0046 Does science have metrics to distinguish the phenomena of life from, say, the phenomena of death?

If so, there must be a caveat.

The phenomena of life indicate that the noumenon, life, is present.  But, these phenomena cannot objectify the thing itself.

I call this caveat, “Kant’s slogan”, because, if any Western philosopher is worthy of being falsely accused, that person is the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 AD).

In other words, Kant may not explicitly state this slogan, but he comes close enough for the slogan to stick to him.  Slogans can be like tar-babies in this regard.  Once you touch a tar-baby, you are stuck with it.

Not surprisingly, that reminds me of Christians conjunct science.

0047 Kant’s slogan expresses what is of the Positivist’s judgment.  The Positivist’s judgment contains three elements: relation, what ought to be, and what is.

The relation is the positivist intellect.  The positivist intellect is imbued with thirdness, the realm of normal contexts. The positivist intellect has a rule.  Metaphysics is not allowed.

What ought to be is the empirio-schematic judgment.  In the empirio-schematic judgment, disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness).  The empirio-schematic judgment is imbued with secondness, even though, technically, it should belong to thirdness.  After all, judgments are triadic relations.

What is is Kant’s slogan, rendered as a dyadic structure.  The structure appears to belong to secondness, the realm of actuality, but it really belongs to firstness, the realm of possibility.  Why?  The noumenon and its phenomena cannot be regarded independently, unlike matter and form, as well as grace and nature.  So, what is of the Positivist’s judgment does not depict two independent real elements.  The thing itself and its observable and measurable facets can be distinguished, but not separated.

0048 Here is a picture of what is of the Positivist’s judgment.

0049 Oh, there is a clue in this figure.

Aristotle’s thing goes with the noumenon.  So does grace [inflows] nature.

Science builds models on the basis of observations and measurements of phenomena.

Science ignores the noumenon because the thing itself cannot be reduced to what can be observed and measured.

0050 The question that I now address wonders, “How do I get from the dyad (in secondness) in the cloud to the noumenon (in firstness) that belongs to what is in the Positivist’s judgment?”

My starting point is grace [inflows] nature, rather than matter [substance] form.

Grace [inflows] nature belongs to secondness, the dyadic realm of actuality.  In order to bring this dyad into the noumenon, in the monadic realm of possibility, grace must be separated from nature.  That separation must be so complete that grace can potentially be regarded as totally independent of nature.  The same goes with nature.  Nature will need to be regarded as totally independent of grace.

0051 Here is one way to picture the trajectory.

0052 Before Aquinas, grace [inflows] nature describes… what?… health, well-being, redemption, happiness, the living human being?  By the time of Aquinas in the 1200s, the two labels, “grace” and “nature” are regarded as distinct and separate.  Grace [inflows] nature no longer indicates a living thing.  Rather, each term indicates its own ‘thing’.

In the centuries following Aquinas and before the mechanical philosophers of the 1600s, the distinction and separation becomes routine.

0053 From the above figure, it seems that the dyad saying that grace [is distinct and separate from] nature should lead to two associations.  Grace should associate to the noumenon.  Nature should associate to phenomena.

This does not happen, because the Positivist’s judgment is yet to be ideated.

0054 Instead, the separation solidifies.  After all, the terms, “grace” and “nature” are different terms, so they must refer to separate things, rather than real elements that constitute a thing.  Eventually, western Christendom will explore some very strange concepts, such as matter without form and form without matter.  But, the reification of these two spoken words begins by attributing completely distinct and separate referents to “grace” and “nature”.

0055 By the time of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642 AD), everyone agrees.  There are two books of revelation, the Bible (filled with grace) and the world (the stuff of nature).

0056 At this point,  judgment cannot be avoided.

Here is the general structure of judgment as a triadic relation.

0057 A relation (category) brings what ought to be (category) into relation with what is (category).  When each of the three elements is uniquely assigned to one of Peirce’s three categories, the judgment becomes actionable.  Actionable judgments unfold according to their categorical assignments.  Thirdness becomes normal context₃.  Secondness enters actuality₂.  Firstness glides into potential₁.

0058 What about this general agreement that is in the Zeitgeist in Europe between the so-called “Reformation” (1500s) and the so-called “Industrial Revolution” (1800s).  The agreement that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separate (relation) anchors this element in secondness.

