The Genesis Creation Sequence: The Principles of Social Choice Theory Impossibility-Resolution

Transcription

1 From the SelectedWorks of David Randall Jenkins 2008 The Genesis Creation Sequence: The Principles of Social Choice Theory Impossibility-Resolution David Randall Jenkins Available at:

2 The Genesis Creation Sequence: The Principles of Social Choice Theory Impossibility-Resolution By D. Randall Jenkins, Ph.D East Circulo Terra Tucson, Arizona (520) Dedication: For the Precious Moments

3 Copyright 2008, David Randall Jenkins. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations [except for the word "firmament"] taken from the New American Standard Bible, Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. ( Only the use of the word "firmament" herein was quoted from Genesis 1:6-7, NKJV. Scripture quotations marked "NKJV" are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. ii

4 Abstract The Genesis Creation Sequence includes Genesis Chapter 1 and 2:1-3. The passage comprises a series of metaphorical references defining the principles of social choice theory impossibility-resolution. The combined ordered context Deities, the Great I Am and the Sacred Feminine, empower God from atop the book of Genesis and bequest the theory and axioms shaping GCS properties, laws, and principles enabling social choice theory impossibility-resolution. The empowerment counsels (ordered relations theory: social choice theory) transition as God's unordered context venue of social choice theory is shaped by endowed reference ethics. GCS metaphors provide insight into the (Deity, utility-maximizing economic prosecutor, devotee) relationship and the principles required for effecting (macroeconomic: microeconomic) transitivity. The recombination of validated axioms and the begetting theory in the seventh day represents the recombination of the ordered context Deities in the return to ordered relations theory space and Their return of empowerment discerned. iii

5 I Introduction The Genesis Creations Sequence (GCS) includes the first chapter of Genesis and the first three verses of the second chapter. This paper explains the series of metaphorical references comprising the often misunderstood treatise. The GCS is not about the actual creation of the physical world. Rather, it is about investing social choice theory with the principles, properties, and laws that devolve from ordered relations theory's reference ethics. The investiture transforms impossibility-plagued social choice theory, enabling (macroeconomic: microeconomic) transitivity. The theory and axioms defining ordered relations theory are invested in the (ordered relations theory: social choice theory: welfare theory) regression. The regression's cornerstone is ordered conflict resolution. (Jenkins 2006A). The Antithetical-Primary Population General Impossibility Theorem (APPGIT) and its conflict resolving axioms define the presence of the combined ordered context Deities, the Great I Am and the Sacred Feminine, in ordered relations theory space. Since the GCS metaphorically begins with the (ordered relations theory: social choice theory) space transition, the combined ordered context Deities are viewed as sitting atop the book of Genesis. The tenets of the ordered conflict resolving axioms devolve from the Sacred Feminine and appear in the GCS fourth day of creation. These axioms together with the theory and axioms attending social choice theory aggregation mechanics enable impossibility-resolution in the regressive space. (Jenkins 2006B). The GCS involves both the Deity function, the utility-maximizing economic prosecutor ("UMEP) function, and the devotee function. These relationships mirror both - 1 -

6 unordered [(context): (context: content): (content)] and [(macroeconomic): (macroeconomic: microeconomic): (microeconomic)] transitions. The GCS metaphors relate (Deity: UMEP: Devotee) empowerment and return of empowerment where return of empowerment results in the recombination of the Great I Am and Sacred Feminine in ordered relations theory space in the seventh day. The metaphors all capture the Sacred Feminine's connectivity and correction showing principles that enable the application of ordered conflict resolution in finite hierarchical structure space. The paper is organized into six sections, including this introductory section. Section II refreshes the readers understanding of ordered conflict resolution and the significant axioms that avoid APPGIT's illusionary consequences. Section III generalizes APPGIT to the extent Deities exist in vertical space and are recognized as sitting above illusionary consequence variables (ICVs), UMEPs exist in (vertical: horizontal) space transition and are recognized as sitting aside ICVs, and Devotees exist in horizontal space and are recognized as sitting below ICVs. Section IV explains the hierarchical structure connectivity and correction showing principles. Section V interprets the GCS metaphors in the context of the foregoing (ordered relations theory: social choice theory: welfare theory) regression. Section VI concludes the paper

