0255 The full title of the book before me is Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam (Center Street Press: Nashville and New York). The book consists of an introduction, followed by fifteen chapters.
0256 Why am I numbering the start of this examination with the number that follows the end of Professor Steve Fuller’s 2020 book, A Player’s Guide to The Post-Truth Condition?
Well, I have a question.
Is Fuller on target?
0257 One way to address this question is an examination of an author who is a player in the current theo-political dramaof the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods (1989-present).
Vivek Ramaswamy offers a book that suits the purpose. Take a look at the table of contents. The title of the introductionis “The Woke-Industrial Complex”. The title of the final chapter is “Who are We?”
0258 Are “we” the ones who have substituted the broadcasts of the empirio-normative judgment for our own thoughts, so what we say can be objectified as phenomena for the psychometric sciences?
Or are “we” the ones who read the previous sentence and ask, “What the hell are you talking about?”
The choice is clear.
0259 We are in the fourth world war. I call it The Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods: Empirio-Normative Domination in the Post-Truth Condition.
Here is a list of all four wars.
0260 Of course, those who are certified in modern history will classify this list as “revisionist”.
But, reflect on the titles of the introduction and chapter fifteen of Ramaswamy’s book and ask, “Just who is acting as a revisionist?”
Woke, Inc.?
Or, the confounded subject of domination.
0261 In the introduction, Ramaswamy claims that two characteristics define America as a nation.
The first is the American Dream, where “success” is regarded in terms of “getting ahead”. To many, “getting ahead” is associated with capitalism.
The second is the Latin slogan, e pluribus unum, out of many, one. Pluralism celebrates a variety of views and the challenges of convincing others of the relevance of one’s own view. We all have this in common. Everyone has an opinion. Ramaswamy associates this to democracy.
0262 Here are the associations.
0263 But, how do these slogans associate to the interscope for the post-truth condition?
Yes, I must go there.
The following interscope is typical for the many interscopes that appear in the examination of Fuller’s guide.
0264 For the content-level, the normal context of my intellect3a brings the dyadic actuality of what I think [cannot be objectified as] what I am willing to say2a into relation with the possibilities inherent in ‘my will’1a
What is the nature of this dyadic actuality2a?
It has to do with science.
What I think is like a noumenon, a thing itself.
What I say is like its phenomena, the observable and measurable facets of a thing.
According to Kant’s slogan, a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena.
Therefore, what I think [cannot be objectified as] what I say.
0265 Kant’s slogan figures in what is in the Positivist’s judgment.
Here is a diagram.
0266 Clearly, the content-level actuality2a corresponds to what is of the Positivist’s judgment.
If logical positivists had their way, they would dismiss the noumenon as a stumbling block for scientific inquiry into phenomena. This is precisely why Kant insists on the realness of the noumenon, in addition to its phenomena. Scientific models are not the same as the thing itself, even though triumphalist scientists would have models replace their noumena.
Nevertheless, for most sciences, the noumenon is merely a book-keeping entry corresponding to what is responsible for observable and measurable phenomena.
So, I repeat.
What I think is a book-keeping entry.
What I say corresponds to what the psychometric sciences observe and measure.
0756 The essay is originally published in German by Kosef-Verlag, Munich. In 1988, the essay is translated by Lothar Krauth, in an edition by Schuabenverlag AG, Osterfindern bei Stuttgart. The essay before me is published in 1992 by Ignatius Press, San Francisco.
Why should I examine this essay?
Is the post-truth condition a manifestation of original sin?
0757 If the answer is “yes” to the latter question, then the answer to the former is partially unveiled.
Obviously, there is no direct path from the post-truth condition to a reincarnation of the doctrine of original sin, but both can enter the cognitive space carved out by Pieper’s title. The stories of Adam and Eve portray an abuse of language similar to the type that we see today.
0758 The post-truth interscope is formulated in Looking at Steve Fuller’s Book (2020) “The Player’s Guide to the Post-Truth Condition” and applied in Looking at Vivek Ramaswamy’s Book (2021) “Woke, Inc.”.
The post-truth interscope has three levels.
Here is a picture.
0759 The content level is labeled “scrappy player”. This is a level of under contention. How so? The actuality does not look like the scrappy player’s own self-impression. Typically, people feel that what I think [accords with] what I say,rather than a dyad that has the characteristics of what is of the Positivist’s judgment. So, the content-level actuality for the post-truth condition comes across as weirdly familiar, yet unnatural. The same goes with the normal context3a and potential1a of reason3a,1a. Reason3a,1a is the intellect3a contextualizing the will1a. Plus, the interscope is not clear as to who engages reason3a,1a. Is reason3a,1a the sign-interpretant (SIi) for the scientismist one3c‘s sign-vehicle (SVi)? Or is reason3a,1a a feature of the scrappy player’s cognition? Or both?
0760 The situation level is labeled “expert”. Psychometric scientistsb situate what the scrappy player is willing to say2aas phenomena that may be formalized as observations and measurements1b. Also, psychometric experts3b bring models of value2b into relation with the potential of ‘formalized knowledge’1b.
