10/26/22

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

0024 The first singularity_2H is a hypothesis in human evolution_2H.

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

The hypothesis pertains to the start of our current Lebenswelt.

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

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

This produces a balanced intersection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The two contributing actualities complement one another as follows.

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

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

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

I wonder.

Plus, I chuckle.

0030 Why?

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

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

Here is a picture.

0031 Wow. The size of the contributions match.

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

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

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

0034 The problem?

Material actuality is not all there is.

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

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

Material actuality₂ is real.

Immaterial normal contexts₃ and potentials₁ are also real.

But, don’t tell that to modern anthropologists.

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

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

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

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

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

10/19/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 9 of 21)

0061 Chapter two is titled, “Creation, Evolution and Divine Action”.

Haarsma asks (more or less), “If the scientific evidence for human evolution is correct, then what does that imply about God’s action in intending, creating and blessing humans?”

I expand the query, asking, “If the scientific evidence for evolution is correct, then what does that imply about God’s creative action depicted in the first chapter of Genesis?”

0062 Obviously, the scientific evidence implies that God’s action in creating the world and humans is irrelevant.

Haarsma labels this situation, “dissonance”.

0063 Indeed, dissonance characterizes intersections.

I start with the evolution of the planet and life_2H and the Creation Story_2V.

The single actuality is the world.

The world includes the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

This intersection between evolution_2H and Genesis 1_2V is packed with accidental and essential contradictions. Theologians are capable of distinguishing essential from accidental.

For example, one essential contradiction is this: Each narrative presents a sequence of events in the realization of our world. But, each sequence is unique. How can a Genesis day be the same as an evolutionary epoch? Yet, the two sequences are drawn into a single actuality. They are stuck together in a mystery. I call that mystery, “the world”.

0064 Plus, there is a world within the world.

Genesis 1:26-31 portrays the intending, the creating, the blessing and the feeding of humans as well as the animals that humans keep. This implies that human evolution actually associates to our world, rather than our current Lebenswelt.

If I consider the intersection of all of evolution_2H and the Genesis Creation Story_2V, I arrive at configuration similar to the intersection of human evolution_2H and Genesis 1:26-31_2V.

The single actuality is the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0066 Once these associations are made, then original sin_2V binds to a twist in long-established trends in human evolution_2H. Since this twist_2H does not immediately alter prehistoric natural history or human genetics, the twist must be a cultural adaptation.

The single actuality is our current Lebenswelt.

0067 These intersections do not speak to us of dissonance, per se.

These intersections speak to us of mystery.

A mystery contains irreconcilable contradictions.

0068 One task of the theologian is to separate the accidental and the essential contradictions, in order to clarify the mystery. This is hard work. A mystery cannot be fully explained, partially explained or declared unexplainable. A mystery cannot be resolved by sensible construction. A mystery evokes social construction.

See the e-work, A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

0069 A mystery provides a message. The message is clear. A single realness coalesces from two disparate actualities. The two nested forms are bound. In this message of unity, the normal contexts and the potentials cannot be regarded as fully independent. Two nested forms bind into a mystery.

10/6/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 18 of 21)

0115 My comments on chapters one and seven, 1A and 7A’, set the stage for original sin_2V.

Chapter one claims that neither science nor theology can situate one another. When two actualities cannot situate one another, then they may intersect. The intersection associates to the potential of message, in the e-masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”.

Chapter seven discusses the formulation of the doctrine of original sin by Augustine. According to Augustine, Adam and Eve are the parents of all humanity. When taken as a scientific hypothesis in human evolution, the proposition fails.

Does that mean that narrative of human evolution_2H and the doctrine of original sin_2V do not intersect?

No, the intersection still stands.

0116 To me, the fact Augustine’s formulation contains a scientific proposition is amazing. How many theological formulations can be debunked by science? Remember, science cannot situate revelation. Revelation cannot situate science.

