0170 Chapter 17 discusses recent scientific corroboration for Ross’s correspondences for days four (and three) of the Creation Story.  This chapter is signature for Hugh Ross and the Reasons To Believe Team.  

Here I am concerned about day four.

0171 I proceed by walking though several lessons that come out of this examination.

0172 Ross employs a variation of the Positivist’s judgment.  He subscribes to the rule of the positivist intellect that metaphysics must not be allowed in scientific descriptions.  Ross is a scientist.  In this respect, he might be placed in the exalting nature_3c camp.

Ross does not subscribe to the proposition that the all plain-speaking explanations must be couched in a scientific disciplinary language.  The reason is simple.  Ross is Christian.  So, scientific explanations cannot account for every thing, especially when that “thing” is purely relational, such as Ross’s belief that Jesus is the Messiah.  Ross intuitively senses that nature is a sign of God.  So, modern gossips (who call themselves “thought leaders”) place Ross in the exalting grace_3c camp.

0173 Here is a picture of Ross’s aesthetic judgment for this application of day four.

0174 Relation (thirdness) brings what ought to be (secondness) into relation with what is (firstness).

For the Positivist’s judgment, a positivist intellect (relation, thirdness) brings the empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with the dyad, a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena (what is,firstness).

For Ross’s aesthetic judgment, an aesthetic intellect (relation, thirdness) brings artistic concordism as an empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness, see point 0121) into relation with the dyad of Genesis day four and the period of Earth’s history dating from around 2000 to 540 million years ago [cannot be objectified by] perceived correspondences.

0175 Let me take a closer look at that what is.

0176 The noumenon is a dyad consisting of a day:age pairing.

0177 The day is four.  The Genesis text says (more or less), “And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens (for various reasons)’. And it was so. God made the sun, moon and stars and set them in the firmament (for more reasons).  God declares day four good.  That is it.”

Yeah, that is a mess of a synopsis of sacred text.

0178 The corresponding epoch is (more or less) a chemical transformation of the Earth’s atmosphere due to the exposure of continental rock and the production of oxygen by photosynthesis.  Continental rock is exposed by 2,500Myr (millions of years ago).  The weathering of continental rock influences the composition of the atmosphere.  Photosynthetic life is at least as old as continental rock.  Oxygen gas is a byproduct of photosynthesis.  As oxygen builds up in the atmosphere, the types of life described in day 5 flourish as microscopic creatures, then macroscopic creatures until the so-called “Cambrian Explosion”.

Yeah, that is a mess of a synopsis of chapter 17 of Ross’s book.

0179 The good Book and Ross’s chapter are much more evocative and prescient.

My aim is only to establish the plausibility that there are correspondences and those correspondences may be regarded as phenomena that the empirio-schematic judgment of artistic concordism can observe and weigh.

0180 Here is a picture of the empirio-schematic judgment of artistic concordism unfolded into a category-based nested form.

0181 To me, this line of thinking corresponds to the Greek style of argument.  The task is to identify the best icons, indexes and symbols.

The actuality₂ in the above figure is the model that Ross is aiming to articulate, but cannot, because he is unfamiliar with the disciplinary language of semiotics₃.

I suppose that I may label Ross’s normal context₃ and actuality₂ as “intuitive” and “Gestalt-like”.

Following to the Greek style of argument, I say, “Ross’s model is not as cogent as Peirce’s sign typology, although he does offer a method in chapter 20.  And, methods are not so different from models.”

0182 Does Ross’s method of identifying and testing correspondences work?

Yes, but classifying correspondences as icons, indexes and symbols works even better.

Here is my list of classifications for various correspondences for day four.

A sign-vehicle (SV) stands for its sign-object (SO) in regards to a sign-interpretant (SI).

This list implies that Genesis day four (SV) stands for the evolutionary epoch where the Earth’s atmosphere is transformed from carbon-rich to oxygen-rich (SO), on the basis of Peirce’s natural sign typology.

But, I wonder, can Peirce’s sign-typology be considered a sign-interpretant (SI)?

Or is the sign-interpretant (SI) the Gestalt-like and intuitive recognitions going on in the mind of someone who is both a Christian and a scientist?

