Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek's Arc of Inquiry (2019-2024) Part 2 (A Course on Evolution and Thomism, #2)

Presumably, the works covered in this commentary cover ideas spanning from long before the period of publication. Mariusz Tabaczek O.P. is first and foremost a Thomist, familiar with the labors of Aquinas, dating to the thirteenth century. At the same time, Tabaczek participates in a Thomistic revival, a quest for a "neo-neo-Aristotelianism" (because Thomas Aquinas marks the first neo-Aristotelianism), called for by a pope in the late nineteenth century in order to provide an alternative to modernism.
Consequently, Tabaczek narrows his Thomism to a slightly modified view of thirteenth century concepts. He does very well, by the reckoning of this commentator, because he selects one of the weak joints in the modernist citadel, the scientific treatment of emergence. Scientists cannot build mathematical and mechanical models of emergence, both in material science (for example, the fairly simple hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell) and in biological science (for example, mitochondria). This is a real weakness, since scientists are supposed to build models based on observations and measurements of phenomena, using their specialized disciplinary languages.
Somewhat disturbingly, this commentator proposes that Tabaczek's initial accomplishment is the dismissal (or perhaps, "termination") of the positivist intellect that serves as the relation within the Positivist's judgment. What great aim! With the positivist intellect "dismissed", the two great illuminations of the Positivist's judgment have no choice but to enter into secondness, resulting in a pair of dyads, one illuminated by the model and the other illuminated by the noumenon.
Yes, a mathematical or mechanical model is not its noumenon, the thing itself, even though a triumphalist science-maven would have you believe that the model is more real than the noumenon (and therefore, ought to replace it).
No, these two illuminations do not see eye to eye.
Weirdly, each sees the other as a mirror of itself.
The agent of science sees himself in the mirror of theology.
The agent of theology sees himself in the mirror of science.
And, the theologian doesn't like what appears in the mirror of theology.
And, the scientist totally ignores what appears in the mirror of science.
Why? The ghost of the positivist intellect tells him to.
Once the Positivist's judgment is reconfigured as Tabaczek's looking glass, then the preacher's intellectual quest becomes more and more gritty, curious and novel, because the most productive way to envision his trajectory is through the lens of the semiotics and the categories of C. S. Peirce. According to Thomist and semiotician John Deely, Peirce picks up a thread spun by the Baroque scholastic John Poinsot and initiates the dawn of a neo-neo-Aristotelian age. Welcome to the Age of Triadic Relations.
Tabaczek speaks the specialized philosophical language of Aquinas.
These comments speak the specialized philosophical language of Peirce.
Both revive Aristotle. Both bring philosophy to life.