When Paul links Adam to all humanity in his letters to the Corinthians and to the Romans, Haarsma’s third intersection enters reality. How can this be? Augustine’s solution says that Adam and Eve are the parents of all humanity. For centuries, the nested form for human evolution is covered by Augustine’s proposition. Now, in postmodernity, the hypothesis of the first singularity is the solution.

A scientific twist in human evolution_2H joins the doctrine of original sin_2V in a single actuality, our current Lebenswelt₂.

0117 Chapter eight follows the semitic structure of 1A:2B:3C:4D:5C’:6B’:7A’.

Chapter eight pays tribute to the slipperiness of speech-alone words by asking the question, “What is ‘sin’?”

0118 Of course, “sin” is merely a spoken word.

One needs a normal context₃ and a potential₁ in order to understand this actuality₂.

0119 Here is a diagram.

10/3/22

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

0130 In chapter eleven, Haarsma raises other difficult questions.

I would like to elevate my own question for examination.

0131 When does sin begin?

Here is an artistic way to appreciate the answer.

Consider the two interscopes of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in and our current Lebenswelt.

0132 Consider the theological actualities_2V.

For the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, it_2V is humans as images of God.

For our current Lebenswelt, it_2V is the tree of life.

Here is a picture.

Consider the tree of life as a metaphor for the roots and the branches of belonging, intuitively nurtured by prehistoric humans living out their lives as images of God, …

0133 … then, in order to appreciate the depths of callousness and total depravity implied by the doctrine of original sin,consider the wickedness of plucking the fruit of the tree of life in order to attain immortality.

0134 Loren Haarsma tries to calm the dissonance of two apparently independent actualities: human evolution_2H and original sin_2V.

In doing so, he creates a semitic textual structure that allows my comments to suggest that these two actualities belong to a single reality. Two category-based nested forms intersect. The intersection of two nested forms offers a message. Here is a mystery.

It is beautiful to behold.

0135 Haarsma concludes.

God’s answer is still Christ.

Dissonance gives way to mystery.

03/23/22

Looking at Jack Reynolds’ Book (2018) “Phenomenology, Naturalism and Science” (Part 1 of 3)

0001 Jack Reynolds, Professor in Arts and Education at Deakin University, publishes a book with the subtitle, “A Hybrid and Heretical Proposal”. The book concerns two views that seem to resist hybridization: phenomenology and naturalism. Why? Does each regard the other as heretical?

Plus, where does that leave science?

Hmmm.

0002 Razie Mah examines Reynolds’ book in Comments on Jack Reynolds’ Book (2018) “Phenomenology, Naturalism and Science”, available at smashwords and other e-book vendors. The commentary is part of a series, “Phenomenology and the Positivist Intellect”.

0003 Phenomenology has an awkward relationship with science. It situates hands-on natural science. Yet, it competes for that role with visionary science.

Visionary science takes what is most precious to practicing scientists, the empirio-schematic judgment, and unfolds it into a situation-level nested form.

Phenomenology competes with and excludes visionary science.

0004 Consequently, phenomenologists and visionary scientists despise one another.

Both work to situate hands-on natural science, represented as a content-level nested form.

Each offers its own situation-level nested form.

0005 Perhaps, this is why Reynolds’ proposal directs attention away from the point of contention.

Hands-on science is naturalism. Hands-on science may be portrayed as the unfolding of the Positivist’s judgment into the content-level of an interscope.

Phenomenology and visionary science situate first-order natural science in very different ways.

0006 Phenomenology wants to consider phenomena in order to elucidate what the thing itself must be.

Visionary science wants to take an established scientific model and coronate it as what the thing itself must be.

03/7/22

Looking at Roy Clouser’s Article (2021) “…Support of Carol Hill’s Reading…” (Part 2 of 6)

0004 I have a joke.

A Christian theologian goes to the doctor and asks, “What is wrong with me?”