0761 The perspective level is labeled “relativist one”. This is a level that is difficult to grasp. The current relativist one3cis called, “the one of scientism3c“, because science has become the common style for expert3b expressions of value2b, where value2b is the intersection of capitalist and socialist nested forms. So, the scientismist one3c may be regarded as “the system” or “the style” (or even, “the hive”) for the current interscope of the post-truth condition.
Fuller notes that there is an absolute character to the relativist one3c. In order to truly operate as a relativist, one must be outside of all relativized jurisdictions. That observation indicates that the relativist one3c should occupy the perspective-level normal context of the post-truth interscope. Plus, that observation indicates that relativized jurisdictions should belong to the situation level. So, all sciences and experts3b are relative from the point of view of the scientismist one3c.
0762 So, let me make a prediction as to how Josef Pieper’s argument will play out.
0826 Needless to say, the trader with refined reason3c belongs to one of the finest families in Athens.
The ancients have a saying, “The best, corrupted, become the worst.”
Abuse of power goes hand in hand with abuse of language.
Abuse of language manifests in the realm of possibility1.
Abuse of power develops in the realm of normal contexts3.
0827 Here is a picture.
0828 The actualities2 of the sophist interscope are topics of gossip and conversation.
0829 Does the sophist really believe what he says?
Is the idea that Athens should economically sanction Syracuse not the same as “war”?
Well, it is and it isn’t.
What is the definition of the word, “war”?
And finally, what about the enforcement of the sanctions?
Of course, Athenian troops can stop ships from Syracuse from docking, but is that enough?
I hear rumors that ships are now simply bypassing Athens and going to Thebes.
0830 In the forum, the bought-off… er… well-paid sophist hears what people are saying. He has a ready reply, “Thebes is causing a problem. We should think about going to war with Thebes. Not, this weak-kneed sanction business, but full-fledged conquest.”
0831 It’s like selling candy to a baby.
This is what Plato sees.
0832 What is there to stop the sophists3b and their behind-the-scenes sponsors3c?
If a reasonable person3a,1a adopts the sophist terminology, then the reasonable person3a,1a buys into the way that the sophist3b has framed the citizen’s reality and understanding.
Consequently, even the reasonable person’s thoughts are tainted, because what he says (using a word whose meaning, presence and message has been tweaked by the sophist) cannot correspond to what he thinks (because he thinks in terms of the traditional meaning, presence and message of the spoken word).
0833 A citizen may ask, “Would sending a delegation to Thebes asking what is going on be a way to avoid war?”
The sophist replies, “No, Athena forbid! Sending a delegation would be an act of war. Obviously, the traders in Thebesalready are trying to take advantage of our conflict with Syracuse. We all know that ships from Syracuse are docking in Thebes. Sending a delegation would only tip them off, so they would attack us, with the assistance of Syracuse, before we can attack them.”
0834 The sophist interscope supports ruinous political decisions.
But, does the sweetness of refined reason3c turn to bitterness?
Or does the fish rot from the head, down?
0835 The one who pays to support refined reason3c no longer believes that refined reason3c is right reason. Instead, it is a way to gain advantage1c by promoting political decisions2c that favor the elite, rather than all citizens. Without a doubt, the most advantageous political decision2c is the one2c where public citizens bear the risks and costs and private elites gain the benefits.
0836 Today, experts2b call these arrangements, “public-private partnerships”. The arrangement sounds attractive, “the public” (that is, a government bureaucracy) works with “private” citizens (that is, very wealthy operators) in order to accomplish goals that neither can achieve alone, such as an active war with Thebes while engaging in sanctions with Syracuse.
Finally, the citizen becomes confused and starts saying what the sophist says as if it is his own thought. Sanctions are war. Diplomacy is war. Thebes and Syracuse must be defeated. No one quite knows why, because reason3a,1a itself has fallen into sophistry2b.
0837 Tyranny is near when reason3a,1a falls into sophistry2b, because a dictator and his allies may declare what one can say, as if that is the gateway to what one can think. Citizens who have fallen into sophistry have no defense and end up blaming those who speak against sophistry.
0838 Weirdly, this is the topic is covered from a completely different approach, in the ninth and tenth primers of the series, How To Define the Word “Religion” and Related Primers, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues. The titles are A Primer on Classical Political Philosophy and A Primer on Another Infrasovereign Religion.
0840 So, what was Plato’s problem?
We all know what happened to Socrates.
His admirers and compatriots, including Plato, were devastated.
Plato could only stop, and lay flat, and look into the empty sky.
0023 The full title of the book before me is A Player’s Guide to the Post-Truth Condition: The Name of the Game (Anthem Press: London and New York). The book seems brief, but it packs a lot of material in sixteen short chapters… well… technically, an introduction, fourteen chapters and a conclusion.