Everyone agrees that the separation is actual.  Plus, separation characterizes the relation between “grace” and “nature”.

What about the other elements of the judgment?

Of course, “grace” should go with what ought to be and “nature” with what is.

Here is a picture.

0059 The categorical assignments to “grace” and “nature” set the stage for the historical discussion in Ross’s book.

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.

0069 Let me go to grace as thirdness and nature as firstness.

Here is a picture of the judgment.

0070 As before, the relation is imbued with secondness, so this term will enter actuality₂ for the following category-based nested form.

0071 Now I wonder, “What is an actuality₂ that coheres to the normal context₃ (of grace) while standing distinct and separate from its potential₁ (of nature)?”

If I choose the actuality₂ of redemption₂, then I can be assured of the possibility ‘that nature is excluded’₁, in the normal context of grace₃.

Redemption₂ does not have much to do when it comes to nature₁, in the same way that protocols₂ do not have much to do with grace₁.

0072 The abduction does not stop there, because redemption₂, as an actuality, engenders a nested form on the adjacent lower level.  Redemption₂ seems to situate the normal context of salvation₃ bringing the actuality of a personal relationship with God₂ into relation with the potential of the church₁.

At the moment, I am uncertain whether the two levels correspond to situation and content or to perspective and situation.  Let me continue.

0073 With this pairing of category-based nested forms in tow, I wonder about the possibility of ‘excluding nature’₁.  Is this potential compatible with the potential of the ‘church’?  Oh, I can think of a better term than “excluding nature”.  How about the word, “creation”?

Ah, if “creation” is the perspective-level potential_1c, then “creation_1c” contextualizes both the Bible_2a and theological formulations of my personal relationship with God_2b.

There is the resulting interscope.

0074 On a perspective level, the normal context of grace_3c brings the actuality of redemption_2c into relation with the possibility of ‘creation’_1c.

On the situation level, the normal context of salvation_3b brings the actuality of a personal relationship with God_2b into relation with the potential of ‘the church’_1b.  Theologians and pastors are crucial in manifesting the situation-level normal context_3b and potential_1b.

On the content level, the normal context of the logos_3a brings the actuality of the Bible_2a into relation with the possibility of ‘revelation’_1a.

0075 Once Christendom gives up on the dyadic actuality of grace [inflows] nature, then both “grace” and “nature” become distinct and separable.

Once Christendom agrees that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separable, then that determination becomes a relation held in common by two apparently independent judgments.  The relation does not belong to thirdness, the realm of normal contexts.  Instead, the relation belongs to secondness, the realm of actuality.

Once the relation is assigned to the category of secondness, two parties arise.  One party insists that grace₃ excludes nature₁, in the same way that a normal context₃ may suppress a possibility₁.  The other party is convinced that nature₃excludes grace₁, in the same way that a normal context₃ may rule out a possibility₁.

Finally, the elevation of nature or grace entangles content, situation and perspective, resulting in the three-level “nature” and “grace” interscopes.  Because each perspective_c-level normal context₃ excludes the other perspective_c-level normal context₃, these three-level interscopes take on lives and traditions of their own.

0076 The fact that these two parties live in the same civilization is the topic of chapter 1 of Ross’s book.  This chapter is titled “Surprising Theological Developments”.  Science does not seem to be hindered.  Theology begins to wonder about the possibility of ‘creation’_1c in the face of the apparent infallibility of ‘evolutionary models’_1c.

In chapter 2, Ross considers the concept of dual revelation, calling to mind the guises of grace and nature.  He asserts that nothing that scientists can discover about the world, when rightly understood, will contradict what is written in the pages of the Bible.  Truth (in nature) does not contradict truth (in grace).  That is a reminder of the beautiful early medieval dyad of grace [inflows] nature.  But, maybe, Ross’s assertion does not go far enough to bring us back to the Middle Ages.

0077 In chapter 3, Ross isolates several articles from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that pertain to these two parties.

Article 19 goes like this.

0078 In chapter 4, Ross claims that disturbing concessions are being made by Christian theologians in regards to such consensus statements.

These concessions are occurring on the perspective level of grace_3c.

Which possibility is more real?  Creation_1c or evolutionary models_1c?