0183 That is not the only issue.

Ross’s “moderate”… er… “artistic” concordism binds the content-level actualities for exalting grace_3c and for exalting nature_3c into a single actuality, designated by the dashed red box in the following figure.

0184 Surely, the intersection of the two content-level nested forms can be labeled.

Plus, that label has something to do with with the term, “inerrancy”.

The presumption is that both the Bible and the evolutionary sciences are inerrant.

The Bible is potentiated by revelation.

Science is potentiated by truth.

That is how Ross thinks about it.

So, this intersection is going to… um… shall I say… “confound” current potentialities_1a… er… “expectations”_1a.

0186 Chapter 17 is Hugh Ross at his best.  This examination adds value by framing his search for ways to articulate his mission in terms of semiotics.  Also, this examination reaches the same conclusion as Ross in regards to a rescued presence underlying the definition of the word “inerrancy”.

Here is a picture.

0187 The normal context of definition₃ brings the actuality of the word, “inerrancy”₂, into relation with the potential of a presence₁.

What is that presence?

The presence of Peirce’s natural signs, that is of icons, indexes and symbols.

0188 The Christian inquirer, such as Hugh Ross, who is also a scientist, may classify verses in Genesis 1:14-19 as icons, indexes and symbols of one particular epoch, the period between around 2 to 0.6 billions of years ago, when the atmosphere of the Earth goes from carbon-rich and oxygen-poor (hazy, translucent, at times, almost opaque) to oxygen-rich and carbon-poor (clear, transparent, and full of clouds).

Or, as Razie Mah (semiotician) puts it in the second section of Exercises in Artistic Concordism, Genesis One is a sign of the evolutionary record.

0189 This presents a question to those who exalt nature_3c by extolling the positivist intellect_3a and the power_1a of scientific research_2a.  How does one explain the causality inherent in signs, as well as other triadic relations, in terms of truncated material and efficient causalities?

The answer is, “Oh, maybe, with a large research grant we can come up with the proper mix of drugs that will take care of the issue.”

Yeah, the human will_1a is not necessarily the truth_1a.  The not-metaphysical intellect_3a is not a logos_3a.

0190 The question still stands.

What gives Ross and Mah the ability to classify the correspondences between the Genesis text for each day and features of the relevant evolutionary epoch as icons, indexes or symbols?

0190 This also presents a question to those who exalt grace_3c and say that ancient Near Eastern civilizations_3anecessitate that we qualify the potential of what can be revealed_1a by the text of Genesis 1-11_2a.  How does one explain that one particular ancient origin story (Genesis 1-2.3) signifies the evolutionary record in terms of Peirce’s natural-sign typology, when using a very specific permutation of the Positivist’s judgment and artistic concordism as the empirio-schematic?

The answer is, “Oh, it must be a coincidence.”

Indeed.

0191 The challenges of these questions are real.  With Ross’s “moderate” concordism, which this examination repackages as “artistic” concordism”, the content levels of the two exaltations are entangled with a discovery.  Genesis One is a sign of the evolutionary record.

The implications of this content-level intersection reverberate to the higher levels of each interscope, drawing their actualities into similar boxes.

For example, here is a picture of a juxtaposition of the situation levels.

How are we going to cope with the single actuality implied by the dotted box without drugs or coincidences?

Surely, whatever Hugh Ross and the team at Reasons to Believe are doing belongs within this box.

However, our current modern world holds many ideologies that function to keep this box empty.

It seems that one can have either one actuality_2b or the other_2b.

It is as if everyone accepts that one’s personal relation with God_2b and one’s specialized employment_2b are two distinct and separable real elements.

0191 In chapter 20, Ross discusses the benefits of a model approach.  But, I wonder.  Does he actually propose a model?

I mean, at the start of the chapter he offers a definition of a scientific model and proposes that theologians use models as well.  His description of the term, “model”, matches the use of the same term 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).

0192 Here is a picture for artistic concordism for the Creation Story of Genesis and the evolutionary record.

0193 To me, this examination offers an insight into what Ross is trying to articulate, but cannot, because he has not been introduced to the disciplinary languages of triadic relations.

Over the years, Ross has developed a list of questions that are essential to ask of any viable model for creation and evolution.  These questions apply to the adoption of variations of the Positivist’s and empirio-schematic judgments in the face of the fact that the positivist intellect’s rule is not adequate.  One cannot say, “Metaphysics is not allowed”, without the very words shifting their meanings, presences and messages in order to wriggle out of captivity.