The doctor replies, “It might be original sin. The stories of Adam and Eve don’t need to be reconciled with science. But, Augustine and science, that is your problem.”

0005 Clouser relies on an interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 appearing in Joseph Soloveitchik’s book, The Lonely Man of Faith. The title is ironic, since Soloveitchik is lonely in name only. He is one of the leading Orthodox Jewish theologians of the twentieth century.

The things that Soloveitchik writes. Some of them buttress Carol Hill’s argument.

0006 Here is the first point.

The Old Testament does not support the claim that Adam and Eve are the first humans. After all, where does Cain get his wife?

0007 Ah, that goes into the problem of Saint Augustine.

Augustine misreads Paul’s letter to the Romans. Well, actually, his Latin translation of Roman 5:12 has a crucial infidelity to the Greek text. The Latin slippage implies that we are all guilty of Adam’s sin. The Greek original suggests that we are all doomed because of Adam’s error.

The result?

The McGuffey Reader poetically waxes, “In Adam’s Fall, we sinned all.”

0008 Should Augustine have known better? Should the translator be blamed?

These questions step around an issue so tricky that everyone walks around it. Spoken words are slippery.

Augustine slips up. But, the slip serves as evidence for an important point.

0009 Adam and Eve may not be the first humans on Earth. But, they may be the first to rely on the slipperiness of spoken words to come to a conclusion that turns out to be highly problematic.

0010 Is this a theological implication of the first singularity?

03/4/22

Looking at Roy Clouser’s Article (2021) “…Support of Carol Hill’s Reading…” (Part 3 of 6)

0011 The first point keys into the second point.

Adam and Eve are the first humans in the history of redemption. They are neither perfect nor immortal. So, they screwed up.

0012 How did they do it?

They thought that they understood the meanings, presences and messages latent in their speech-alone words.

Ooops.

0013 This slip up brings Clouser back to Saint Paul, in his letter to the Romans, where Adam’s covenantal failure is compared to Christ’s covenantal success.

More or less, Paul says that sin enters the world through one man, Adam… but, wait a second… before Moses there is no law, so how can there be sin?

0014 In other words, the actuality of sin₂ potentiating death₁ in the normal context of the Mosaic law₃ must have been functioning after Adam and before Moses, even though Moses is yet to be formally present.

0015 Clouser concludes that this imputation suggests that there are humans contemporary to Adam. Plus, their sins are not held against them, because God has not made Himself known.

0016 However, there are other suggestions that come to mind with the hypothesis of the first singularity.

Before Adam, do humans have access to a (metaphorical, or perhaps, literal) tree of life, which conveys an immortality unfamiliar to what we civilized folk currently imagine?

After Adam and before Moses, are folk, living within our current Lebenswelt, trapped within the imputation of Mosaic law, precisely as Paul notes?

0017 See the e-book An Archaeology of the Fall.

Also, see Comments on Original Sin and Original Death: Romans 5:12-19.

These are available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

03/3/22

Looking at Roy Clouser’s Article (2021) “…Support of Carol Hill’s Reading…” (Part 4 of 6)

0018 Paul’s aside fits the triadic structure found in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

Here is a picture for humans after Adam and before Moses.

0019 The normal context of the imputed Mosaic Law₃ brings the actuality of sin₂ into relation with the possibilities inherent in death₁.

0020 Now, if I erase the normal context₃ and potential₁ and replace them with items from the stories of Adam and Eve, I produce the following nested form.

The normal context of the Garden of Eden₃ brings the actuality of sin₂ into relation with the potential of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil₁.

0021 These two nested forms complement one another. The theological implications cannot be ignored. The Garden of Eden marks a transition from the Lebenswelt that we evolved in to our current Lebenswelt. The first singularity is a scientific hypothesis concerning the nature of this transition. The Mosaic law associates to our current Lebenswelt.

Adam and Eve are not the first humans.