0024 Professor Steve Fuller introduces the topic with the headline, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Post-Truth Condition”. The headline is a tongue in cheek reference to Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 intellectually pleasing masterpiece, “Dr. Strangelove”.
Yet, one has only to trace Kubrick’s career trajectory to envision a conclusion beyond worry and love. Kubrick dies in 1999 after wrapping up a homage to the will, titled “Eyes Wide Shut”.
0025 What matters is not whether something is true or false.
What matters is how something is decided.
The first statement concerns the intellect. The second statement concerns the will.
0026 So, how is a matter to be decided?
Shall we call upon the experts?
Consider the issues of anxiety and affection. An expert may reduce diverse and unsettling experiences to phenomena that can be observed and measured. Then, the expert may build a model, using a specialized disciplinary language. Next, with that model in hand, the expert will consider avenues to control the phenomena.
0027 For example, in a casual academic encounter at a university, I meet a needy and uncertain scholar who constantly nags her compatriot and (most likely) lover about the importance of managing her anxiety. Of course, the university setting is full of people making odd demands, so I think nothing of it. Later, I find out that her “husband” is a pharmaceutical salesman.
Indeed, she learned how to stop worrying about her field of inquiry and to love her husband with his briefcase full of Valium samples.
0028 So, is there a problem?
Fuller suggests that the “distance” between the layperson and the expert shrinks, because a layperson can become acquainted with the disciplinary language of any field of expertise well enough as to ask apparently intelligent questions. Yes, a question may be posed to the pharmaceutical salesman that goes like this, “I can see that your lover is addicted to Valium. Could you tell me exactly the mechanism for how this drug operates on the love-centers of the brain?”
To which the expert in marketing scoffs, “The human brain has frontal, parietal and occipital lobes. The human brain has a cerebellum. These anatomical structures perform various specialized neurological functions. Okay? The human brain does not have a ‘love-center’. What an ignorant question.”
0029 Indeed, the salesman goes on to testify before a legislative committee on the need to monitor and reduce the amount of medical disinformation on the internet. When laypeople read books on the neurological underpinnings of sexual attraction and drug addiction, they think that they’ve learned something. They think that they can ask revealing questions. So, they stupidly ask about “cerebral love centers”.
A law must be passed to deter this conduct.
0030 What does Fuller predict?
Just as during the Reformation, when Bibles printed in the layperson’s language opened the opportunity for any layperson to interpret sacred text,the current internet allows anyone who can read to become familiar with the language of any specialized discipline. Then, that layperson may publish a podcast that asks… um… revealing questions about what experts are supposed to know best.
The cost of entry into the market is astonishing low. So, many experts argue that it is the responsibility of the state to increase that cost through regulation and censorship.
0239 Francis Bacon (1561-1626 AD) lives at the start of the current Age of Ideas. He is a lawyer. He accepts that lying is part of everyday life, especially in the courtroom. He discovers that inquisitional modes of investigation force people to report in public what privately they do not hold. In short, the inquisitorial mode of testing and observing and measuring produces what I call “phenomena”. Courtroom phenomena do not reveal what a subject “privately” thinks. Courtroom phenomena reveal what the subject is openly willing to disclose under inquisition.
What I privately think associates to the noumenon.
What I am willing to say associates to phenomena.
0240 What does this imply?
Just as a triumphalist scientist wants to replace the noumenon with a mathematical or mechanical model,the scientismist one wants to replace what I privately think with what the Positivist’s judgment ought to be, that is, an empirio-normative narrative.
0241 Okay, then does that mean, once I am properly credentialed, that I have bought into a lie?
Yes and no.
Yes, phenomena cannot objectify their noumenon. If I do not testify to what I think, then I must be lying. So, the very idea of phenomena entails, not necessarily a falsehood, but a deception.
No, phenomena can objectify a model substituting for the noumenon. If I have successfully substituted an empirio-normative narrative for what I think, then I am always engaging in deception, even to myself. Either that, or I am always telling the “truth” (that is, the narrative) that can be objectified as what I say.
Did I write that correctly?
0242 The Christian doctrine of Original Sin derives from a mythic account of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are fashioned by God in a paradise near the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. They disobey God’s command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Okay, let me tweak the tree’s label to “the fruit of the tree of formalized knowledge1b“. Mythically, this tree occupies the center of the Edenic garden.
The problem is not disobedience, per se, but a capitulation to a post-truth condition imposed by… what else?… a speaking snake. Serpents must speak, because they cannot talk with their hands.
0243 Needless to say, the serpent has a variety of narratives to offer. The fruit will allow Eve to own its beauty (the capitalist model of value2b) as well as make her wise (the socialist model of value2b). Eve sees an opportunity1c. She makes an actionable judgment2c. And, the relativist one3c notches up two successes2c, since Adam is along for the ride.
So, the Fall in the Garden of Eden has a lot to do with disobedience (to God, but obedience to the serpent) and lying (to oneself by adopting the narrative of the serpent as one’s own).