The inerrancy of the Bible covers the entire text, including the Creation Story and the Primeval History.  But, “inerrancy” does not mean that the Bible meets the standards of “without error” for naturalism, evolutionism and scientism.  “Inerrancy” means “living” as opposed to “dead”, “flawless” compared to “corrupt”, and “honest” as opposed to “deceptive”.

But, theologians are not interested in rocking the boat, so to speak.  Fudging creation_1c in order to support the actuality of redemption_2c in the normal context of grace_3c does not seem so terrible, especially when creation_1c becomes more “realistic”, in the scientific sense of the word.  Creation_1c is expressed in myths that are consistent with the written origin stories of the ancient Near East_3a.

0079 As far as the evolutionary sciences are concerned, the potential of ‘model’_1c that underlies protocol_2c involves elevating models_1c into the place of noumena, the things themselves_1c.  Once, this is done, a model_1c [can be objectified as] its phenomena, and protocols_2c are empirio-schematic recipes that validate that each model is supported by the data.

0080 Say what?

On one hand, a noumenon (the thing itself) [cannot be objectified by] its phenomena.

On the other hand, a model taking the place of the noumenon [can be objectified as] its phenomena.

0081 So, if ‘models’_1c comport with ‘excluding grace’_1c by taking the place of the noumenon, then what are the consequences?

I cannot imagine that the results are well… um… honest.  All the metaphysics of the Positivist’s judgment goes into the noumenon.

0082 What happens when I substitute a model for the thing itself?

Well, I lose all the metaphysical implications of what is for the Positivist’s judgment.

Even more disturbing, what if… um… the model is not the real thing?

Well, let scientists worry about that when the counterfeit becomes obvious.

Until then, the model_1c must be placed into the slot for the noumenon in what is for the Positivist’s judgment, because the triumphant positivist intellect_3a wills_1a it_1c.

Yes, to replace the noumenon (the thing itself) with a model (based on observations and measurements of phenomena) entails an act of will_1a.

0083 The start of chapter 4 suggests that the distortions occurring on the perspective-level of the interscopes of grace_3cand nature_3c may be due to the challenges of specialization.

Here is a comparison of the situation-levels.

0084 The theologian has knowledge about salvation_3b.  Indeed, the theologian_3b brings people into communion with God_2b through the possibilities of ‘the church’_1b.  However, the authority of the churches is now being challenged by those who do not view Genesis 1-11 as scientifically credible.

I suppose this lack of scientific credibility is what Ross intends to solve.

The problem is that revelation_1a is not supposed to be scientifically credible.  It is supposed to be… um… revealing.

0085 The scientist has knowledge about a particular topic_3b.  Expertise_3b brings specialized tasks_2b into relation with the potential of ‘an institutional setting’_1b.  That ‘institutional setting’_1b is not ‘the church’_1b, even though it_1b may be highly ideological.

Why would the world_1b of scientific_2b expertise_3b be ideological?

Well, what does it take to say that a model should replace the thing itself?

Ah, it takes will power.

0086 So, what am I saying?

Well, here is a comparison of the content-levels for the interscopes of grace_3c and nature_3c.

0087 For grace_3c, the normal context of the logos_3a brings the actuality of Genesis 1-11_2a into relation with the potential of ‘revelation’_1a.

For nature_3c, the normal context of the logos_3a brings the actuality of scientific inquiry_2a into relation with the potential of ‘truth’_1a.

0088 One beauty of these formulations is that both theology and science share a common content-level normal context_3a.  The word, “logos”, means “word”, as well as “the study of…” and so on.

To me, “logos” is not like a gesture-word of hand talk, characteristic of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  “Logos” is not based on images or indications.  “Logos” does not convey the impression of an implicit abstraction.

Instead, “logos” is like the spoken word of speech-alone talk, characteristic of our current Lebenswelt.  “Logos” starts with purely symbolic labels.  “Logos” conveys the impression of explicit abstraction.

0089 Beauty is a transcendental.

So, I better watch out and look again.

Surely, beauty slips out of the vision when I consider what theologians and scientists are actually doing.  In chapter 4, Ross discusses what the theologians are up to.  But, the scientists are up to no good, as well.  The content-levels have changed in order to accommodate “pressures”.  Concessions must be made in order to keep one’s job.

0090 Surely, this comparison looks different than what was expected from the fact that grace and nature are distinct and separate.