7 II The Tenets of Ordered Conflict Resolution This section - 3 -

8 This section III Understanding the (Deity, UMEP, Devotee) Relationship - 4 -

9 IV Finite Hierarchical Structure Space Principles This section - 5 -

10 V Social Choice Theory Impossibility-Resolution: The GCS Interpretation This section interprets the GCS in terms of its importance for social choice theory impossibility-resolution. The interpretation requires recognizing the distinction between ordered relations theory set in ordered context space and social choice theory set in unordered context space. It also requires recognizing that since the GCS deals with social choice theory it is primarily cast in terms of the social choice theory endogenous response to ordered relations theory's exogenous pressure. That is why the compounded ordered context Deities, the Great I Am (theory) and the Sacred Feminine (axioms), are in repose atop the Book of Genesis. The hallmark of ordered relations theory is ordered conflict resolution. Ordered conflict resolution is enabled by the principles and tenets of reference ethics. Ordered conflict resolution exists independently of social choice theory in ordered relations theory space. Since impossibility-resolved social choice theory exists only as a result of the imbued principles of ordered conflict resolution, it is said that ordered relations theory enables impossibility-resolved social choice theory. This relationship underscores the explanation that the compounded ordered context Deities reside atop the Book of Genesis. The balance of this section interprets the GCS in the context of ordered relations theory begetting impossibility-resolved social choice theory

11 A. The Interpretation: Genesis Chapter 1 1. Verse 1. Verse 1 reads: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God is the unordered context Deity. In the relationship between the ordered context space defined by ordered relations theory, it means God is the Deity empowering impossibility-resolved social choice theory. The phrase, "In the beginning," refers to the initial transition from ordered relations theory to social choice theory. That God created the heavens and the earth means God intends to apply the principles and tenets of ordered relations theory to social choice theory. That the term "heavens" is plural while the term "earth" is singular simply implicates that God is evaluating His nature by referencing the unordered context regression: [(UC X ): (UC X:N ): (UC N )]. 1 Here, the term "heavens" is a metaphorical reference to respective UC X and UC X:N spaces. Specifically, God is evaluating what is transpiring at the unordered content level (UC N ); which is defined by the metaphorical reference to the "earth." There is a reason God is doing so. God is trying to figure out His "gender." In the quaternary order Deity regression, I Am is the (Primary, Ordered Context) Deity; God is the (Secondary, Unordered Context) Deity; the Lord God is the (Tertiary, Unordered Context: Content) Deity; and, the Lord is the (Quaternary, Unordered Content) Deity. (Jenkins 2006B). The Lord's unordered content position is connected to the next quaternary order at the same level the next order's I Am Primary Deity is situated. Id. As a result, I Am is considered both the continuum Deity and scripture's invisible Deity. Id. 1 The regression is read as involving unordered [(context): (context: content): (content)] transition

12 Ordered context: unordered context transitivity is a function of indifference between whether X or Y defines the return of empowerment resulting from the unordered context regression. As a result, God can check His gender by going to the Lord's unordered content position and investigating whether the Lord's position was theory or axiom grounded. Then, God can conclude His gender is the opposite. That is, if the Lord's unordered content position is theory grounded, then the Lord's Deity gender is male, as in the nature of the Great I Am. If the Lord's unordered content position is axiom grounded, then the Lord's Deity gender is female, as in the nature of the Sacred Feminine. The key to what God learned about His Deity gender is found in verse 3. There, God first creates light. Light is an axiom metaphor. 2 That means God, in the initial setting of the Genesis Creation Sequence takes on the female gender. It also means God determined the Lord's unordered content position implicates theory's metaphorical male gender. 3 The point brings clarity to the idea that God's unordered context regression is the second such regression that concludes in a discerned ordered context. The implicit unordered context regression antedating the one enunciated in the Genesis Creation Sequence's is one grounded in theory while the GCS unordered context regression is grounded in axioms. The ordered context realization is that it matters not which occurred 2 That light is an axiom metaphor is confirmed in the course of interpreting the fourth creation day. The big and little lights in the fourth creation day are metaphors for the two principle axioms that resolve the impossibility of the Antithetical-Primary General Impossibility Theorem. The theorem is set forth in the author's Ordered Conflict Resolution (Jenkins 2006A) paper. 3 What we learn here is that axioms and theory are interchangeable originators of ordered context. In the author's paper titled Social State Definition and the Economic Control Systems Product (Jenkins 2006B), the author rejects the popular academic notion that theory and empirical evidence are interchangeable originators of ordered context because of APPGIT's illusionary proscription. Here, we learn in the first few verses of Genesis that the scripture writers logically reasoned theory and its axioms are the only interchangeable originators of ordered context

