0060 Let me start with nature as thirdness and grace as firstness.

0061 Yes, this judgment is actionable.

Nature as what is will become the normal context₃ of an actionable judgment.

Grace as what ought to be will enter the realm of possibility₁.

Here is a picture of the resulting nested form.

“Grace” and “nature” have separate referents.  These referents now occupy different positions in a category-based nested form.

0062 To start, the actuality₂ looks awkward.  The normal context of nature₃ is separate from and distinct from the potential of grace₁.  Is that enough?  I don’t think so.  When the normal context is nature₃, the possibility of grace₁should be close to zero.

Why would this be so?

The logics of thirdness are exclusion, complement and alignment.  Grace does not complement or align with nature because it is distinct and separate.  So nature₃ as a normal context will strive to exclude grace₁ as a possibility.

I ask, “Is there a thing₂ that represents the dyadic actuality portrayed above, in a convincing manner?”

The first item that comes to my mind are organizational protocols₂.  Organizational protocols₂ systematically exclude chance events, which would include moments of grace₁, in the normal context of nature₃.

0063 If that is so, then organizational protocols₂ actualize the exclusion of the potential of grace₁.  After all, exclusion is one of the logics of thirdness.  So, I wonder, “What would go into the slot for possibility, that further indicates that grace₁ is excluded?”

Well, what about science, especially the philosophy of the mechanical philosophers?

Unfortunately, the empirio-schematic judgment, when unfolded into a content-level category-based nested form, looks like it would go into the slot for protocols_2b.

0064 So, what if I elevate nature₃ to the perspective_c level and put scientific inquiry₂ into the content_a level?  Then, scientific inquiry_2a provides models_1c that contribute to protocols_2c and exclude grace as a perspective_c-level potential_1c.

The nice feature of the content-level is that it fulfills the scientist’s self-impression that his work entails a search for truth.  The logos_3a (the word that is eventually codified in specialized disciplinary languages) brings the actuality of scientific inquiry_2a (manifesting the protocols_2c of the empirio-schematic judgment_2c) into relation with the potential for ‘truth’_1a.  Truth is not the same as grace.  Truth_1a is… well… what science reveals_1a.

0065 I am only missing the situation level, which must belong to the scientist.

The interscope is a category-based nested form composed of category-based nested forms.  See A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

Here is how to state the above figure.

On the perspective level, the normal context of nature_3c brings the actuality of protocols_2c into relation with the possibility of ‘models’_1c.  The models_1c contextualize both scientific specializations_2b and scientific inquiry_2a.

On the situation level, the normal context of expertise_3b brings the actuality of specialized jobs and research positions_2binto relation with the potential of ‘institutionalizing scientific inquiry’_1b.  Scientific work becomes more and more professional during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  Today, academic certification “guarantees” expertise_3b.

On the content level, the normal context of logos_3a (or the “words” of a disciplinary language) brings the actuality of scientific inquiry_2a (the empirio-schematic judgment) into relation with the potential of ‘truth’_1a (the validity of models accounting for observations and measurements of phenomena). Of course, the terms, “logos” and “truth” also have more expansive connotations.

0066 In sum, I have learned that the widespread acceptance of the distinction and the separation of grace and nature since the recovery of Aristotle by Saint Thomas Aquinas has significant consequences.  The distinction and separationare regarded as real as the distinction and separation of two referents or “things”.  These two “things” are products of explicit abstraction.

Explicit abstraction is potentiated when humans adopt speech-alone talk during the first singularity, starting around 7825 years ago.  No precise date has been set.  Before that transition, all human cultures practice hand-speech talk, which combines the iconicity and indexality of hand-talk with the symbol-generating qualities of speech.  Unlike hand talk, speech cannot picture or point to anything.  So, speech serves as an adornment to hand talk, even as it takes on a life of its own during the Upper Paleolithic.

0067 Hand-talk and hand-speech talk facilitate implicit abstraction in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

Speech-alone talk facilitates explicit abstraction in our current Lebenswelt.

0068 The three-level interscope pictured above allows the inquirer to conduct implicit abstraction based on explicit terms occupying locations in a purely relational structure called “an interscope”.  In the interscope, perspective_c brings situation_b into relation with the potential of content_a.  This interscope derives from imbuing nature (what is) with thirdness.