0244 Saint Augustine associates the Fall to a permanent weakness called “concupiscence”, which transliterates to “con (with) cupi (Cupid) scence (the state of being)”. The state of being with Cupid is a little more entertaining than the state of being scammed by a speaking snake. But, the post-truth condition for each is pretty much the same.
0245 Why?
The foundational potential of the post-truth condition is the will1a.
By definition, the foundational potential of the prior condition is the truth1a.
0246 What does this imply?
Well, if Adam and Eve associate to the start of our current Lebenswelt, as proposed in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace (as well as An Archaeology of the Fall, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues), then the prior truth condition must associate to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Consequently, Adam and Eve may be historical, in so far as they are fairy tale figures associated with the start of the Ubaid archaeological period of southern Mesopotamia. The Ubaid marks the start of history (that is, our current Lebenswelt).
0247 Of course, Saint Augustine does not know this. So, he proposes that all humanity shares in the original sin of Adam and Eve through direct descent. All humans are subject to original sin2c because Adam and Eve are the first parents.
This turns out to be a scientific proposal. All humans are related to an original pair of humans. This hypothesis is debunked by modern genetics. There is no genetic bottleneck, as would be expected for a single-pair founding our species.
0248 So, Fuller points to a post-Augustine interpretation of our current Lebenswelt as a breeding ground for the post-truth condition. We are expected, by our inquisitors, to say only what we are publicly willing to disclose, as if that is what we are thinking. Whenever we live up to that expectation, we deceive ourselves. At the same time, we notch up successes2c for the relativist one3c.
On top of that, our hard-won academic credentials encourage us to utter statements based on the latest empirio-normative narratives2c, as if they2c are what we are thinking2a.
0249 Razie Mah heartily agrees. See his blog post for January 2, 2024.
0250 Perhaps, among other things, original sin involves defying the God of Creation by publicly mouthing the normative narratives of lesser deities, relativist ones3c, who put both the human intellect3a and will1a into perspective.
The sacrament of baptism plays a role in washing away that original sin, in so far as it introduces the infant to people who offer the story of the One True God, despite the fact that the story is unbelievable, according to all relativist one-heads.
0251 That said, Fuller’s genealogy of the post-truth condition points back to the very start of our current Lebenswelt.
Here is one vista that Fuller, as a guide to the post-truth condition, allows.
0252 Each person must decide which path to follow in the fourth Enlightenment Battle.
There are two paths.
One turns the person in to a certified mask that utters empirio-normative narratives.
One turns a person into a sign-tracker on a path that leads to a sign-vehicle that does not stand for what the empirio-normative judgment is telling me to think. This is the path of metalepsis. If Fuller is on target, the sign-tracker will discover an interventional sign-vehicle containing both a novel doctrine of original sin (for our current Lebenswelt) and a new appreciation of the human asan image of God (for the Lebenswelt that we evolved in).
In order to appreciate original justice, one must first respect original sin.
0253 Razie Mah offers three works that reconfigure the current empirio-schematic narrative of human evolution in a way that may assist sign-trackers. These works are titled, The Human Niche,An Archaeology of the Fall and How To Define the Word “Religion”. These works address the Lebenswelt that we evolved in,the first singularity and our current Lebenswelt.
Indeed, these works begin where Fuller’s excellent guidebook concludes.
0254 My thanks to Steve Fuller for his daring, and brief, exposition of the contemporary post-truth condition.
0001 On January 2, 2024, Razie Mah posts a blog challenging a Catholic podcast to take up a quest. Re-articulate the doctrine of original sin for the forthcoming age of triadic relations.
0002 The challenge rests on four points.
0003 Here is the first point.
In the 300s AD, Saint Augustine formulates the doctrine of original sin. In the process, he inadvertently proposes a scientific hypothesis. All humans descend from Adam and Eve as the original pair.
Of course, Augustine has no reason to question the Genesis text in this regard. The Bible is sacred text, a witness to God’s action in our current Lebenswelt. The science of genetics stands 1600 years in the future.
In the 1900s, geneticists definitively debunk the idea that all humans descend from an original pair, unless that founding pair lives over 500,000 years ago.
0004 This is not the only surprise.
In the 1800s and 1900s, archaeology discovers the historical depth of the ancient Near East. Now, the stories of Adam and Eve are listed among other origin stories of this age and location. All these stories (with the exception of the first chapter of Genesis) depict a recent creation of humanity, which does not make sense, since humans have been around for at least 200,000 years.
Why do all the written origin stories of the ancient Near East testify to a recent creation of humans?
0005 Indeed, if Augustine were around today, he would frame the doctrine of original sin within the paradigms of the current scientific age. Adam and Eve are not the first Homo sapiens, even though the second chapter of Genesis depicts their unique manufacture. The stories of Adam and Eve are ancient Near East mythologies. The artisanal fashioning of Adam and Eve, as well as the talking serpent, are correspondingly mythic. Also, the stories recorded in Genesis 2.4 through 10 concern the same start of humanity that is suggested by all other written origin stories of the ancient Near East.