0194 Doesn’t this language game remind the inquirer of the story of the seduction of Eve by the hand-less serpent?

It’s almost as if the command, “Metaphysics is not allowed.”, echoes the command, “Do not eat of the fruit of the tree in the center of the garden, lest you die.”

Is this a game that has been played since the start of our current Lebenswelt?

0196 If Genesis One is a sign of the evolutionary record, then the text is a sign-vehicle (SV) and the evolutionary record is a sign-object (SO) and the sign-interpretant is entangled with our human ability to recognize icons, indexes and symbols (SI).

0197 In chapter 18, Ross reports on the impact (on theologians) of the fact that geneticists have disproven an original pair for humanity.  Adam and Eve in Genesis 2.4 on are not the first Homo sapiens.  Saint Augustine based his doctrine of original sin on the (unfortunately scientific) claim that Adam and Eve are the first humans.  Does that mean that the doctrine of original sin must be dismissed?

0198 Perhaps, Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is a little more hardy than that.  Surely, the diagnosis is correct.  But, the method by which Adam and Eve stand at the headwaters of fallen humanity may need to be revised.

That revision will be marvelous to behold.

0199 The revision fits into Ross’s rescue of “inerrancy” by altering the meaning and the message underlying the term.

Here is a picture.

0200 In chapter 19, Ross offers a scientific defense of an original human pair.

Oh, Adam and Eve are “original” alright.  But, they are not the first Homo sapiens.

0201 Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana collaborate on a book (500 pages long!) titled, Who Was Adam?

They conclude that, among other things, intelligence and language makes us human.

0202 Ross and Rana discuss intelligence in the natural world.  They cover the topic admirably.

Ross and Rana discuss language in the hominin lineage.  Was language around by the time of the Neanderthal?  Does the Neanderthal and human share a common ancestor?

For example, in this chapter, Ross reports on recent computational neuroanatomical studies comparing Neanderthal fossil and modern human skulls.  The researchers conclude that the Neanderthal has a relatively larger occipital lobe and a notable asymmetry.  The left cerebellum is larger than the right.

What do these findings indicate?

The occipital lobe is specialized in vision processing.  The left cerebellum is likely to be in charge of the right side of the body, in particular, the right hand.  Ross concludes that these traits indicate diminished language processing capability.

Mah disagrees.  Both increased visual cognitive-acuity and enhanced right-hand voluntary control in the Neanderthal indicate reliance on hand talk, where the right hand is the preferred instrument for talking.  In contrast, the globular brain of the human facilitates the addition of a vocal channel to hand talk, so modern brains are adapted to a dual-mode of talking called “hand-speech talk”.  Humans practice hand-speech talk from the start of the species until the first singularity.

Razie Mah covers similar topics in The Human Niche (available at smashwords and other e-book venues) as well as in examinations of the works of various evolutionary anthropologists, such as the two-part Comments on Michael Tomasello’s Arc of Inquiry (1999-2019) (available at e-book venues as well as Razie Mah’s blogs for January through March 2024).

0203 But, promo aside, my point is this.  Ross and Rana’s discussion seems to be concerned with scientific research, instead of the questions that contribute to a rescue of the inerrancy of the Bible.

Yes, I’m talking about the questions in the above figure.  These questions pertain to the stories of Adam and Eve, not the Creation Story.

In regards to meaning, are Adam and Eve signs of the genesis of history itself?  The genealogies suggest the case.  Stories in the Primeval History (here, defined as Gen.2.4 -11) all take place in southern Mesopotamia during the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods.  Indeed, one can say that the Primeval History is an insider’s view of the trends towards increasing social complexity occurring during these periods.

In regards to message, I ask, “What is it about spoken words?  The temptation of Eve has a serpent, who has no hands, therefore cannot engage in hand talk.  So, it must address Eve in speech-alone talk.  God’s rebuke of Cain, saying that sin is crouching at his door, could indicate that Cain is lying to himself.  He is speaking to himself, just as the serpent spoke to Eve.  Cain convinces himself that Abel must die.  Lamech redefines Cain’s blessing.  He does so using spoken words.  The pattern continues all the way through the Tower of Babel.”

