols_2c offered by the party that exalts nature_3c over grace_3c, are now entangled because, on the content level, the Creation Story is a sign of the evolutionary record and the Primeval History is an insider’s view of the start of our current Lebenswelt.

0212 Second, this examination offers a semiotic way to view what Ross is trying to articulate. Theologians should be interested in sign-relations. Scientists take sign-relations for granted. Ross’s book is titled as if a scientific defense will rescue Biblical inerrancy. This makes no sense unless its taken from a semiotic point of view. Inerrancy draws the Bible, especially Genesis 1-11, into hitherto unimagined triadic relations with scientific inquiry. The empirio-schematics of artistic concordism and the first singularity are variations of what ought to be for the Positivist’s judgment.

When, you think about it, signs tend to share certain characteristics with the term, “inerrancy”. Every sign-vehicle stands for its sign-object in regards to its sign-interpretant. Even if the interpretant is camouflage, the sign-relation purports to be flawless and honest in its own way. Indeed, all signs are “inerrant” in the eyes of God.

0213 Third, this examination offers a way of appreciating how Ross’s efforts aesthetically derive from the Positivist’s and the empirio-schematic judgments. Indeed, Ross’s project towers head and shoulder above other projects in the Venn diagram of science and religion because his aesthetics are one step away from the ways that scientists operate.

0214 Fourth, this examination offers a slightly different version of concordism than Ross. Mah’s artistic version may assist Ross’s moderate version in future research. In particular, I pray for a science book on the Earth’s evolutionary history to accompany Exercises in Artistic Concordism. Wouldn’t that be fantastic?

Fifth, this examination offers a wonderful endpoint, in the form of a label for the single actuality implied by the intersection of redemption_2c and protocols_2c. The early scholastics knew this label well. And now, perhaps, the following dyad will be born again.

0215 My thanks to Hugh Ross and this team at Reasons To Believe for publishing a book worthy of examination.

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.

12/10/24

Looking at Brandon Wanless’s Article (2023) “…on the State of Original Innocence” (Part 1 of 12)

0001 The full title of the article before me is “St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John Paul II on the State of Original Innocence”. The work is published online by the journal Studia Gilsoniana 12(4) (October-December 2023), pages 617-634. The work is brief, a mere seventeen pages.

0002 Indeed, I suspect that this examination will be far more extravagant, in the same way that twentieth century American advertising transforms a winter celebration of the birth of Christ into a two month bazaar hawking any item that can be purchased and given to a loved one (who, praise God, will be too embarrassed to return it). Like scented body wash.

0003 Modern Americans already practice a theology of the gift.

Modern Americans already practice a theology of the body.

And, the enterprise makes even the angels laugh, because it is a parody of every grace that it proclaims, in the same way that original sin is a parody of original justice… or… as certain Protestants would have it… total depravity is a parody of total innocence. What is “original” in one Christian schema is “total” in another.

0004 In this thought-piece, theologian Brandon Wanless aims to demonstrate how Pope John Paul II, in his proclamation, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, takes the theology of Thomas Aquinas as a platform, a soap-box, if you will, to stand upon while formulating a judgment. An honest, contemplative, Christian intellect (relation) brings the what is of original innocence into relation with the what ought to be of the ethnos of the gift.

0005 Ethnos?

Is that the same as “ethos”?

“Ethnos” is a term that appears in the discipline of political theology, around 2006, the same time as when the English translation of John Paul II’s commentary on Humanae Vita (1968) is released for publication. The term is coined by Russian philosopher, Alexander Dugin. “Ethnos” is the people that we once were, but cannot return to being. “Ethnos” contrasts with the Russian word, “narod”, which is who we once were, before political theories turned us into a “people”.

0006 What does this imply?

The term, “ethnos”, is an element in a Greimas square. A Greimas square is a purely relational structure consisting of four terms. As it turns out, the Greimas square is useful in appreciating how one spoken word differs from other spoken words.

Here are the four elements, along with the rules of the Greimas square.

0007 Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…Dimensions of Dugin’s Populism”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog, February 16-28, 2023, elaborates the “ethnos” as an element in a Greimas square.

Here is a picture.

0008 The focal term (A), for political theology, is “the people“, as in the slogan, “We, the People…”.

0009 Various political theories (B) contrast with the people (A), even as they (B) try to define it (A) according to various explicit abstractions. These explicit abstractions become bound in a religion, of sorts. The label is awarded the postfix, “-ism”. “Communism” and “capitalism” are good examples.