But, this is what Christians are stuck with, in my version of Ross’s historical introduction.

0091 Now, the ground has shifted so much in my parallel to chapters 1 through 4, that I wonder, “Should I go over the storyline again?”

Before the 1200s, scholars regard the human thing as grace [inflows] nature.

By the 1200s, grace and nature became more and more distinct and separated.

After all, they are spoken words.  Plus, the theology of grace [inflows] nature does not allow scholars to explore the fact that different labels imply different referents.  If intellectuals are convinced of anything, it is the saying, “To name it is to know it.”  Thinkers can name “grace” and “nature”, but they cannot know them without… um… pulling the terms away from one another.  Completely.  Let us forget that substance, [inflows], and consider the terms in themselves.

By the 1600s, two parties are apparent.  One party elevates grace₃ over nature₁.  The other party exalts nature₃ over grace₁.  Both parties agree on the relation between grace and nature₂.  That agreement stands as an actuality₂ that both parties share.  The concept of dual revelation is in the Zeitgeist, as suggested when Galileo talks about the two books, the book of revelation and the book of nature.

By the 1900s, the judgments that constitute these two parties have unfolded, not merely into category-based nested forms, but into interscopes.  A three-level interscope is a complete social construction.  Maybe, the term, “worldview” will do.  Each exaltation, grace_3c or nature_3c serves as the perspective-level normal context.  A well-framed perspective-level actuality_2c veils the actuality that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separate_2c.  The perspective-level potential_1c is adjusted to exclude the non-exalted term_1c.

0092 By the 2000s, when Ross writes, certain concessions are apparent.  Both content-level category-based nested forms distort.

On one hand (A), post-modern theologians argue that the normal context of the Bible₂, especially of the Creation Story (Gen. 1-2.3) and of the Primeval History (2.4 to 11)₂, is ancient Near Eastern civilization.  This normal context allows the theologian to qualify revelation₁.  This is the topic of chapters 1 through 4 of the book under examination.  Dual revelation in Church history and doctrine is covered in chapters 5 and 6.

On the other hand (B), Razie Mah’s blogs from July through October 2024, have been collected into a three-part e-book, Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).  Post-modern expertise_3b considers reason_3a((1a)) for the average person to be an intellect_3a operating on a human will_1a.  This intellect is not considered to be metaphysical.  If not metaphysical, then what is it?  A pale imitation of the positivist intellect?  No, it the subject of manipulation, just like the mind of lab rat that is placed in a maze.

0093 With this (A and B) in mind, here is the interscope for exaltation of grace_3c (A),

0094 One aspect of the theologian’s knowledge concerns what anthropologists have learned about civilizations of the ancient Near East over the past two centuries.  On the content level, the normal context of ancient Near East civilization_3a brings the actuality of Genesis 1-11_2a into relation with the potential of  ‘qualifying revelation’_1a.  How is revelation to be qualified?  Revelation_1a cannot be independent of the cultural milieu of the ancient Near East.

0095 On the situation level, the normal context of salvation_3b brings the actuality of the believer’s personal relationship with God_2b into relation with the possibility of ‘the church”_1b.  What does the church do?  Among other jobs, the church_1b interprets meanings, presences and messages underlying the words in the Bible_2a, including Genesis 1-11.

0096 For example, Saint Augustine, who knows nothing about the civilizations of the ancient Near East, proposes that the reason why Saint Paul calls Christ, “the second Adam”, is because we are all fallen.  We are all fallen because each one of us is directly descended from Adam and Eve.  Other proposals for how we are all fallen follow, such as “the disease model” and “the imputation model”.  These proposals are weirdly, both theological and natural, because that is the way God created us.

0097 On the perspective level, the normal context of grace_3c brings the actuality of redemption_2c into relation with the possibilities inherent in ‘creation’_1c.

And, it is worth noting that redemption_2c in the exaltation of grace_3c is like a blanket that covers the consensus that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separable_2c and the potential of ‘creation’_1c is a similar cover for excluding the possibility of ‘nature’_1c.

0098 Here is the interscope for the exaltation of nature_3c (B).

One aspect of the scientist’s knowledge concerns the substitution of models for noumena, things themselves.  The substitution gets around Kant’s slogan.  A model (substituting for its noumenon) [can be objectified by] its phenomena.  Doesn’t that sound great?