0006 The problem?
What is this business about a recent start to humanity?
Why can’t the origin stories of ancient civilizations envision times significantly earlier than their civilizational foundings?
The social and biological sciences have done their utmost to portray human evolution in a way that excludes the witness of the earliest civilizations.
Does human evolution come with a twist?
Of course, it does.
0007 Why does Augustine claim that Adam and Eve are the first humans? The book of Genesis says so. But, once one realizes that all the origin stories of the ancient Near East point to an event horizon beyond which civilization cannot see,and that this event horizon is recent (rather than in deep evolutionary time), then the stories of Adam and Eve turn into fairy tales that address the coming-to-be of our current Lebenswelt.
0008 Before our current Lebenswelt, there are no civilizations. There is no unconstrained social complexity. There are no experts, or sophists, or relativist ones, or post-graduate ones.
Before our current Lebenswelt, humans live in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, which is unquestionably different than our own civilized condition. Social complexity is always constrained. Social hierarchies seldom contain more levels than grand-parents, parents and children. Maybe there are specialists, like a midwife or a shaman, but there are no institutions for education in “nursing” or “medicine”.
0009 What does this imply?
Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
All the origin stories of the ancient Near East (except for Genesis One) testify to the beginning of our current Lebenswelt as the start of all humanity. The Lebenswelt that we evolved in cannot be remembered.
The history of the ancient Near East runs deep. Archaeologists point to the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia, as the time and the place where the earliest unconstrained social complexity manifests. Civilization is further potentiated during the Uruk archaeological period, when urbanism starts and social stratification becomes obvious. Plus, uncanny inventions are made, such as the wheel and the use of the donkey for long-distance caravans. Civilization is obvious at the start of the Sumerian Dynastic archaeological period.
0010 So, what do the stories of Adam and Eve depict?
In the 300s, Augustine gives a premodern answer and formulates the first doctrine of original sin. Adam and Eve are the parents of all humans. The taint of original sin passes from one generation to the next.
In the 2000s, Augustine’s followers will give a postmodern answer and formulate the second doctrine of original sin. The stories of Adam and Eve are fairy tales about the start of our current Lebenswelt.Our current Lebenswelt begins with the first singularity.
0011 Here is the second point.
If Augustine’s hypothesis that Adam and Eve are the first humans fails, then is there another relevant scenario suggested before the modern age of ideas?
Thomas Aquinas offers one, when he reflects on the state of (the literal) Adam before the Fall. Before the incident involving the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve live in a world of original justice. Then, after the Fall, they live in a state of original sin.
Does the state of original justice correspond to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
What was life like during the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
Did hominins live up to a recent slogan offered by the expert-driven, science-oriented and empirio-normative-dominated World Economic Forum, “You will own nothing and be happy?”
Our Paleolithic ancestors own nothing (compared to anyone in any civilization) and they are happy (in ways that we currently cannot imagine).
0012 For example, our hominin ancestors adapt to the transcendentals that are extolled by religious intellectuals and ridiculed by secular sophists. It is as if the transcendentals are sign-vehicles that elicit adaptive sign-objects in the hominin mind, so our brains and bodies express a phenotype that serves as a sign-interpretant for those adaptive sign-objects.
Yes, our ancestors cannot label the transcendentals with spoken words. Instead, they experience the transcendentals as adaptations. Truth, beauty, nobility, temperance, strength, wisdom, and prudence do not have spoken labels. They have moments of perfection in the hominin body and mind.
0013 Aquinas knows nothing about the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. So, he depicts Adam as something of a Greek philosopher, rather than someone who modern anthropologists might recognize: a hominin who owns nothing, works in teams, belongs to community, suffers ailments and danger, yet is unimaginably happy. After all, our ancestors are who we evolved to be.
We are not so lucky.
0014 The Lebenswelt that we evolved in holds secrets that contemporary evolutionary anthropologists cannot articulate using the disciplinary languages of the social sciences. (See Razie Mah’s blog for January through March, 2024, as well as Comments on Michael Tomasello’s Arc of Inquiry (1999-2019), available at smashwords and other e-book venues). Tomasello’s technical term, “joint attention”, is an explicit abstraction that describes hominins, working in teams, being productive and having fun. It is a mystery how they do it. Yet, that is what hominins evolve to do.
0015 Another big secret about the Lebenswelt that we evolved in is that, unlike modern anthropologists, our hominin ancestors cannot conduct explicit abstractions. Our hominin ancestors cannot explicitly label things or events with spoken words. Why? They talk with their hands. Speech is added to hand talk at the start of our own species, Homo sapiens. Then, Homo sapiens practices a dual-mode way of talking, hand-speech talk, for over 200,000 years before the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia appears, nominally 7,800 years ago, as the world’s first culture to practice speech-alone talk.
0016 Hand talk and hand-speech talk facilitate implicit abstraction.
Even when hand-talk becomes fully linguistic, explicit abstraction not possible. Manual-brachial gesture-words are holistic. The referent exists before the word. The gestural-word pictures or points to its referent.
