Category Archives: Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in

Human psychology evolved under in the social milieu of constrained complexity. Currently, humans live in unconstrained complexity. What has this done to our minds? These topics are addressed in various parts of An Archaeology of the Fall, particularly in chapters 8C and 11B.

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 a2c(2a) writ large matches the actualities2 on the perspectivec and contenta levels.  The petit objet a writ large matches the situation-level actuality2b.

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

If it does, then there are two Relativist Ones3c, one corresponds to a little Big Other3c(2b) (in Zizek’s configuration as a psychometric valuation2b) and one corresponds to a big Big Other3c (for the interscope for the post-truth condition).

0340 Okay, the little Relativist Big Other3c(2b) dwells within the big Relativist Big Other2b.

What about Christian atheism?

Zizek’s configuration resides within the slot for psychometric valuation2b.

Does Zizek’s Christian atheism3c(2b) deny the divinity of the big Big Other3c?

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 valuations2b.

0341 So… uh…. why does Zizek propose Christian atheism3c(2b)?

Isn’t Slavoj Zizek an expert2b operating on the formalized knowledges of Lacanian psychoanalysis, Hegelian philosophy and Marxist materialism1b?

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

0342 I want to note, if the big Relativist One3c 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 entities2c, just like photons as waves and… um… photons as particles.

“… yeah, the light.”

Photons as particles1b(2b) and photons as waves1b(2b) produce distinct and separate measurements2b(2b), as far quantum-physics apparatuses3b(2b) are concerned.  Data1c(2b) is the potential1c(2b) of measurements2b(2b).  And, measurements2b(2b) virtually situate a model standing in the place of the noumenon2a(2b).

Consequently, an irreconcilable distinction between particle and wave2b  constitutes an opportunity1c that supports the divinity of the big Relativist One of the Physics of the Quantum Universe3c.

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 valuation2b 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 truth1c(2b) supporting a situation-level little Relativist one3c(2b) offers opportunity1c for a perspective-level big Relativist one3c.

In Zizek’s book, a synthetic truth1c(2b) undergirds an intellectual configuration of the dyad, {capital, acquisition [wealth and power] social, exercise of order}2c(2b) for Zizek’s little Relativist One3c(2b).  Zizek’s psychometric valuation2b may contextualized as a possible opportunity1c by a post-truth big Relativist One3c.

Surely, opportunity1c is potentiated by the little Relativist one3c(2b).

But, what opportunity1c is potentiated by Christ3c(2b)?

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

So, Christ3c(2b) must be an intervention.

0345 The perspective-level nested form in Zizek’s configuration neatly fits into the slot for psychometric valuations2bon 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 valuations2b for the post-truth interscope.

This remarkable finding adds value to Zizek’s argument.

Zizek’s Christian atheism is designed to challenge current psychometric valuations2b arising from the potential of ‘a postmodern formalization of knowledge’1b within the normal context of a stylistic union of capitalist and socialist expertise3b.

Christian atheism3c(2b) can substitute for the little Relativist One3c(2b).

But, what about the union between the big Relativist One3c and the little Relativist One3c(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 valuations2b 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 physics3b operate the apparatus3b(2b) that converts what the photon says2a into measurements2b(2b), that support an orderly model2c(2b).  The model2c(2b) asserts that the photon will say, “I am a particle composed of superimposed states and waves”2a(2b)“.  In other words, the measured photon2b(2b) says what the experts3b predict that it will say.

0351 Does this demonstrate the potential of ‘formalized knowledge’1b?

Formalized knowledge1b makes the annihilation of the subject2b(2b) possible.

The subject2a(2b)‘s content-level autonomy converts into a situation-level measurement2b(2b) that supports a model2c(2b)that offers an opportunity1c for an empirio-normative judgment2c to stand for what people think and say2a concerning the soon-to-be annihilated subject2a(2b).

0352 On the sacred level, the One Physicist2c formulates a judgment2b weighing the intelligibility of what the experts report2b and the universality of what photons are telling the experts2a.  This judgment reveals to human reason3a(1a)that it1b does not matter what photons think2a.

Isn’t that obscene?

Indeed, reason3a(1a), defined as “the intellect3a operating on the will1a“, is obscene.

Where the hell is truth1a?

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.

07/5/25

Looking at Graham Langdon’s Book (2024) “The Mystery of the Navel Idols”  (Part 1 of 4)

0001 The book before me is published by Archaic Lens Publishing (North Carolina).  The author posts podcasts on youtube, writes on twitter, and has a website, www.archaiclens.com.  The book’s subtitle is The Thread that Connects the Ancient World.

0002 The author documents navel idols that are readily identifiable to the human eye on the basis of several characteristics, as shown below.

0003 They appear at the dawn of history, in regions that will end up civilized, but before any advances in the direction of labor and social specializations.  Later, the idols will associate to the Chalcolithic (the Copper Age), corresponding to the era before the Bronze Age (when copper is mixed with other ingredients to create effective weapons).