On the content level, the normal context of the positivist… well, maybe not strictly a positivist… perhaps, a “not metaphysical” intellect_3a brings the actuality of scientific inquiry_2a into relation with the possibility of the ‘human will’_1a.  The potential is a hallmark of the so-called “post-truth condition”.  Ross does not discuss this aspect of science. Reason_3a((1a)) justifies the immense social pressure that post-modern expertise_3b places on those who help others towards salvation_3b.  

0099 Indeed, the title and subtitle of Ross’s book suggest that Biblical inerrancy might be rescued by a scientific defense, rather than the other way around.  To me, this indicates that Ross has not imagined that modern science goes with the exaltation of nature_3c in a judgment that has been around at least 800 years.

0100 Yes, the content-level nested form suggests that something else may be in play.

If Biblical inerrancy_1b situates qualifying revelation_1a in a way that ‘something’ gets revealed, then scientific institutions_1b may situate ‘something’ true about the human will_1a.  For example, if the church realizes that the handless serpent conducts a sales pitch on poor Eve, then that lesson may apply to the way that a post-modern institution devoted to, say, “positivist education”, might conduct a sales pitch that confounds our reason, especially when reason_3a((1a))manifests as the normal context of an intellect_3a operating on the potential of the human will_1a.

How often have people foolishly eaten from the tree of the knowledge of “value-free curriculum”, then learned to regret their choice.

0101 On the situation level, the normal context of expertise_3b brings the actuality of a specialized job_2b into relation with the potential of ‘an institution’_1b.  That institution_1b situates the potential of the content-level nested form.  In particular, a post-modern “scientific” institution_1b situates, not the truth_1b, but the human will_1b.  It makes me wonder about how certain funding sources seem to always come up with models_1c that justify the wills of the leaders of their institutions_1b and encourage each institution to reward certain scientists over others_1a.

In the text, Ross mentions several encounters with funding agencies.  These snippets are truly fascinating and support my impression that Ross’s enterprise, Reasons to Believe, is worth funding, not from above, but from below.  I say, “Send a check to a researcher interested in truth_1a, rather than the alternative_1a.”  Send a check to Reasons to Believe.

0102 On the perspective level, the normal context of nature_3c brings the actuality of protocols_2c into relation with the potential of ‘models’_1c.

Plus, it is worth noting that protocols_2c, in the exaltation of nature_3c act like a blanket that covers the consensus that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separable_2c and the potential of ‘models’_1c provides a similar cover for excludingthe possibility of ‘grace’_1c.

0103 The next set of chapters (seven through eleven) challenge the exultation of grace_3c and nature_3c through a doctrine (an “ism”) of harmony (“concord”).

The title of chapter 7 is “Concordism and Science”.

In this chapter, Ross reminds the reader that a divided Christendom gives birth to science.  The Reformation brings the Bible back to front and center.  The Bible exhorts the believer to test everything.  The Bible offers subject matter that comports with the scientific method of observation, modeling and technical specification.  Scientific disciplinary languages encourage literal and plain readings.  So, most of all, the Bible can be plainly read for exoteric meaning.

But, there is always an esoteric meaning hidden within that plain reading.

For example, today, the second day of the Creation Story (Gen. 1:6-9) appears, to a scientist, to be a phenomenological description of an evolutionary process.  To this reader, the second day contains poetic icons and images and symbols of the accretion of the Earth and Moon.  The hidden presence of a correspondence becomes apparent to anyone with scientific knowledge.  But, can I make this esoteric impression into an exoteric demonstration?

Say what?

As a scientist, can I construct an empirio-schematic judgment that plainly expresses what my intuition is privately telling me?

I say, “Yes.  Indeed, this is precisely what scientists do in formulating hypotheses.”

0104 Here is a general picture of the empirio-schematic judgment.

A disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness)

How would the empirio-schematic judgment apply to a what ought to be that is both concordist and Positivist?

To start, the phenomena might be my correspondences between a Creation Story day and a relevant evolutionary period.

My observations might classify the correspondences in terms of specific types.  That would be close to a model.

Finally, I would need a specialized disciplinary language (that is not “metaphysical” in the sense of “religious”) capable of formulating the designation of specific types.