0010 The being (C) that speaks against (literally “contra” and “diction”) B is difficult to define. It is pre-political, at least, pre-modern political theory. The narod is where where a man marries a woman and they have children. They live in villages, or maybe, towns. The “narod” reminds me of first title in John Paul II’s theology of the body. The relational nature of the family is addressed in the First and Second Primers on the Organization Tier and A Primer on the Family, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

The narod (C) belongs to our current Lebenswelt.

0011 Finally, the ethnos (D) contrasts with the narod (C), because it is the narod before the first singularity. The ethnos is the narod in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. As such, it speaks against the people (A) who are framed by various political -isms (B). The people can never return to the ethnos. The ethnos is the condition of total innocence.

And yet, a return to the original innocence (D) is weirdly what every political theory (B) promises.

0012 How crazy is that?

12/2/24

Looking at Brandon Wanless’s Article (2023) “…on the State of Original Innocence” (Part 12 of 12)

0106 In Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II proposes that original innocence entails a gift of holiness given to man and to woman, enabling them to participate in the inner life of God, through their radical giving of self to one another, in purity of heart.

He concludes that the ethos of the gift may serve as the basis for a truly adequate anthropology.

0107 To this examiner, Pope John Paul II stands on the soapbox of the theology of Thomas Aquinas. He proclaims biblical teaching.

At the same time, he points toward the prelapsarian Adam… or adamah… and subtly suggests that a truly adequate anthropology may be found in… an application of Aquinas’s metaphysics and biblical teaching to who we evolved to be.

0108 Male and female we evolved to be?

And more…

Male and female in mutual self-giving, we evolved to be.

0109 Here is a picture with another way to appreciate the relation between John Paul II’s specific application and the broad application that The Theology of the Body intimates.

This schema may be applied to all social circles.

0110 Adamah is “humanity”, when the hominin and the social circle may be distinguished but not separated. Adamah do not articulate triadic relations using explicit abstractions. Rather, adamah live them and, over generations, adapt to them. We live by implicit abstraction. Implicit abstractions are built into our souls and bodies. Adamah associates to the “image of God” of Genesis verses 1:26-31.

0111 The foundational social circles are family (5) and friends (5).

The social circle for obligatory collaborative foraging is the team (15). Here is where our lineage learns to be productive and have fun. Proto-linguistic hand talk is an adaptation to teams. Teams engage in sensible construction.

The social circle that provides safety in numbers in travel and at night is the band (50).

The social circle that brings harmony to diverse teams is the community (150). Here is where we learned to be more than productive and experience more than fun. Fully linguistic hand talk is an adaptation to community. Communities engage in social construction. Social construction is the meaning underlying the term, “religion”.

0112 The social circle that gathers bands and communities in seasonal celebrations is the mega-band (500). Here is where singing is first used for social synchronization. The gathering cannot last long, in order to avoid disease. So, rapid social synchronization is required.

Once the voice is under voluntary control due to social and sexual selection, the voice is exapted at the start of our own species, Homo sapiens, over 200,000 years ago. Humans practice hand-speech talk until the first singularity.

The social circle that calls for wisdom and offers deep witness to the signs of The One Who Hand Talks the World Itself is the tribe. The tribe is a linguistic community.

0113 Unbeknownst to Pope John Paul II, a theology of original innocence as a disposition towards interpersonal self-giving may be precisely the metaphysics needed to conceptually elucidate the dynamic harmonies within and among social circles that characterize hominin evolution.

0114 Man is not meant to be alone, as a radical individual, whose sexuality is a tool to satisfy “needs”, according to some theoretical -ismist construction.

Yet, man is alone, caught in a web of explicit abstractions promising to solve his alienation, by incorporating him into an idea, an “-ism”, concocted by some “Western Enlightenment inspired” political philosopher. If he buys into the agenda, then he may be a person, among an ideologically defined people.

Such theory may be technically correct, but it is wholly misleading. Now, -ismists are increasingly discredited.

0115 In our current Lebenswelt, we live in the state of original sin.

We are not alone in contemplating our condition.

Alexander Dugin calls for a fourth political theory.

Pope John Paul II offers a theology that complements Dugin’s vision.

Dugin offers a political theory that complements the pope’s theology.

0116 Just beyond Adam, representing our current Lebenswelt, there is adamah, prelapsarian humanity, representing the Lebenswelt that we evolved to be. Philosophical inquiry into biblical teaching may allow us to see that humans and social circles co-evolve, so man was never meant to be alone.