Adam and Eve are fairy tale figures, standing at the portal to our current Lebenswelt.

Fairy tale figures are larger than life.

03/2/22

Looking at Roy Clouser’s Article (2021) “…Support of Carol Hill’s Reading…” (Part 5 of 6)

0023 A third point supports Carol Hill’s commitment that Old Testament “celebrities” are real people.

0024 Clouser’s terminology is revealing. Adam and Eve are “celebrities”. Are “celebrities” real people?

I can visualize the headlines in the netherworld at the moment when Adam and Eve achieve celebrity status. “Adam and Eve Fall For It.” Read all about it.

0025 The key is “read”.

0026 Undoubtedly, the Pentateuch is a compilation of oral traditions. Once codified, during or after the Babylonian exile, the compilation becomes fixed as canon. Codification raises a host of issues, such as the reliability of the preceding oral traditions.

Or, are these oral traditions already codified in secret documents?

Does the question sound absurd?

Oh, the slipperiness of spoken words.

0027 Am I worried about the reliability of oral traditions or the reality within oral traditions?

0028 The Biblical text itself conveys a reality, in the objective sense of the word, that is assumed by the subjective realities engaged by the underlying oral traditions. Even if Adam and Eve are fairy-tale figures in text, they are real in an oral tradition. Even if Noah is an epic figure in text, he is real in an oral tradition.

0029 Why do the writers of the New Testament take the realness of the Old Testament for granted?

Please do not quote me on what I am about to say.

Despite the fact that the Old Testament is written, the biblical oral traditions are alive and well at the time of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth. Everyone knows that the words are now written, so they use the word “scripture”, acknowledging this fact. However, even though Paul can read the written text, the apostles (and most early Christians) cannot.

My conclusion is that Jesus recites the scriptures, with as much precision as the written text. So, does John the Baptist. They draw crowds that already know the oral tradition and marvel at its theatrical articulation. Jesus and John are performers. What a performance they give. They recite the scriptures so convincingly that members of the audiencewhisper to one another, “The kingdom of God is at hand.”

0030 The New Testament is composed while the oral traditions of reciting the scriptures are alive and well. The spoken word renders a subjective reality. In the beginning, is the word, which, dare I say, tells us that spoken words are slippery things. Listen to the stories of Adam and Eve.

The objective reality conveyed in the written word enters the historical theodrama the moment when Christianity spreads from Israel.

Does that bring me back to Augustine’s slip up?

The slipperiness of spoken words also applies to the written text.

03/1/22

Looking at Roy Clouser’s Article (2021) “…Support of Carol Hill’s Reading…” (Part 6 of 6)

0031 Roy Clouser closes with a stern warning that the documentary approach, investigating the alleged secret documents underlying the Old Testament, should only be carried out by experts, who are convinced that their certification protects them from the fact that they, like Augustine, are vulnerable to the slipperiness of spoken words.

His article serves as a witness to a philosophical and theological world that has not come to terms with the implications that will follow once our scientific world comes to terms with the hypothesis of the first singularity.

0032 Surely, Clouser is on target, in that a rabbi is chosen for intelligence, rather than theatrical genius. But, occasionally, both gifts arrive at the same doorstep. Ask the followers of Rabbi Joseph Solovietchik.

0033 I suspect that commentary by Orthodox Jews will swivel on the tiny stone of the first singularity.

Why?

Is this the stone that the scientific builders rejected?

Or, is it a jewel that turns the imagination?

The early stories of Genesis are insider fairy tales about the social trends towards unconstrained complexity in the Ubaid and Uruk archaeological periods of southern Mesopotamia.

Swivel and turn.

0034 Orthodox Jews might appreciate another work by Razie Mah, also available at smashwords and other e-work venues.

Comments on Jeremy Cohen’s Essay (1980) “Original Sin as the Evil Inclination”

This electronic work belongs to the series, Reverberations of the Fall.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Category Archives: The science of Original Sin