0105 Here is a picture of my proposal of the empirio-schematic judgment for concordism.

0106 Since Ross does not know about the Positivist’s judgment or the empirio-schematic judgment, this will be something a surprise.  In a way, this examination serves as an introduction to Razie Mah’s e-book, Exercises in Artistic Concordism (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

Nevertheless, the above diagram does not contradict Ross’s argument in chapters 7 and 8.

0107 Back to the figure.

The disciplinary language of semiotics (or triadic relations) (relation, thirdness) brings a typology of natural signs, corresponding the Peirce’s list of icons, indexes and symbols (what ought to be, secondness), into relation with my construction of correspondences between each Creation Story day and a relevant evolutionary epoch (what is,firstness).

0108 This figure is not the same as the judgment regarding the distinction and separation of the terms, “grace” and “nature” (see points 0056 through 0059).  In many ways, it is a rejection of this judgment, using the vehicle of a judgment that is integral to the scientific revolution (that is, the empirio-schematic judgment).

0109 In this figure, I make observations and measurements of phenomena, knowing that, for the past eight centuries, the noumenon is untenable.  Two separate parties have flourished under the judgment that this noumenon is untenable.  Yes, both modern theologians (the ones who conduct unnecessary concessions, according to Ross) and modern scientists (the ones who say that Genesis is not history in a modern sense, that the Creation Story does not compare to the evolutionary sciences, and that the Bible derives from… um… ancient Near Eastern civilizations) reject the claim that “grace” and “nature” are like matter and form in the human being.

0110 Modern theological and scientific experts do not know that they agree to this rejection.

Neither does Hugh Ross.

But, in chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10, I sense that Ross might catch the drift that the modern disarticulated version of “dual revelation” operates as an impediment to his aesthetic strivings.

He asks, “Why can’t my impressions of correspondences between each Creation Story day and a revelant evolutionary epoch (what is, firstness) be regarded as real?”

He does not ask why they cannot be regarded as phenomena.

He does not ask why God’s grace no longer flows into our human nature.

In chapters 8 and 9, Ross confronts various “models” that reflect the consensus that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separate concepts.  These “models of Bible and science” offer various recipes for coping with the consensus.  But, they do not offer anything close to a schematic.  I mean, look at the title of the above figure, empirio- (empirical) -schematics (formulations).

Yes, I can regard Ross’s correspondences as phenomena.

0111 In chapter 9, Ross confronts Christians who exalt grace_3c over nature_3c.  He calls it “hard concordism”.

Or course, this is Ross’s audience.  God bless them.  Many know that their “models” for so-called “Creation Science” have certain weaknesses, the greatest of which is the complete rejection of modern scientific inquiry.  Ross does not want that.  He aims for a Biblical model that bridges the separation that everyone has agreed upon.  Ross’s audience knows that this is a more sensible path.  So, they keep him in business.

0112 In chapter 9, Ross confronts Christian theologians who exalt nature_3c over grace_3c.  He calls it “soft concordism”.

Yes, these are the theologians who get grants from foundations interested in… well… finding the right academic voices who will speak “truth” for “power” (or something like that).  These theologians are experts in the cultures and languages of the ancient Near East.  These theologians have a model for explaining the Creation Story.  The first chapter of Genesis depicts the construction of the temple (or tent) of the heavens and the earth.

0113 In chapter 9, Ross challenges both exaltations, by proposing what he calls “a moderate concordism”.  It is sort of like the Goldilocks fairy tale.  He seeks a concordism that is not too hard, not too soft, and feels just right.

He uses, as an example, Job 9.8.  God alone stretches out the heavens.  He calls it a poetic image.

0114 Just hold that thought, while I bring up artistic concordism’s empirio-schematic once again.

I wonder where the word “image” appears.

Oh, there it is.

It is one of Peirce’s three types of natural signs.

0115 Let me go over these three types.

In a sign-relation, a sign-vehicle (SV) stands for a sign-object (SO) in regards to a sign-interpretant (SI).

An icon is a sign-relation whose sign-object (SO) manifests on the basis of similarity, images, pictures, and other characteristics of the category of firstness.

An index is a sign relation whose sign-object (SO) manifests on the basis of pointing, indicators, contact, cause and effect, and other characteristics of the category of secondness.