13 first, the theory unordered context regression or the axiomatic unordered context regression. 4 That the God of the Genesis Creation Sequence is a female in the metaphorical implication of axioms also beckons the realization the Lord God of Genesis 2:4 and Genesis Chapter 3 is also a female in the implication of axioms. The interesting question is the gender of the Lord in Genesis Chapter 4. In anticipation of that interpretation, it is foreseeable the Lord in Chapter 4 of the Book of Genesis, at one point, is probably likewise a female in the implication of axioms; and, at another point, a male in the implication of theory. When the Genesis Chapter 4 Lord is a female, it is in the setting of unordered content; while when the Genesis Chapter 4 Lord is a male, it is in the setting of the continuum Deity, the Great I Am Verse 2. Verse 2 reads: 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. That the earth was formless and void means God is investigating the nature of the continuum Deity's function at the position of the Lord's unordered content level. Again, God is doing so to ascertain whether the ordered context: unordered context regression is derived from an original male (theory) or female (axiom) gender. The darkness over the surface of the deep is where God learns originating unordered context concluded in theory's metaphorical male gender; which requires unordered context n+1 to regress from axioms' metaphorical female gender. 4 Hint: it suggests the scripture writers actually underscore equality of the sexes! 5 The author addresses this distinction in his paper titled For the Glory of God: Why Cain Had to Kill Abel (Jenkins 2006C)

14 God also drew correction showing lessons from the originating unordered context. That the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters is a metaphorical reference to the idea God was determining the incremental correction showings that will characterize His unordered context regression. God needs to determine the unordered context regression showings because the Lord God and the Lord must be empowered to, in turn, empower the utility-maximizing economic prosecutor with appropriate correction showing wisdom. Note that God does not create the waters in this verse. They already exist. As discussed below, the verse suggests the waters were created in theory's unordered context regression and derive from ordered context space. 3. Verse 3. Verse 3 reads: 3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. Now that God knows He derives the unordered context axiomatic female gender, He immediately translates His purpose by creating light. Here, "light" is a Sacred Feminine-like axiom metaphor where the axioms relate aggregation mechanics set in the context of ordered relations theory. That is, aggregation mechanics are social choice theory's axioms predicated on ordered relations theory's axiomatic ordered conflict impossibility-resolution. 4. Verse 4. Verse 4 reads: 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness

15 The first God is compounded (theory, axioms) the second God is a transition to separated female and male God elements. The separation initiates axiomatic translation into social choice theory. What is the darkness here? Is it an ordered reference? Or a theory reference? Or is it light in the theory unordered context space? In the first creation day, God is drawing from Ordered Relations Theory to apply principles and generalizations of Ordered Relations Theory in Social Choice Theory space. 5. Verse 5. Verse 5 reads: 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Is "God" the female element of the previously compounded God while "He" is the male element of the previously compounded God. Question: Is God compounded at each level of (UC X : UC X:N : UC N ) and then separates into the female and male elements at each level? 6. Verse 6. Verse 6 reads: 6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." Does this expanse refer to the transition from ordered context to unordered context? This verse has a special significance. First, recognize the waters exist; that is, God did not create them. God only said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the

16 waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." He did not say, "Let there be waters." The implication is that the waters were created by the primary Deity, the Great I Am, in ordered relations theory space. The waters are a metaphor for the correction showings principle. While the corrections showing principle can be considered an axiom, it is more likely the scripture writers concluded it derives from theory. Since the waters' creation antedates the Genesis Creation Sequence's social choice theory space, the correction showings implicated by the metaphorical waters reference derive from ordered relations theory. The waters above the expanse represent ordered relation theory's correction showings as applied to reference ethics in ordered relations theory space. The author considers those correction showings as legislated by Ishmael's scripture presence in the first instance. (Jenkins 2006B; p. 4, n. 1). Those correction showings are twofold. First, that all ordered conflict assessments are made illusionary by APPGIT. Second, attempted end-runs around APPGIT's general impossibility holding. (Id; Jenkins 2006A). These are the primary correction showings that prove all welfare models that do not conform to APPGIT's basic thesis and apply its consequence avoiding axioms are nonetheless illusionary. The waters below the expanse represent the application of APPGIT generalization principles to social choice theory's aggregation mechanics. For example, it is the (subjective: objective) perspective transition that underscores conflict resolution. Social choice theory becomes impossibility-resolved when that axiom is generalized in (macroeconomic: microeconomic) transitivity. The important point is that the waters

