Because most all of our discussion this week turned on the three “withouts” of verse 16, I spent some time trying to formalize/diagrammatize/mathematicize that without within the broader structure of faith I see unfolding in Alma 32. As such, I worked out the following “matheme” or diagram:
What I will do in the remainder of this summary is, following Jenny’s lead, try to explicate this matheme a bit by analyzing it in light of the four questions we are addressing in the seminar. Before turning directly to the four questions, though, I should probably be quite forthcoming that this matheme is a product as much of my reading in the rest of the Book of Mormon as it is of my reading in Alma 32, though it would have been impossible without our discussions this week, etc. I should also mention that there is an obvious influence of Badiou on my thinking here (there is some loose connection between the matheme I present here and Badiou’s “gamma diagram”).
Moreover, I think this matheme can be broken into four “stages” of development: creation, fall, atonement, and veil (a persistent theme throughout the Book of Mormon). I’ve shown this here:
Now, all of that said, onto the four questions themselves. It might be wise to have the matheme open or printed and handy.
(4) How might paying close attention to the textual, historical, and political contexts of Alma 32 (re)shape our understanding of Alma’s treatment of faith?
The first part of Alma 32 reveals a remarkably Hegelian setting for Alma’s speech. The rich-poor dialectic that obtains among the Zoramites can be read—with remarkable rigor—as parallel to Hegel’s master-slave dialectic. The matheme adopts this by placing the master-slave dialectic itself on the left half of the diagram: the master and the slave are interlocked in a dialectic that entails the development of an entire encyclopedia of knowledge. Of course, as Hegel makes clear—though he is drawing on a tradition stretching back to at least Socrates/Plato—the development of this encyclopedic knowledge unfolds only as a response to death (within, as Jenny as shown us again and again, the fall).
This, of course, points back to Alma 31:5—Alma wants to take an approach that avoids the violence of the sword, of death, and he proposes to do it by introducing the word. That would seem to mean that there is a way of fixing the situation that leaves off death for life (a la Kierkegaard, or perhaps even C. S. Lewis [in his The Great Divorce]).
(1) What does Alma 32 teach us about exercising faith?
Alma sees faith as being structured by a “without,” on which verse 16 is decisive: “Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe.” Given the clarifications in verses 17-18 (and again in verses 19-20), it seems that it would be best to summarize Alma’s conception of faith as belief without knowledge or humility without compulsion. The matheme is a model of what this might look like: a subtractive humility will have to traverse and transgress the compelled humility of the poor/slave.
But if Alma speaks of two humilities, the logic of verses 13-16 can also be read as trying to work these two humilities into a single one (the “blessed” of verse 13 and the “more blessed” of verse 14 being collapsed into a single “blessed” in verse 16): one must ask how the two humilities are ultimately intertwined. The matheme attempts to capture both the apparent split between two humilities (the slave is on one side of the veil, and the humble believer is on the other side) and their apparent connection (the traversing/transgressing arrow connects the two humilities). But how is it that the two are brought into relation?
(2) What does Alma mean by “the word” and why is it so central to faith?
It seems that it is only the advent of “the word” that enables a crossing of the two humilities. The supplementation of the dialectical situation of the Zoramites—the supplementation of the word, indeed, of the Word—makes it possible for the entire encyclopedia to be rewritten, recategorized, recoded, reinterpreted, etc. To speak in terms of typology: the Word that suddenly supplements the situation makes it possible to read everything in the encyclopedia typologically, as pointing to the Word that suddenly intervenes. As a result, faith, as fidelity to the event of the advent of the supplementary word, cannot be disentangled from preaching. The slavish person, who is obviously far more open to supplementation than the master, has her compelled humility typologically rewritten in light of the supplementary word: compelled humility is effectively reconfigured as faithful humility, as humility without compulsion.
The word, then, is vital because it is effectively what breaks the totalizing play of the master and the slave and thus makes it possible for compelled humility to be rewritten as humility without compulsion (or, as Alma puts it, humility “because of the word”).
(3) What is meant by the use of the term “experiment” in Alma 32.27?
Looking ahead a bit, then, it might be possible already to anticipate the “experiment” of verse 27 to be the work of trying out a bit of typological reading. That is, one receives the word and attempts to rethink the encyclopedia of the situation in light of the word as a kind of experiment, and one determines along the way whether it is something one would like to continue doing.
Some of this will be complicated, however, by the play of “the word” and “words” as the chapter continues to unfold. (Are experiments only performed on words, while faith is fidelity to the word? And what is the relationship between the plural and the singular? Is the word simply the Word, namely, the One Name above all names, etc., while words are the flesh the Word assumes in the preaching of the faithful?) But nonetheless, it is perhaps possible already to suggest that the diagonally traversing arrow on the matheme is precisely the movement of the experiment.