The people are beginning to realize that the -ismists are wrong, the narod is where we could be, and the ethnos is where we can never return to. We long to return. But, we cannot. So turn around and see what God has to offer.

0117 Perhaps, now, in a confused and exploratory fashion, we can modify our scientific interpretation of human evolutionand stand on Aquinas’s soapbox just like the the pope does, and greet the prelapsarian adamah, as who we evolved to be.

0118 My thanks to the author for publishing an article worthy of examination.

Surely, this examiner goes to places that the author never envisioned.

Such is the way of scholastic inquiry. Commentaries follow commentaries. Then, everything changes.

11/30/24

Looking at Daniel Houck’s Book (2020) “Aquinas, Original Sin and the Challenge of Evolution” (Part 1 of 23)

0001 Daniel W. Houck juggles five challenges in his attempt to recover Thomas Aquinas’s teachings on original sin.

0002 One, Aquinas does not challenge Augustine’s mechanism of original sin. Original sin descends through Adam to all humans through human reproduction. Augustine’s speculation is now on the chopping block, because modern biologists observe no large genetic bottleneck, as required by Augustine’s proposed scenario. Concupiscence may be undeniable. But, it does not plague humans due to descent from a single ancestral pair.

On one hand, original sin cannot be accounted for as a sexually transmitted disease.

On the other hand, sexually transmitted diseases can, in part, be accounted for by original sin.

0003 Two, original sin is inextricably tied to a difficult conversation about the fate of the souls of infants and fetuses, who tragically die. Where do the souls of aborted fetuses go? To the city dump?

0004 Three, the doctrine of original sin does not appear in Scripture. Instead, original sin comes from interpreting Scripture. It’s like the smell of the rotting food. If one reads Scripture and follows the unfolding theodrama with care, one cannot help but conclude with Paul, in his notorious Letter to the Romans, that Adam and Christ are linked. The Scriptures stink of original sin. Yet, the fragrance of redemption overcomes the sordid aromas. That is the Good News. Jesus is a breath of fresh air.

0005 Four, despite recent attempts to revive the theology of Thomas Aquinas, his account of original sin remains neglected. There is a reason. Thomas never locks onto a clear and concise reckoning. A hundred years ago, Aquinas’s thoughts on the matter are debated. Jean Baptiste Kors publishes an in-depth examination under the title, La Justice primitive et le peche originel d’apres S. Thomas (1922). Now, it is crickets.

0006 Five, Houck consigns even the crickets to silence, because the crickets never considered Neodarwinism and how it puts Augustine’s speculation on the chopping block. In light of the shimmering axe of negation poised above the City of God, much less the City of Man, the crickets may silently snicker at Houck’s promise to tie together Aquinas’s account of original justice with other areas of the great medieval theologian’s thought. Does a synthesis matter? After the blade of scientific expertise comes down on the idea that Adam and Eve are the first humans, will the executioner call out, “Next, original justice.”?

0006 Already modern theologians slink away from the historicity of the Fall.

Can they do without this non-scientific nonsense?

Houck does not think so. No responsible Christian theologian thinks so.

Houck must juggle these five juggernauts, as if each does not have a life of its own. What is the secret that brings them into obedient motion, where one goes up while another comes down?

It is not to be found in his book.

0007 It is to be found in the hypothesis of the first singularity.

The stories of Adam and Eve, along with all currently known written origin stories of the ancient Near East, point to a recent time-horizon, beyond which civilization cannot see.

They point to the first singularity.

They cannot see beyond this event.

The ancient myths say, “Humans are made right before civilization starts.”

Now, archaeologists testify to humans before the time horizon of the first singularity.

Humans walk the earth long before the dawn of history.

0008 Is Adam the first human, as suggested by Augustine, as well as by the Genesis text?

If Adam is not the first human, then who is Adam?

Adam must be a figure in a fairy tale. The fairy tale may be about an event, or something like an event, hidden in time. We (moderns) do not know much about what came before this event. We know more than nothing. Neolithic stone tools that tell us that, after 12,000 years ago, plants become very important as food. The remains of sedentary villages tell us that we learned to give plants as food to the animals.

The Neolithic marks the invention of agriculture.

The Developed Neolithic combines stockbreeding and agriculture.