17 below the expanse are a metaphorical reference representing the principle that correction showings derived from ordered relations theory space are inseparably endowed with APPGIT generalization principles. This is an important interpretation inasmuch as this is the first instance place in scripture where impossibility-plagued social choice theory becomes impossibility-resolved by and through the application of APPGIT generalized principles in its space Verse 7. Verse 7 reads: 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. Does this expanse refer to the transition from unordered context to unordered (context: content)? The waters above the expanse relate to empowering UMEP to effect ordered relations theory corrections showings while the waters below the expanse relate to empowering UMEP to make social choice theory correction showings. 6 Professor Arrow's impossibility theorem (Arrow 1951; 1963) is first defeated in scripture by the great thinkers of Greek philosophy in this particular verse

18 8. Verse 8. Verse 8 reads: 8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. By calling the expanse heaven, is God referring to the return of empowerment transition from the unordered context: (context: content) transition to the ordered context: unordered context transition? By calling the expanse heaven, the verse is implying God is finished describing what occurs above the expanse (ordered relations theory) and is juxtapositioned below the expanse in social choice theory (i.e., aggregation mechanics) space. 9. Verse 9. Verse 9 reads: 9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10. Verse 10. Verse 10 reads: 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. The advent of hierarchical structure inasmuch as the earth seems to always implicate the bottom of vertical regression. 11. Verse 11. Verse 11 reads: 11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. The listing of three things [(i) vegetation, (ii) plants yielding seed, and (iii) fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them] remark in the vertical aspect of hierarchical structure while, in the fourth creation day, the listing of four

19 things [(i) signs, (ii) seasons, (iii) days, and (iv) years] remarks in the horizontal aspect of hierarchical structure. The (3, 4) relationship not only implicates Pythagoras but characterizes hierarchical progression in primary and antithetical orders. Note there is only one "after their kind" in this verse; implicating the focus is in welfare theory space. 12. Verse 12. Verse 12 reads: 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. Note there are two "after their kind" statements in this verse. It implicates (social choice theory, welfare theory) alignment. In the instances of both verse 11 and verse 12, the order of the items is vegetation: plants yielding seed: trees bearing fruit with seed in them. This verse is reported in the third day, prior to going into the fourth day. The fourth day reports events in unordered model process space. 7 The order of the verse 12 items suggests the UMEP progression lock. Since we are in unordered context space, the ordered context space element represented by the number 1 is missing. This truncation is represented by the difference in fruit tree description in verse 11 (fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them) and in verse 12 (trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind). The difference is in the tree description: "fruit trees" versus "trees." Moreover, the placement of the term "after their kind" changes between verse 11 and verse 12. This change in placement implicates the progression lock notion. 7 The author describes unordered model space in his paper titled Ordered Model Processes, Reference Declaration and the Economic Organization: Implications for a Balanced Scorecard Contextual Framework. (Jenkins 2007A). In the same paper, he distinguishes the notion of unordered model processes from ordered model processes. Id

20 A progression lock is part of the connectivity principle. In order for UMEP n to advance and become UMEP n+1, the Devotee must advance to become UMEP n ; then and only then can the initial UMEP n advance. Therefore, if we ascribe the number 2 to the vegetation, the number 3 to the plants yielding seed, and the number 4 to the fruit trees, the numerical reference is (234). Read right-to-left in the (macroeconomic: microeconomic) perspective, the number is "432," the UMEP n progression lock reference. We will witness the progression unlock in verse 30, infra. The fourth day represents the totality of unordered model processes. The second progression lock is implicit in the fourth day's description. The second progression lock is present while the Devotee exists in nonmodel process space and is unlocked when the Devotee transitions into unordered model process space. 13. Verse 13. Verse 13 reads: 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day. The term, "[T]here was evening and there was morning" sounds in the unordered [(context: content): content] regression aspect of unordered context. God is the unordered context. The Genesis Creation Sequence seems to be about unordered context. So, by saying "[T]here was evening and there was morning" it seems to be saying the report on those spaces is forthcoming. Indeed, it seems the book of Genesis is written in unordered context regression. The GCS, Genesis Chapter 1 and 2:1-3, is the unordered context report of the regression; Genesis 2:4-25, and Chapters 3-10, seem to be the unordered (context: content) report of the regression; and, Genesis, Chapters 11-50, seem to be the unordered content report of the regression. Each report is successively expanded and more detailed than the previous report