Sorry that I have half a summary up. I’ll be working more on this tomorrow.[Done!]I will try not to grit my teeth as we go through the matheme. I promise–Scout’s honor.
But, by the way, how does a matheme differ from a diagram?
As for your questions / points to cover: I like them very much. I’m looking forward to what you do with them.
“Diagram” would probably be a better word. The only advantage I see to using the word “matheme” (ultimately a bit incorrectly, though I can call Lacan to my side in doing so) is that it emphasizes a bit more than does “diagram” (1) that it is a model (in the sense that one speaks of a scientific model) and (2) that it aims unapologetically at working up a universal truth (whereas a diagram might just be explaining one’s point of view).
But I will, in the meanwhile, be quite grateful for your longsuffering, Jim. :)
Joe, all suffering aside, I found both the “diagramic matheme” and your explanation very helpful. Where do you get the time and energy to work up these things?
I have three initial responses.
1) I would modify your definition of faith as “belief without knowledge” to “belief without perfect knowledge,” now that we have verse 21 in the picture so to speak.
2) I thought your analysis of Key Question 1 was great, but that the actual model might need to be adjusted to reflect the points you make. If it is humility that both transverses the master/slave cycle and transgresses the veil, it might work better to have the arrow itself be humility (you could specify compelled humility). If that is the case, then that adjustment could problematize your note that “the traversing/transgressing arrow connects the two humilities.” If you took another route and identified the arrow with the experiment itself, I think I would still argue for including an identification with humility—the experiment in humility perhaps, or through humility—simply because I think it might add some clarity.
3) This last comment was generated by your observation that “As a result, faith, as fidelity to the event of the advent of the supplementary word, cannot be disentangled from preaching.” I wonder if it might be helpful to rework that slightly to allow for a visible inclusion of humility. I would say that faith as fidelity to the event of the advent of the supplementary word results, as you explain, in a re-vision or re-reading of one’s (con)text. However, it is the addition of humility itself that provides the actual link to preaching: only in the change of heart—the application of mercy—the shift through compelled humility towards faithful humility—does the subject find the need to speak. The element of humility is not equivalent with silence, but rather with confession, and it is in converted confession (an acting out of one’s fidelity) that we find preaching.
I’m not sure if that last point is clear, and I don’t think the adjustment affects your overall conclusions, but I thought it was an interesting possibility that gives the subject a voice (which, after all, is what the multitude wants from Alma—a way to restore their own voice in worship): humility—>confession—>preaching.
Jenny,
re: 1) — It is certainly necessary, now that we’ve moved along beyond verse 20, to begin to work “perfect knowledge” into the model, but I’m not convinced it is so simple as a mere replacement. I need to think about that more.
re: 2) — It may indeed be better to write the arrow as humility; that is an option I worked with in developing the matheme, but rejected (for now). In part, that is because I couldn’t get Word to let me insert a diagonally-oriented text-box (I’m still getting used to Word’s picture drawing functions), but it is also because I’m not sure what would end up under the “Or” position. How would your revision rework that, and where would the subraction sign end up? Most complex is what might happen as we introduce the question of experiment, which, as I mention above in the post, complicates things.
re: 3) — You’ve uncovered an interesting ambiguity in my language. I meant the initial preaching: fidelity cannot be disentangled from having been preached to. However, I think the other understanding is equally important, though I was not yet trying to address it. Much more to think about here…
Joe, thanks for working up these diagrams, I think they are indeed quite helpful.
Regarding the singular/plural of word/s, I think this issue is (potentially) quite helpful for thinking about the significance of Christ in the restoration (this is a common complaint among Mormons I’ve heard regarding non-substitutionary theories of atonement: if Christ didn’t pay some metaphysical, cosmic balance, then why did Jesus Christ have to suffer and why is there so much emphasis put on him and his role in salvation?). And I still think this should be related to the single voice representing the multitude in vv. 1-7, as perhaps a type of the Day of Atonement high priest, etc.
But as it relates to your matheme, it would seem there are two nodes at which this multiplying event would make sense: first, with the commissioning of the angels to preach the word (cf. Isaiah 6); second, with the evental site reception of the word/s and the beginning of the word/seed’s growth (along the diagonal; I’m thinking here of the folk-doctrine that a testimony is gained in the bearing of it, preaching the word when you only have a belief not knowledge—according to the definitions of belief and knowledge given later in Alma 32—that the word is good).