Speech-alone talk permits implicit abstraction. It also facilitates explicit abstraction.
Spoken words label parts, distinct from the whole. For example, the rotational motion that goes into making clay pots is explicitly abstracted with the invention of the pottery wheel. Then, the pottery wheel is explicitly re-oriented to become the wheel of a cart.
Spoken words exist before the referent. Spoken words cannot picture or point to anything. That is why the referents for spoken words exist as meanings, presences and messages in the realm of possibility. How often do we create artifacts that validate the meaning, presence and message underlying spoken words? How long do such validations last?
0017 The differences in the semiotics of hand talk and speech-alone talk are discussed in the opening chapters of the fictional drama, An Archaeology of the Fall.
0018 Point three follows points one and two, in so far as the mythic, as well as the historical, Adam and Eve stand at the event horizon beyond which the origin stories of the ancient Near East cannot see. The stand at the very start of our current Lebenswelt. They signify the first singularity.
See The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0019 The fourth and final point is this fool’s errand. Razie Mah’s blogs for July through October 2024 offer a stumbling yet ambitious start to the quest posted on January 2, 2024.
The sequence of presentation in the three-part e-book, Original Sin and The Post-Truth Condition, is not quite the same as the sequence of appearance in the blogs. The blogs are sequenced for space and convenience.
The numbering of the points follows the list presented here.
0020 Fuller’s account of the post-truth condition is examined first. This examination is foundational.
The results are applied to a book by American entrepreneur and politician, Vivek Ramaswamy, as well as a monograph on American propaganda by Michelle Stiles.
An essay by Josef Pieper on the abuse of language, reconceptualizes the application and serves starting point for a second formulation of the doctrine of original sin. In the blog, the examination of Pieper appears between the examinations for Ramaswamy and Stiles.
By the end of Pieper’s work, a connection between the post-truth condition and original sin, deepens.
0021 But, that is not all.
An examination of a book on language and cognitive psychology shows that, in 2022, secular academics are yet to confront the hypothesis of the first singularity. This examination stands as a warning that this hypothesis challenges both theology and science. Theologians need to devise a post-Augustine formulation of the doctrine of original sin. Scientists need to consider that (1) the human niche is the potential of triadic relations, as proposed in Razie Mah’s e-book The Human Niche, (2) our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, as dramatized in An Archaeology of the Fall, and (3) the semiotics of speech-alone talk is radically different than hand and hand-speech talk, as discussed in How To Define The Word “Religion”.
0022 The post-truth condition is a product of the semiotics of speech-alone talk.
0187 In the preface, the author notes that this book is a prequel to The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition (1999, Harvard University Press). The question is the same. What makes humans unique? The answer is the same. Humans think differently than great apes, their closest biological kin.
In 1999, researchers in evolutionary anthropology could say, “Only humans think of other humans as intentional agents. Plus, my cat and my dog are intentional operators, as well, say nothing of the weather.”
Okay, I added the second sentence for dramatic effect.
Unfortunately, research conducted after 1999 introduces a problem. It turns out that great apes recognize intentionality in others.
Uh oh.
0188 This book is the third marker in Tomasello’s intellectual journey. I start following his trek with Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (1999) “The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition” (appearing in Razie Mah’s January 2024 blog). The second marker that I examine may be found in Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (2008) “Origins of Human Communication” (appearing later in the same blog for the same month).
0189 In the publication before me, A Natural History of Human Thinking (2014, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts), Tomasello explicitly abstracts three cognitive processes in order to distinguish humans from apes. The processes are cognitive representation, inference and self-monitoring. He then proposes that all three components were transformed in two key steps during hominin evolution. He labels his claims, “the shared-intentionality hypothesis”.
0190 Does this follow the trajectory set by previous works?
Here is a theme that appears in the second marker, pre-emptively modified with the above propositions in mind.
0191 This modified picture allows me to offer slogans for movements zero and one.
0001 In 1999 AD, Michael Tomasello, then co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, publishes the work before me (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts).
To me, this work marks the start of the author’s twenty year journey, culminating in a theory of human ontogeny, published in 2019. The word, “ontogeny”, refers to human development and associates to the human phenotype.
0002 What interests me in Tomasello’s journey?
As noted in Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome (available at smashwords and other e-book venues), “phenotype” and “adaptation” are not the same. Instead, these labels apply to distinct actualities that coalesce into a single actuality. One may call that single actuality, an individual, a species or a genus. One may also call that single actuality, “a mystery”.
I am interested in the natural history side of the mystery of human evolution. However, the genetic (or ontogenetic) side cannot be ignored. Plus, natural history cannot be reduced to genetics, or visa versa
0003 Chapter one of Tomasello’s book is titled, “A Puzzle and a Hypothesis”.
Of course, a puzzle is not a mystery. A puzzle can be resolved. A mystery cannot.
The puzzle starts with genetics. Geneticists have examined the DNA of chimpanzees, bonobos and humans and predict that the last common ancestor lives 6 or 7 Myr (six or seven million years ago).