0204 Is there a proposal to this effect?

0205 Yes, here is a picture.

Notably, what ought to be is different than artistic concordism.  What ought to be is a hypothesis that is based on semiotic considerations.

0206 Razie Mah proposes this hypothesis in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace, available as an e-article at smashwords and other e-book venues.  Look for this essay and its companion essay in The Crystallization of the Fallseries.

Razie Mah authors a dramatization of the discovery of the first singularity in the e-book An Archaeology of the Fall.  For the intrepid teacher or seminar leader, a three-part Instructor’s Guide is available.

0207 The hypothesis of the first singularity proposes that civilization is potentiated by a change in the way humans talk,from hand-speech talk to speech-alone talk.  The Ubaid culture is the first to practice speech-alone talk.  Then, speech-alone talk is adopted by nearby hand-speech talking cultures.  Why?  The Ubaid has greater wealth and power.  Why? Speech-alone talk facilitates explicit abstraction.  Explicit abstraction is key to labor and social specialization (wealth and power).

0208 The villages of the Ubaid first appear 7800 years ago, at 0 U0′ (remember “uh-oh prime”?).

At 900 U0′, folk in western Europe begin construction of stone-circle “observatories”.

The town-chiefdoms of the Uruk start around 1800 U0′.  Urbanism, monumental building, organized irrigation and writing begin.

The city-states of the Sumerian Dynastic are apparent by 2800 U0′.  Civilization arrives around three millennia after the first appearance of speech-alone talking culture (that is, the Ubaid).

0209 All said, Ross and Rana should benefit by Razie Mah’s hypothesis of the first singularity.

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

The stories of Adam and Eve, like all the other written origin myths of the ancient Near East, describe the start of our current Lebenswelt.

0210 For one suggestion as to why the stories of Adam and Eve are incorporated into the Bible, when Abraham, the first patriarch, should mark the start of the Genesis text, consider Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil”, running from January 13-31 in Razie Mah’s blog.

1065 I am compelled to diagram these dyadic actualities, with their contiguities in tow.

Here is a picture that looks like an interscope that I have seen before.

1066 This figure differs from previous interscopes of the specifying, exemplar and interventional sign-relations.

The contiguities no longer correspond to the three potentials₁ underlying a spoken word₂ in the normal context of defintion₃.

The contiguities are labeled with a superscript that indicates the category of that level of the dyadic actuality.  The superscripts are “a” for content level, “b” for situation level and “c” for perspective level.

1067 Each dyadic actuality₂ is a hylomorphe, similar to Aristotle’s matter [substance] form.

For each actuality₂, the sign-object is like matter, the contiguity is similar to [substance] and the sign-vehicle mimics form.

The sign-object confers presence (or esse_ce as matter [substantiating]).  

The sign-vehicle for the next sign-relation is like a shape that contains the presence (or essence as [substantiated] form).

1068 The diagram may be confusing. 

For each sign-relation, the sign-vehicle and the sign-object are on adjacent levels.  In other words, each sign-relation crosses levels.

But, within each level, the dyadic actuality₂ consists of a contiguity between a sign-object (for one sign-relation) and a sign-vehicle (for the next sign-relation in the sequence: specifying, exemplar, interventional, specifying, and so on).

1069 Why do I construct this somewhat ambiguous interscope?

The answer will soon be obvious.

1070 In the introduction (section 6.1), the author opens with three situations where the word, “meaning” is typically used (which corresponds to the three sign-objects in the above interscope).  Then, the author says that he will analyze all three types of situations, starting with the third and using Gottlob Frege’s semantic triangle: referent, symbol and concept (or meaning).

To me, this announcement runs counter to a prior announcement, made a few paragraphs prior, that the author intends to focus on the first two situations.

Dear reader, when a sequential contradiction appears in a text, when the author makes one point and then later presents the same point in a completely different manner, take note.  Either there is something wrong with the author or the author offers a clue that there is a frame shift in the text.  Here, the shift is from common uses of the term, “meaning” to Frege’s referent, symbol and concept.

1071 Just as the three common uses correspond with the three sign-objects within the semiotic interscope, Frege’s three terms associate to the three contiguities.

Here is a picture.