0009 There is an intimation, in Genesis 1:26-30, of a humanity before Adam. If that is the case, then why does the Story of the Garden of Eden start with God creating Adam from dust and Eve from Adam’s rib?

Oh yeah, the story of the Garden of Eden is a fairy tale. And, a fairy tale may be about an event, or something like an event, hidden in time. At the start of this event, Adam busies himself with the garden and names the animals. He gets to contribute a rib to make Eve. He is innocent. So is Eve. Together, they portray everything that the hominins evolved to be.

In the garden, there is the tree of life. This tree is a metaphor for Thomas Aquinas’s notion of original justice. It is also a metaphor for the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

The tree of life is a metaphor for the Lebenswelt where humans are what they evolved to be.

0010 The noumenon of humans, like all animals, is hylomorphic.

The word, “hylomorphe”, combines two words, “hyle” (matter) and “morphe” (form). According to Comments on Daniel De Haan’s Essay (2018) “Hylomorphism and the New Mechanist Philosophy…”, Aristotle’s hylomorphe associates to Peirce’s category of secondness. Peirce’s secondness consists in two contiguous real elements. Here, the two real elements are matter and form. The contiguity? May I use the word, “substance”?

The contiguity is placed in brackets. Secondness is denoted by the subscript.

11/5/24

Looking at Daniel Houck’s Book (2020) “Aquinas, Original Sin and the Challenge of Evolution” (Part 23 of 23)

0236 Augustine’s mechanism captures the essence of the first singularity. It does not capture the esse_ce. Augustine treats the Garden of Eden as if it is a real story. Instead, the fairy tales of Adam and Eve point to the first singularity.

Similar mythologies from the ancient Near East, revealed during the past three centuries from archaeological excavations, give the same impression. Humans do not have a deep past. Humans are recently manufactured by differentiated gods, who arise out of a foggy, undifferentiated nowhere.

0237 These ancient writings are not known during the Latin Age, so the scholastics do not contest Augustine’s mechanism. Yet, they find that the mechanism is not sufficient, because of those damned dead infants. How can infants express concupiscence?

The concern is both mechanistic and conditional. It can be portrayed as a dyad in the realm of actuality. This actuality corresponds to original sin₂.

0238 How to describe the contiguity?

Houck lists three scenarios that gain prominence during the Latin Age: disease theory, a legal connection, and a realist view.

These three approaches tie into the above actuality.

0239 Augustine’s conflation of concupiscence and procreation provides a disease mechanism for how Adam’s rebellion infects us.

The legal framework corresponds to God’s Will, which is contained in the command, not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The status of humanity changes from blessed to cursed. A change in legal status puts Augustine’s conflation into context₃.

The realist view is that humans lost something with Adam’s rebellion. The Story of the Fall indicates that humans lost access to the tree of life. A better way to put it is: The tree of life is no longer a possibility₁. The Garden of Eden is no longer possible. So, God is no longer present as He once was.

0240 In sum, the scholastics, following Aristotle’s four causes, place Augustine’s mechanism into a complete category-based nested form.

0241 Perhaps, the reader can predict my next move.

I wonder, “Can this nested form go into the perspective level of divine suprasubjectivity?”

Or, does it correspond to what Christian doctrine projects into perspective-level elements?

Here is how the perspective level changes.

Note how the normal context_3c and potential_1c have changed character, they are now qualified.

Note how the judgment of original justice_2c (belonging to thirdness) changes into a mechanistic dyad_2c (belonging to secondness).

What are the implications?

0242 A change in perspective for God passes into a change of perspective for humans.

Our commitment_2c does not make sense without God’s orientation (grace).

0243 Adam disobeying God’s command changes our legal status_3c.

The ejection of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden changes God’s Presence_1c from open to hidden.

And worse, a mechanism connects Adam’s rebellion to our own lives_2c. Augustine’s hybridization of concupiscence and procreation is one mechanism that captures crucial features of the contiguity. However, modern evolutionary science argues for its implausibility. Adam and Eve are not the first human beings. Therefore, they are not the parents of all humans today.

0244 Is there a mechanism that will meet the qualifications of cause-and-effect and offer us (in our current Lebenswelt) a glimpse into who we evolved to be?

Augustine’s mechanism coheres to a literal interpretation of the Story of the Fall. Consequently, the mechanism is not independent of the biblical text.