In contrast, physical anthropologists (natural historians) propose the fossil record noted in the following figure. With terminological sleight of hand, they refer to human ancestors as “hominins”, even though the old term for any bipedal primate (ape or human) is “hominid”.
0004 Hmmm. Does the puzzle concern time?
According to genetics, the last common ancestor (LCA) between chimpanzees and humans lives 7 Myr (millions of years ago). But, little significant shows up in the fossil record until 4 Myr. Our lineage obviously evolves feet first. As it turns out, starting around 5 Myr, the extent of tropical vegetation in Africa decreases due to desiccation. Bipedality is an adaptation to mixed forest and savannah.
0005 The fossil record provides other clues, especially stone tools.
The first stone tools are Oldowan. Oldowan stones tools are constructed on site. They are used to scrape meat off of bone and to crack long bones (that are full of fatty marrow).
Acheulean stone tools appear later in the archeological record. Acheulean stone tools are made beforehand and carried with some intention in mind. They have the appearance of a giant tooth. Notably, Acheulean stone tool technology remains unchanged for over a million years. Innovations in stone-tools follow the domestication of fire.
0006 Surely, these two tables are puzzling. In the first, the fossil record pertains to changes in hominin phenotypes. In the second, the fossil record pertains to hominin adaptations, but these adaptations are not phenotypic. They are artifacts. Are these adaptive artifacts cultural? Are they behavioral? I wonder, “Do the words, ‘culture’ and ‘behavior’, capture the matter and the form of these artifacts?” It is as if an adaptation recognizes matter and generates form.
0007 What is the nature of the adaptation that maintains (and occasionally changes) artifacts, as if these artifacts are phenotypes?
Tomasello suggests that an adaptation is a novel form of social cognition. Our lineage adapts to a new way of thinking about one another, eventually allowing sociogenesis, new styles of learning and cultural evolution.
0008 Tomasello proposes that there is one adaptation that potentiates subsequent adaptations.
Razie Mah proposes that there is one ultimate niche for our lineage. The hypothesis is presented in the e-book, The Human Niche (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).
0009 Do Tomasello (in 1999) and Mah (in 2018) propose that our lineage is defined by the same adaptation… er… niche?
What is the difference between an adaptation and a niche?
0072 Chapter five is titled, “Linguistic Construction and Event Cognition”. The perspective-level linguistic communication2c participates in ongoing events2a.
Tomasello claims that joint attention is the key adaptation from which subsequent adaptations proceed. Surely, the three-level interscope depicted above does not contradict this claim.
After all, the evolution of joint attention should precede the evolution of linguistic communication.
0073 However, there is a disjunction, because great apes show few (if any) tendencies that may be characterized by joint attention. Even the occasional monkey hunt by chimpanzees is best characterized by several individuals deciding to pursue the same thing at the same time. The monkey-prey is the focus of attention, but the attention is disjointed, not really coordinated.
So, there must be a period before the evolution of joint attention, where individual intentionality reigns, even when group action takes place.
0074 So, when are these eras happening?
Tomasello wants to place the evolution of joint attention before the time of Homo heidelbergensis, who appears in the fossil record between 800 and 400kyr (thousands of years ago).
To me, this makes sense only so far as this.
Homo heidelbergensis leaves traces of cultural behavior in the archeological record.
To me, such traces indicate that these hominins are in the subsequent build-on era.
So, Tomasello’s timeline may require clarification.
0075 Okay, now that I am nitpicking, I must ask, “Is there a problem with making joint attention2athe foundation of an evolutionary theory?”
Allow me to return to Tomasello’s vision.
0076 According to Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues), adaptation2 and phenotype2 belong to two independent scientific disciplines: natural history and genetics. Since both belong to situation-level nested forms that rely on different potentials, one cannot situate or contextualize the other. However, this is precisely what occurs in Tomasello’s vision.
Of course, Tomasello’s vision remains a breakthrough in the framework of modern science. At least, the phenotype does not correspond to the adaptation. Instead, the phenotype2c puts culture2b into perspective. Then, culture2b virtually situates the adaptation of joint attention2a.
Yes, to repeat, the phenotype2c does not directly situate the adaptation2a. Tomasello’s vision leads upwards from joint attention2a to human culture2b and then to human cognitive development2c. Cognitive development2c puts culture2b into perspective, just as culture2b virtually situates joint attention2a.
Tomasello’s vision is truly remarkable.
0077 And, it is difficult to achieve.
This book is the start of a twenty year journey.
0078 As noted in points 0055 through 0058, the last few chapters cover the cultural (situation) and ontogenetic (perspective) levels of Tomasello’s vision. As far as I can see, these chapters labor to show how human ontogeny2c (the scientific study of human development) virtually contextualizes human culture2b (a somewhat vaguely defined term that refers to all situations where joint attention2a pertains). In the process, Tomasello must also explain how human culture2b, especially spoken language and symbolic representation, virtually emerges from and situates joint attention2a.