A symbol is a sign-relation whose sigh-object (SO) manifests on the basis of habit, convention, tradition, law, and other characteristics of the category of thirdness.

0116 Ross offers an exercise in artistic concordism by identifying Job 9.8 as an icon.  The icon provides a “poetic” or “artistic” image of its referent.

0117 In chapter 10, Ross notes that Reasons To Believe is not the only game in town.  Sure, Christianity seems to be fixed in their consensus that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separate. Yes, all traditional churches_1b and modern positivist institutions_1b are stuck in a relation (secondness) that they no longer recognize might not be… um… fruitfully “conjunct”.  But, the Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and certain Jesus-loving cults are not so constrained.  They harbor full-fledged concordists, who link their scriptures to scientific discoveries with… a sense of aesthetic abandon.  Outside of Ross’s brand of concordism, which I consider “artistic”, rather than “moderate”, there are few constraints.

0118 They are all saying the same thing.

Our scriptures contain signs of God’s natural world, as revealed in scientific models.

Why can’t Ross say the same?

0119 Allow me to consider chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10 once again.

Here are the titles of each chapter.

0120 Oh, I included chapter 11, because, if the scholarly and religious elites of the Ancient Near East were time-transported to our current age, then they would be doing the same as the “other faiths” covered in chapter 10.  They would be comparing their myths and traditions and wisdoms to modern science.  They would be asking whether their scriptures are signs of the incredible counter-intuitive realities that science has revealed in the past 400 years.

And, they would be running into the same problem facing Christians, concerning the Primeval History (which for this examination, only includes Genesis 2.4 through 11).  All the written origin myths of the ancient Near East depict the creation of humans as a recent event.  Yes, the myths proclaim that humans are fashioned by differentiated gods for various (often technical) purposes, just like Adam and Eve.  The king lists of various ancient cities look just like the genealogies in the Primeval History.  Or is it the other way around?

Anyway, they would complain, “What is this business about humans being around for 250,000 years before the start of our great civilizations?  What gives?”

0121 Well, once the question is posed, then some Christian-science type of genius, like Hugh Ross, might consult the diagram of artistic concordism as an empirio-schematic, which appears below, and make a suggestion. 

0122 His suggestion says, “Yes, all the written origin stories of the ancient Near East, along with the Bible’s Primeval History (yet, excluding the Creation Story) agree that humans are fashioned by one or more gods within the past, say, 10,000 years.  Okay, maybe 8,000 years.

“I observe your correspondences as phenomena (what is in the above diagram).  And, I find that these stories might be classified as indicators (what ought to be) of… um… the start of humanity.  Of course, this is impossible, because archaeology, natural history and genetics agree that tool use, fossil remains and DNA samples and so forth, demonstrate that there has been no change in humans for the past 250,000 or so years.”

0123 Then, those ancient time-travelers reply, “What about us?  We are the change, that we have been waiting for.”

Ross thinks, “Where have I heard that before?”

The ancients continue, “Obviously, if what you scientifically call ‘humans’ lived long before the times that our myths indicate, then, our myths indicate that these ‘humans’ are born again and fashioned into the ancestors of our civilizations.  That is why our ancient myths do not indicate ‘humans’ before their creation by our gods.  Rather, our origin stories indicate humans as they were created by our gods.”

0124 Ross doesn’t quite know what to make of this, so he sticks to the schematics and says, “Well, according to the disciplinary language of semiotics, I should classify your correspondence as an indicator.  Indexes point to their referents.  So, your correspondence is pointing to the start… or maybe… the potentiation of civilization itself, rather than of humanity.  If that…”

At which point, the hard-concordist Christian standing next to Ross says, “Did y’all just say that humans are ‘born again’?  How crazy is that?”

0125 And, at that moment, in this bizarre scenario, Ross looks up at the sky, a dome of bronze, hammered into a translucent patina by the angels, and Michael takes a big old mallet, and strikes the dome of the heavens.  Boom!

In the fashioning of Adam and Eve, humanity is born again.

The stories of Adam and Eve indicate the start of our current Lebenswelt.

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

This is what the written origin stories of the ancient Near East indicate.

Humanity starts with our current Lebenswelt.

0126 In order to fully appreciate this fictional portrait of an exercise in artistic concordism, the reader may consult The First Singularity and Its Fairy Trace… or An Archaeology of the Fall… by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.