The mechanism of the first singularity coheres with an interpretation of the Story of the Fall that is appropriate for the genre. The stories of Adam and Eve are fairy tales. Fairy tales are stories that are told to children. Often, they are preserved with remarkable precision over hundreds (and for these stories, thousands) of years. They may point to some primal event. That event cannot be reconstructed from the fairy tale itself. That event must be postulated independently of the fairy tale.

The hypothesis of the first singularity fits the criteria of (1) cause-and-effect and (2) a connection to the Genesis text. But, it does not allow us to appreciate how the twist in human evolution touches base with the doctrine of original sin.

0245 This is why Aquinas’s postulation of original justice_2c is so crucial.

Original justice_2c pertains to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

Original sin_2c pertains to our current Lebenswelt.

Original sin_2c is the privation of original justice_2c.

Speech-alone talk is the privation of the hand-component of hand-speech talk.

Speech-alone talk attaches labels to the elements within the perspective-level actuality_2c.

Why stop there?

Spoken words can label every element on the perspective level, as well as the situation level, as well as the content level.

This is not possible in iconic and indexal hand-speech talk.

0246 The Story of the Fall tells a tale, rich in details that call to mind the first singularity.

With the assistance of the serpent, Eve attaches spoken labels to the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Then, her spoken words generate the reality of Adam’s rebellion.

0247 Thousands of years later, scholastics refine the Story of the Fall into a perspective-level category-based nested form for original sin.

They know nothing about the content level, as it currently is configured by modern science.

They know that the content level pertains to crucial questions, “Where does the world come from? Where do we humans come from?”

They know that the situation-level addresses the question, “What went wrong?”

They figure that we cannot return to the Garden of Eden. We cannot go back to the original justice_2c, enjoyed by Adam before his rebellion.

This explains why revelation is necessary.

0248 Jesus Christ fills the emptiness inherent to original sin. No one, not even infants, can avoid that emptiness. Original sin is the privation of original justice.

From this, Latin-Age scholastics cobble together a normal context_3c and a potential_1c for the mechanism connecting Adam’s rebellion to our current lives_2c.

0249 Speech-alone talk facilitates the scholastic’s exercise in exemplar extrinsic formal causality. Speech-alone talk permits the articulation of exemplar signs.

The sign-vehicle (SV_e) consists of phantasms that arise from the recitation of the Story of the Fall_2b.

The sign-object (SO_e) is the perspective-level actuality_2c.

The sign-interpretant (SI_e) is as shown below.

0250 In this exemplar sign, Augustine’s version of original sin_2c initially stands where original justice_2c used to be. Original sin_2c overwrites original justice_2c. This is what spoken words do. Our verbal rhetoric can never recapture the wholeness of the commitment_2c that we evolved to sense and feel_2a. But, it sure can trigger our longing for that wholeness.

Yet, Augustine’s vision captures an essential feature of our own lives_2c. We are fallen.

0251 Similarly, the proposed confluence of Adam’s rebellion and a change in Lebenswelt may occupy the contiguity in the dyad where original justice_2c used to be. Again, this proposal somehow distorts the judgment. But, it does so in a way that scientists cannot dismiss out of hand. The hypothesis of the first singularity is not the second doctrine of original sin. However, it offers a mechanism that reflects quite nicely in the mirror of theology.

See Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2024) by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues (also appearing in Razie Mah’s blog from April through June 2024).

0252 Not unlike Augustine’s first version of original sin, the first singularity offers a suite of insights that are difficult to ignore. First, it is mechanistic in the way that science is mechanistic. Second, it challenges current paradigms on human evolution, but not the data that support them. Neodarwinism has not come to grips with the possibility that the human niche is not material. Modern evolutionary science has yet to entertain the idea that human evolution comes with a twist. Plus, the twist is metaphysical.

And, what better place to look for the metaphysical tools to construct the second doctrine of original sin, than those formulated by Thomas Aquinas and re-formulated by Charles Peirce, who is about to be baptized in the same way that Aquinas baptized Aristotle and Averroes?

0253 So, I conclude my comments on Daniel Houck’s Book (2020) Aquinas, Original Sin, and the Challenge of Evolution. My thanks to the author and apologies for wandering far and wide.

0254 And, what about the turtle?

When I place the apparently dead turtle into the pond. Its head and feet poke out from under the shell. It swims away. The pond is its Umwelt.

We (humans) are not so fortunate. We can never return to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Nor can we create our own utopia. The most we can hope for is some miraculous redemption of our current Lebenswelt. This is precisely what God delivers.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Category Archives: Reverberations of the Fall