The oldest navel figure is Urfu man, recovered from Gobekli Tepe in Turkey (Anatolia) and dating to around 10,000 B.C.  This is long before the end of the last interglacial.  The megastructure site associates to the pre-pottery Neolithic, which comes before the pottery Neolithic.  Subsequent Neolithic cultures throughout southwestern Asia will be labeled and identified on the basis of their pottery.

Also, Gobekli Tepe is not associated with a sedentary settlement, such as the contemporaneous Catal Huyuk.

0004 So, what am I saying?

Gobekli Tepe, Catal Huyuk and similar sites do not end up constellating into a tangle of unconstrained social and labor specializations, where social circles transmogrify into networks of economic and political-religious affiliations.

0005 In the section on Turkey, the author makes an interesting point.  The body habitus of Urfu man appears in statuary and figurines in early civilizations around the world.  The further from Gobekli Tepe, the later in time these navel idols appear.

Ironically, this point is precisely the rule of thumb held by archaeologists during the early twentieth century.  The further from southern Mesopotamia, the later an early civilization forms.

0006 Coincidence?

Or is one observation swept up in the other?

0007 In the section on Turkey, the author includes a watercolor image of an awkward looking small artifact, with enormous alien-like eyes, v-neck adornment and hand on either side of navel.  This clay figurine dates to around 5,000 B.C., during the copper age, according to the British Museum.

This artifact dates to 5,000 years after Gobekli Tepe.

The prehistoric cultures associated with the later artifact occur on the cusp of civilization, where the term, “civilization” is characterized by unconstrained labor and social specialization.

0008 A look at the sections on the Kosovo, Serbia and the Balkans support this association.  The navel idols of the Vinca culture (5850-5750 B.C.) appear similar to the latter Turkey artifact.  The Vinca culture practices farming, animal husbandry and copper smelting.  A similar pattern occurs in Bulgaria.  These cultures are on their way to increasing social complexity.

0009 The pattern will hold for all navel idols found to the west of the Aegean Sea.  The navel idols and the Chalcolithic and other features, such as astronomy-related megalithic arrangements, spread west from southwestern Asia.

Since Gobekli Tepe is pre-pottery and pre-Chalcolithic, it cannot be the direct inspiration for the navel idol figures located the West, five millennia later.  So, the old archaeologists’ saying of the early 20th century applies.  Something from southern Mesopotamia sends out emissaries bearing the news of not talking with one’s hands, as well as copper manufacture and astronomy.

Indeed, it may be that the cultural efflorescence that builds Gobekli Tepe and other Anatolian sites spreads into northern, then southern Mesopotamia as the glacial climate gives way to the Wet Neolithic of southwestern Asia and northern Africa. 

0010 The sea-level rise serves as a good way to demark the navel idols before pottery and copper and the navel idols after.

07/5/25

Looking at Graham Langdon’s Book (2024) “The Mystery of the Navel Idols”  (Part 4 of 4)

0030 To the immediate west of Mesopotamia, the navel idols of Israel, dating to 4500-3500 B.C., look like they correspond to the first message.  The Canaanite coffins of 1300-1200 B.C. look as if they are inspired by the latter message.  The coffins do not contain emissaries from Mesopotamia, they contain Canaanite elites who benefitted from trends towards unconstrained social complexity.

0031 In Sardinia, the messages separate into more than one style of navel icon..

0032 Here, this examiner leaves the reader to use the speculative structure of two messages to appreciate the many navel icons that the author presents in this well-appointed art-book.

To me, the overall picture is clear for the West and for the East (as far as Eurasia is concerned).

The navel icons, as well as their speech-alone talking emissaries, are next involved in establishing a foothold in South America, but the messages are confounded with a trend already occurring in China.  The same pose and adornment of the original navel icons are adopted as indications of elite status.

0033 Here is a picture.

0033 The conclusions… er… speculations of this examiner now set forth, I wonder whether the author will agree.

Of course, in this book, the author never entertains the idea that the navel icons are associated with either the bicameral mind (message 1) or the first singularity (message 2).

However, the author hints that intentional diffusion may be a reasonable explanation.  The navel icons spread at the cusps of early civilizations throughout Eurasia and the Americas.  Plus, there are other novel trends associated with the spread of the navel icons.  These include copper metallurgy and… well… something to do with tracking celestial bodies.  Oh, I should not forget v-shaped neck adornments.

0034 My thanks to the author for gathering evidence that is obvious to the eye, yet very difficult to account for.  Perhaps, this examination, based on two works by Razie Mah, may assist.

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 redemption2c offered by the party that exalts grace3c over nature3c and the protocols2c offered by the party that exalts nature3c over grace3c, 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 redemption2c and protocols2c.  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.

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.

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).

12/11/24

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?