21 14. Verse 14. Verse 14 reads: 14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; Here, the organization of the four symbols ("signs," "seasons," "days, and "years") reveals the hierarchical structure necessary to effect APPGIT's illusionaryresolving axioms. The illusionary-resolving axioms are a necessary condition for social choice theory impossibility resolution. Indeed, the four symbols collectively provide a metaphorical reference to one of the triangles of the Star of David. Stars of David are implicated by the fourth creation day's casual description, "He made the stars also." The four symbols verse structures the relationship of signs and seasons as somewhat pair-wise and days and years as somewhat pair-wise. Since signs and seasons are independently introduced by the "for" preposition it appears the scripture writers intended to implicate the signs and season pair to be horizontally juxtaposed inasmuch as the independent use of the preposition invokes an appearance of unordered symbols. Unordered variables in hierarchical structures define the higher order progression. That is, the horizontal juxtaposition metaphorically represents hierarchical structure's higher order, to wit: The Phantom Vertical Connector to the Higher Order Secondary Level Signs Seasons The Higher Order Primary Level Hierarchical Structure Horizontal Juxtaposition

22 On the other hand, since days and years are collectively introduced by the same preposition, it appears the scripture writers intended days and years to be vertically juxtaposed. In hierarchical structures vertical juxtaposition implicates the lower order regression of ordered variables. That is, the metaphorical reference to days and years implicates the quaternary lower order regression [(Primary, Years), (Secondary, Months), (Tertiary, Weeks), (Quaternary, Days)]. Hierarchical structure's lower order regression and higher order progression are concomitantly represented in schematic form as follows: The Quaternary Lower and Higher Order Hierarchical Structure QLO QHO Primary... Years Secondary Quaternary... Mos. Tertiary Tertiary... Wks. Quaternary Secondary... Days Primary... Signs Seas. Completing the quaternary order (Primary, Antithetical) relationship defines a triangular shape. It is this shape that represents each triangle of the Star of David. It is also the field in which the greater and lesser light APPGIT impossibility-resolving axioms are applied. 8 8 See the interpretation for verse 16, infra

23 15. Verse 15. Verse 15 reads: 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. This expanse is the transition between ordered relations theory space and social choice theory space. It can also be described as the transition between functions and progressions. 16. Verse 16. Verse 16 reads: 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. The two lights are metaphorical references to the two axioms that enable actual economic consequences in the face of APPGIT's formidable illusionary holding. These axioms include the APPGIT Constraint and APPGIT-Compliant Progression. (Jenkins 2006A). The axioms derive directly from ordered relations theory space. That is why they are characterized as lights. The lesser light is most likely a metaphorical reference to the APPGIT-Constraint inasmuch as the APPGIT-Constraint only enables unordered progression. On the other hand, the greater light is most likely a metaphorical reference to APPGIT-Compliant Progression because it enables ordered progression. The stars are the Stars of David in the progression of Stars of David that lead to ordered relations theory space, the space of DGO accounting. 17. Verse 17. Verse 17 reads: 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, This expanse is the transition between social choice theory space and welfare theory space as represented in the (ordered relations theory: social choice theory: welfare

24 theory) regression. The hallmark of welfare theory is participation. Participation involves the simple notion that by and through increasing the opportunity for others to participate in our creations without the limitation of exclusionary prejudice the more certain becomes the creation's contribution to societal well-being. Alternatively, is the expanse the transition between unordered model space and non-model space? 18. Verse 18. Verse 18 reads: 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19. Verse 19. Verse 19 reads: 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. 20. Verse 20. Verse 20 reads: 20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." These waters are not infested with correction showings panoply because welfare theory space is the bottom rung on the regression ladder and the only place where progression occurs. Rather, in this space, the swarm of living creatures is a metaphor for creation opportunities in God's Will. 21. Verse 21. Verse 21 reads: 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good