1072 What a coincidence!

1073 Here, the superscripts and the subscripts provide cues.

The superscripts for the contiguities denote Peirce’s categories of firstness, secondness and thirdness with respect to levels.

The subscripts on the sign-elements denote the type of sign-relation.

The subscripts for the actualities denote level (a, b, c) and location in a category-based nested form (1,2,3).

1074 What about the sign-relation?

The sign-relation does not appear in the figure above.

A sign-relation crosses levels, so it would have two superscripts, one for the SV and one for the SO and SI.

1075 Can I say that again?

The specifying sign-relation^a,b is an index^a,b, because its sign-object, {SO_s}_2b or information_2b, is based on the qualities of pointing, contact, contiguity, cause and effect, and so on.

The exemplar sign-relation^b,c may be labeled as a symbol^b,c, because its sign-object, {SO_e}_2c or goal_2c, is based on the qualities of habit, convention, law, tradition and so forth.

1076 The interventional sign-relation^c,a can be labeled as an icon^c,a, because its sign-object, {SO_i}_2a or real initiating (semiotic) event_2a, is based on the qualities of images, pictures, similarity, and so on.

Indeed, all five senses offer iconic qualities.  Images are not only visual.

I am sure that Daisy and her duck have told me that, through various real initiating (semiotic) events_2a.

1077 The term, “Frege’s three corners”, is not merely a stylish title.

Each of the three actualities listed in the above figure stand at the corner of a triangle.

1078 Why Frege?

The biosemiotic noumenal overlay, diagrammed in the course of these examinations, reflects the work of modern philosophers writing in the late 1800s and the early 1900s.  For the topic at hand, these include Charles Peirce (1839-1914 AD), Ferdinand de Saussure (1859-1914), Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) and Edmund Husserl (1859-1938).

The first (Peirce) rediscovers the definition of sign as a triadic relation after consulting the writings of Baroque scholastics.  The second (Saussure) technically defines “language” as “two arbitrarily related systems of differences”.  The third (Frege) explores semantics, symbolic logic, the philosophy of language and mind, and distinguishes between “sense” and “reference”.  The fourth (Husserl) formalizes a practice performed out-of-sight by the social sciences of the late-nineteenth century.  Phenomenology offers techniques for identifying what a noumenon must be.

1079 Once again, why Frege?

Oh, because the author calls upon Frege’s triangle, consisting of three corners, corresponding to symbol^a, referent^b and concept^c.

Here is a picture for how those corners fall out.

1080 This figure can be compared to author’s “semantic prism” (Figure 6.1).  The purpose of depicting this triangle as a prism is to show how one referent may have more that one concept and how one symbol can link to more than one concept and referent.

To me, this triangular constellation suggests that multiplicity must be distinguished from spirality.  The triangle spirals through time as index^a,b (specifying^a,b) goes to symbol^b,c (exemplar^b,c) and symbol^b,c (exemplar^b,c) goes to icon^c,a(interventional^c,a) and so on.

1081 That is to say, multiplicity does not necessarily raise the question of how one sign leads to another.  Spirality does.

But, spirality is not obvious, as the author shows.

1082 It stands right below the surface of his discussion.

If Frege labels the corners of the semantic triangle, then what do the lines between the corners represent?

If each of the corners of Frege’s triangle belongs to a different level, then the lines must transit from one level of an interscope to another.

That is precisely what the sign-relation does.

1083 Here is a picture.

1084 I first consider the corners.

In this figure, the actuality₂ for each level is depicted as a dyad.  [Contiguity] occupies the corner.  The two real elements occupy either side of the vertex.  Colors code for level. 

Aristotle’s hylomorphe is exemplar here.  SO equates to matter.  The contiguity is [substance].  SV is like form.  A thing₂ is matter [substance] form.  A thing₂ belongs to the realm of actuality₂.

Rounding each corner corresponds to a thing_2, composed like matter [substance] form, with SO [contiguity] SV.  Frege’s terms are substantial, because they label the contiguities.

1085 What about the lines?

An index^a,b is as sign based on indication and pointing.  On the first side, a symbol^a as substance points to a referent^bas substance.  A real initiating (semiotic) event_2a indicates information_2b.

A symbol^b,c is a sign based on habit and convention.  On the second side, a referent^b as substance makes a habit of a concept^c as substance.  Information_2b symbolizes a goal_2c.