How ambitious is that?
0079 Here a picture of the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality (the vertical column in secondness in Tomasello’s vision, portrayed as a nested form).
The normal context of the behavior of newborns and infants2c virtually brings the actuality of spoken language and symbolic representation2binto the potential of a foundational adaptation2a.
0080 Yes, this is very ambitious, and the final three chapters of this book strain to meet the challenge. They should be read with this in mind. The last three chapters are well composed. Tomasello is an excellent writer. He is very organized. But, his exposition is like lifting a two-hundred pound octopus out of the water. As soon as one arm is lifted, a different one slides back into the murk.
0081 Plus, there is the lingering issue of natural history.
Here is a picture with Tomasello’s guesses.
Tomasello makes two associations that make no sense at all, when considering joint attention2b as an adaptation to sociogenesis1b in the normal context of natural selection3b. Sociogenesis1b is the human niche1b. The human niche1b is the potential1b of triadic relations2a. Consequently, the adaptation of joint attention2a should be marked in the archaeological record with the appearance of the Homo genus, around 1.8Myr (millions of years ago).
0082 With that in mind, I close this examination of the first step in Tomasello’s journey, scientifically exploring who we are. The next step is a book that expands and clarifies this first step. It is published nine years later.
0083 In 2008 AD, Michael Tomasello, then co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, publishes the work before me (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts).
This book is the second marker in Tomasello’s intellectual journey. I start following his journey with Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (1999) “The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition” (appearing in Razie Mah’s January 2024 blog). That is the first marker.
0084 The second marker starts as an academic presentation in 2006. His Jean Nicod Lectures, in Paris, concerns his work on great ape gestural communication, human infant gestural communication and human children’s language development. These lectures attempt to construct one coherent account of the evolution of hominin communication.
Oh, that terminology. Where Tomasello inscribes, “human”, I say, “hominin”.
0085 From my examination at the first marker, I already have a guess about Tomasello’s vision.
Here is a picture.
0086 Note that the titles of the levels have changed.
Also note that human ontogeny2c or models of child development currently built by psychologists2c, associates to phenotypes and genetics. Joint attention2a or models in evolutionary psychology concerning hominin cognition2a,associates to adaptations and natural history.
0087 Tomasello uses the word, “origins”, in his title. Does this suppose that human communication may be regarded as a phenotypic trait or as an adaptation? Or maybe, the conjunction is “and”.
In the above figure, I get the idea that the phenotype virtually contextualizes the adaptation. But, that is not really the case. The phenotype2b virtually situates a species’ or individual’s DNA2a.
Here is a diagram.
0088 Not surprisingly, this diagram in genetics has the same two-level relational structureas Darwin’s paradigm for natural history.
0089 What does this imply?
A mystery stands at the heart of evolutionary biology.
The adaptation is not the same as the phenotype.
Yet, together, they constitute a single actuality, which may be labeled a genus, a species or an individual.
Two category-based nested forms intersect in the realm of actuality. It is like two streets that meet. The intersection is constituted by both streets. As far as traffic goes, intersections are sites of dangerous contradictions. Traffic from one street should not collide with traffic from the other street. I suppose that the intersection of adaptation and phenotypecarries irreconcilable contradictions as well.
0090 Perhaps, Tomasello’s vision may be resolved by considering both joint attention2a and human ontogeny2c as adaptations, even though the latter is technically, phenotypic.
I suggest this because selection is the normal context for all three levels in Tomasello’s vision. Since natural selection goes with adaptation, the vision is one of natural history.
0091 That implies that the potentials for all three levels are like niches.
Human ontogeny2c is an adaptation that emerges from and situates the potential of human culture2b, where human culture2b is like an actuality independent of the adapting species of individuals undergoing development3c.
Human culture2b is like an adaptation that emerges from and situates the potential of joint attention2a, where joint attention2a is like an actuality independent of the adapting ways of doing things3b.
Joint attention2a is like an adaptation that emerges from and situates sociogenesis1a, where sociogenesis1a is the potential of… what?… I have run out of actualities independent of the adapting species.
0092 Here is where the foundational Tomasello-Mah synthesis enters the picture.
Ah, so here is a problem.
Tomasello’s vision of the origins of human communication conceals the actuality underlying sociogenesis1a, the potential1a giving rise to joint attention2a. The human niche is the potential of triadic relations.
0093 What about the subscripts in the preceding paragraph?
They belong to Tomasello’s vision.
0094 This subscript business can be confusing.
To me, the concealment in Tomasello’s vision is not necessarily a drawback. Rather, it presents an opportunity to re-articulate Tomasello’s arc of inquiry using the category-based nested form and other triadic relations.
0095 In the prior series of blogs, examining a book published in 1999, I introduced an interscope for the way humans think that derives from work by medieval schoolmen, the so-called “scholastics” of the Latin Age.
Here is a picture of the scholastic version of how humans think, packaged as a three level interscope.