25 The term "after their kind" refers to the space, whether it is ordered relations theory space, social choice theory space, or welfare theory space. The great sea monsters are in the waters of social choice theory space while every living creature is in the waters of welfare theory space. The great sea monsters are great because they represent the ordered correction showings defined as ORT reference ethics correction showings in social choice theory space taken together with SCT aggregation mechanics correction showings in welfare theory space. 22. Verse 22. Verse 22 reads: 22 God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23. Verse 23. Verse 23 reads: 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24. Verse 24. Verse 24 reads: 24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. Creeping things are differences which require a broader set of perspectives to reconcile with exogenous perspectives. 25. Verse 25. Verse 25 reads: 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good

26 The beasts of the earth are the set of violations of APPGIT generalizations extended to aggregation mechanics. 26. Verse 26. Verse 26 reads: 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27. Verse 27. Verse 27 reads: 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Ordered Model Processes involve vertical [(Function: Progression: Position), (Ordered Relations Theory: Social Choice Theory: Welfare Theory)] relationships. (Jenkins 2007). "God created man in His own image" is a (Function, Ordered Relations Theory) metaphor. The "His" refers to I Am. "[I]n the image of God He created him" is a (Progression, Social Choice Theory) metaphorical reference. The "He" is a Lord God metaphorical reference. "[M]ale and female He created them" is a (Position, Welfare Theory) metaphorical reference. The "He" is a metaphorical reference to the Lord. 28. Verse 28. Verse 28 reads: 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." The reference to the "earth" implicates unordered model processes. Unordered model processes implicate [(Function: Progression: Position), (Ordered Relations Theory: Social Choice Theory: Welfare Theory)] relationships in horizontal space. (Jenkins 2007)

27 - 23 -

28 29. Verse 29. Verse 29 reads: 29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; The listing of the plant yielding seed and every tree which has fruit yielding seed sounds in the return to vertical space. 30. Verse 30. Verse 30 reads: 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so. The listing of the green plant here seems to represent a progression unlock. It also is part of the vertical metaphor in progression space. 31. Verse 31. Verse 31 reads: 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. B. The Interpretation: Genesis Chapter 2 1. Verse 1. Verse 1 reads: 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2. Verse 2. Verse 2 reads: 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3. Verse 3. Verse 3 reads: 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

29 The seventh day seems to be about the recombination of theory and axiom that enables the return to ordered relations theory space (i.e., the land of the DGOs)

30 VI Conclusion The paper's interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis and the first three verses of the book's second chapter evidence the (ordered relations theory: social choice theory: welfare theory) regression, emphasizing social choice theory impossibility-resolution. The interpretation also embraces the related hierarchical structure progression involving the principles attending aggregation mechanics that enables return to the empowering ordered relations theory space. It is scripture's most compact explanation of the most important empowerment and return of empowerment function attending the philosophy of the human condition

31 REFERENCES Books Arrow, K. J. Social Choice and Individual Values. Monograph No. 12. Cowles Commission for Research in Economics. New York: Wiley (1951, 1963). Sen, A. K. On Ethics and Economics. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell (1988). Articles Jenkins, D.R. "For the Glory of God: Why Cain Had to Kill Abel." Unpublished Working Paper (2006C), 36 pages. Available at Jenkins, D. R. Ordered Conflict Resolution. Unpublished Working Paper (2006A), 40 pages. Available at Jenkins, D. R. Ordered Model Processes, Reference Declaration and the Economic Organization: Implications for a Balanced Scorecard Contextual Framework. Éthique et économique/ethics and Economics, 5 (1), 2007(A), Also available at: Balanced Scorecard PDF. Jenkins, D. R. Social State Definition and the Economic Control Systems Product. Unpublished Working Paper (2006B), 66 pages. Available at Jenkins, D. R. The Apostle Table, Part I, Transitive Exogenous Pressures. Unpublished Working Paper (2007B), 26 pages. Available at Sen, A. K. The Possibility of Social Choice. The American Economic Review, 89(3), June 1999, pp