An icon^c,a is a sign based on imagery or similarity.  On the third side, a concept^c as substance images a symbol^a as substance.  A goal_2c images a real initiating (semiotic) event_2a.

1086 Do the lines connect in a true triangle?

No, the lines spiral, in time, in space, and in human cognition.  The triangle never closes.

Instead, the triangle spirals.

1087 Spiral?

As an analogy, imagine our solar system traveling in orbit of the galactic center, along with millions of other stellar entities.  Our planet rotates around the Sun.  The Sun has gone around the galactic center only 18 times.  That is not many orbits.  The Earth is rotating in a local pocket of gravity generated by our Sun.  Yet, our Sun is moving too.  So, the Earth is spiraling through space.

1088 To me, this concept is rather disconcerting.  Or, is it just an image?

I would prefer a moving Earth orbiting a stationary Sun.

Okay, I would really prefer the situation where the Earth is not moving and the Sun is going around it.

After, that is what my world looks like to me.

Similarly, I would rather have a hierarchy rather than a spirality.

With a spirality, one never knows what will happen next.

1089 The previous examination of the constructivist approach (by Alexander Kravchenko) arrives at a claim that pertains to this chapter.  Meanings are the products of the operations of distinction made by a mindful observer in the domain of language.

The author of this chapter of Pathways strives to perform operations of distinction in order to elucidate the evolution of a hierarchy of semiotic beings in our universe.

Yes, hierarchies of semiotic beings manifest as multiple spiralities of the biosemiotic noumenal overlay.

1090 Section 6.2 is titled, “Hierarchogenesis and Its Stages During the General Evolution of the Universe”.  In this section, the author isolates fifteen beginnings (hierarchogenetic events) in the history of the universe.  The first six are “cosmic”, since they concern the universe to which we belong.  The next six are “substantive”, since they have to do with the stuff of life.  The last three are “questionable”, since they have to do with humans in our current Lebenswelt.

I wonder whether I can coin the word, “spiralogenesis”?

1091 Or maybe, “stageogenesis”?

Each beginning serves as a platform for further spiralogenesis… er… hierarchogenesis.

Plus, the selection of hierarchogenetic events is um… selective.

For example, are the earliest galaxies, which I label “cosmic #6” or C6, “galaxies” in the same fashion as later galaxies?

Or are they the purest form of galaxy, since they are initially composed of unspoiled H and He?

1092 The same goes for early and later stars.

Here is the list of my selection of the author’s cosmic entries.

1093 Now, I want to travel the spiral for C1.

To start, I must wonder, “What is the goal of the universe?”

After all, goal_2c corresponds to the exemplar sign-object (SO_e) along with the interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i).  So, if SV_i is the postulated Big Bang (the initiating event where the laws of physics for our particular universe pop out of a pinprick concentrated enough to contain the energy equivalent of the mass of the universe), then SO_e has some explaining to do.

Er… I should rather say… someone may need to speculate on the nature of {SO_e[concept^c]SV_i}_2c for the instance when SV_i is the current postulation of the Big Bang in astrophysics.

1094 That said, let me consider the interventional sign-relation in Frege’s triangle for this beginning.

1095 I follow the formula for the bottom line.

A perspective-level Big Bang_2c (SV_i) stands for a content-level sign-object {(SO_i)}_2a on the basis of (something akin to) what is happening_3a operating on the potential of ‘something’ happening’_1a (SI_i).  Plus, this SO_i operates on the basis of imagery and similarity.  The entire sign-relation is an icon.  A message images a meaning.  A symbol^a pictures a concept^c.

1096 How do I get around the Frege’s corner 2a?

This corner corresponds to a real initiating (semiotic) event_2a.  The roles of SO_i and SV_s differ within that actuality_2a.

Hmmm, maybe I need to go back to the interventional sign-relation.

In C1, SV_i acts as a universe-manifesting pinprick in an emptiness before the universe.  If this is so, and if SO_i is the intention of the expression_2a, then SO_i is the manifestation of time, space, energy and law_2a.

Here is a picture of the interventional sign-relation for C1.

1097 I am still trying to get around the lower-left corner, corresponding to the content-level actuality as a dyad.

As far as the category-based three-level interscope goes, the corner is the content-level actuality_2a of a real initiating (semiotic) event_2a.

As far as the embedded sign-relations go, the corner is the dyad, {SO_i[symbol^a]SV_s.}_2a

Frege’s symbol^a corresponds to the message₁ that makes a spoken word₂ possible in the normal context of definition₃.

1098 Here are my associations.

The real initiating (semiotic) event_2a consists of {the manifestation of time, space, energy and law (SO_i) [symbol^a] the first 10^-19 seconds of the expansion of the universe (SV_s)}_2a.

Whew!

1099 Wait a microsecond!

One-thousand nanoseconds?

Or ten-trillion 10^-19 seconds?

1100 Let me look at section 6.3, titled “Potential Meanings During the Abiotic Period of the Evolution of the Universe”.  The C1 spiralogenetic event is discussed a couple of pages into this section.

For the interventional sign-relation, the Big Bang_2c (SV_i) stands for the manifestation of space, time, energy, natural laws, the fundamental constants, and more_2a (SO_i) in regards to (a normal context similar to) what is happening_3aoperating on the potential of ‘something’ happening_1a (SI_i).

1101 This is 13 billion years ago.

But, that is not the distinctive feature.  The feature that differs from all other features, in the sense that it captures the attention of the reader (and author) is the time frame: 3.17 x 10^-20 seconds.  That is an outstanding feature.  So, to me, it seems that this feature would be a good choice for SV_s side of the real initiation (semiotic) event_2a.

1102 Let me say that in a different manner.

The content-level thing_2a is a real initiating (semiotic) event_2a.

The actuality_2a is a hylomorphe, somehow re-enacting Aristotle’s hylomorphe of matter [substance] form.

1103 The matter-like element is SO_i, the manifestation of space, time, energy, natural laws, fundamental constants and so on.

The form-like element is SV_s, the first 10^-19 seconds of the expansion of the universe.

The substance-like [contiguity] is [symbol^a] for Frege and [message] for the category-based nested form for the definition of a spoken word.

1104 Here is a snapshot of different ways to depict the same corner.

1105 This raises a question about the word, “symbol”.

For Frege, a symbol^a is a corner of a semantic triangle.  The other corners are referent^b and concept^c.  All three terms apply to the character of spoken words.  Every speech act is a symbol^a, pointing to a referent^b, and representing a concept^c. 

Frege’s term, symbol^a, is not the same as Peirce’s use of the same term, symbol^b,c, describing a sign-relation whose sign-object is based on habit, routine, convention, law as so on.

1106 The superscripts tell a story.

Frege’s symbol^a is a contiguity that belongs to the content-level of a three-level interscope.

Peirce’s symbol^b,c is a sign-relation that entangles the situation and perspective levels.

1107 Here is a picture, in terms of Frege’s triangle.

1108 So I ask, “What is it about the spoken word that is captured by symbol^a that is not grasped by symbol^b,c?”

Ferdinand de Saussure’s definition of spoken language provides a clue.  Spoken language consists of two arbitrarily related systems of differences, parole and langue.  I prefer to use the French, because an English translation of these words is misleading.  Maybe, “speech” and “cogitation” will suffice.  But, not for me.

1109 What does this imply?

Each parole (spoken word) differs from any other parole, constituting a system of differences. This system of differences must exist by convention, since there is no way for a symbolic order to exist on the qualities of similarity and pointing.  So, the system of differences of symbol^as touches base with symbol^b,cs (sign-relations), because each symbol^a (spoken word) is different from any other symbol^a (spoken word).  This allows the spoken word (symbol^a) to signify on the basis of habit, convention, law and so on (that is, what defines symbol^b,c ).

1110 So, my selection of {SO_i [symbol^a] SV_s}_2a is similar to a speaking person choosing just the right word (SV_s) to label what is being manifested in the interventional sign-relation (SO_i).

Yes, [symbol^a] is like choosing the right word (SV_s) to image the message of the interventional sign-object (SO_i).

Symbol^b,c labels when information_2b (SV_e) stands for a goal_2c (SO_e) in regards to a normal context_3c and potential_1cthat are similar to what makes sense_3c operating on the potential of ‘contextualizing the situation_1c (SI_e).

For other views on the word, “symbol”, see Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) Why Only Us? (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).