chapter 3

The ability to recognize is required to study typology. The Microsoft Encarta Dictionary states that recognition is

The act of identifying somebody or something on the basis of a past sighting or experience, the ability to do this, or the fact of being identified through having been seen or experienced before.⁽¹⁾ Microsoft Encarta Dictionary

"Typology" is not just another term for the word recognition, and is not merely the ability to recognize similarities between two different situations. There also exist differences between the lexical meanings for typology and biblical typology, but the term "typology" is commonly used in theological circles to mean "biblical typology".

What makes this recognition of the typological something other than “parallelomania”⁽²⁾ or verbal thaumaturgy? Parallelomania was a term used to describe an unnatural attempt to link dissimilar events or things to each other typologically that went beyond reason.

Below is a photograph of an island, figure 1, taken in Prince William Sound in Alaska, and a photograph of two amorous turtles taken at the Honolulu Zoo in Hawaii , figure 2. As soon as I saw this island, I thought about the photograph of the turtles. I recognized some similarity between the two photographs that caused my mind to link them. I am unaware of what features caused me to cognitively link the two photographs together. I did this automatically.

There is something about figure 1 that I recognized in figure 2, yet the individual elements that make up figure 1 are rock, trees, and soil, as compared to the flesh and shell that make up figure 2. The photo figure 1 was taken in Alaska , which is a cold northern climate, while the photograph figure 2 was taken in Hawaii , which is a hot southern climate. There are certain areas of light and dark that correspond with each photograph.

There are also certain visible lines in each photograph that correspond with each other, yet they are dramatically different from each other. How is it that we can recognize the similarities between them? Some people that I have shown these photographs to can't see any similarities. My experience provided the information that my mind used to link these two photographs together, but other people lacking my experience may not see similarities based on their own experiences. The island is not known as "turtle rock".

I am not sure which elements my mind linked together from these two photographs, but I experienced a reasoning pattern in my thoughts that I was familiar with.

Below is an example of two more sets of photographs. The rock on the left figure 7 is known as "elephant rock". Enough other people's experience with elephant shapes caused them to recognize a similar shape in the rock.

The above photographs compare a rock located in Prince Williams Sound in Alaska with an elephant located in

Malaysia

. What elements are in common with these two photographs? My personal experiences have shaped my personal cognitive structure, which allowed my mind to automatically find correlations between the two photographs. Most people would not find these correlations because they lack my personal experiences. The elephant example, on the other hand, provides a situation where many more people's personal experiences allow their cognitive structures to identify correlations between "elephant rock" and an elephant.

This same situation exists in the recognition of typology. My personal experience of studying certain biblical texts has allowed my cognitive structure to isolate numerous correlations between various biblical texts, which some others lacking this experiential basis simply cannot see.

The very act of recognition requires that we compare one thing with some other thing. If we note an overlap of the two things and call this awareness "recognition" and the similarity a "pattern", then we are able to "perceive" a similarity.

Recognition is the ability of our brain to recognize similarities, and this ability makes it possible to recognize typologies. Typologies however, are a special kind of recognizable pattern. Biblical typology is even more restrictive in that a particular frequency of matches is required, yet the structure of these typologies is multifarious. Biblical typologies also have a particular function or goal in mind, in that they are related to the story of salvation in the Bible.

Typology is the perception of recurring patterns of action in salvation-history that are too “coincidental” to be attributed to any cause but God." Holman Bible Handbook

One of my own essentialism requirements is similar to the writer of the above quote from the Holman Bible Handbook. At the same time though, I maintain more of a wholistic biblical gestalt. That is, I have noticed a recurring pattern throughout the Bible's collection of typologies, that all correspond with each other.

Not only are individual typologies too coincidental to be attributed to any cause but God, but their interrelation with each other, their support of each other, their supererogatory nature, and their conceptual continuity far exceed any explanation other than to be attributed to any cause but God. I call these phenomena the CCAT (Complex Coherences across Typologies).

When we encounter a situation, or a thing, we process information regarding this situation or thing. When we encounter something at a later date, and we recognize similarities between the first encounter and the new encounter facing us, we recall.

Our mind uses RPR (Reference-Point Reasoning) to determine how we should relate the new information with the previously learned information. We usually take the most memorable and the most useful information and cognitively group it into a category. Sometimes we use a metonymic representation of the category, and use this prototype member to measure against the new information. This is our CRP (cognitive reference point).

We may approximate that 98 is almost 100, or that an unidentified animal is just a little bigger than a dog. We may describe an object as being just a little bigger than a breadbox, even though few people have breadboxes anymore.

When we offer some exotic delicacy to our guests we are often asked, "Does it taste like chicken?" These are all common cognitive reference points from which we base our experiential structure of memory. These reference points frame our experiences and help us understand new experiences by putting them in perspective.

We begin our investigation of a new situation with a RPRS (Reference-Point Reasoning Sample). We begin by being confused, but as our minds work out the details of comparison between the previous sample and the new sample, our understanding of a new situation begins.

Many times, we use personalized CRP's which differ from common CRP's in that they are customized for our use at the moment. We tend to change personal CRP's at will, depending on the situation at hand.

When driving we may say that another vehicle is only twenty feet from ours even though both vehicles may be traveling at seventy miles per hour. I may look at an object outside that is six feet "high", yet when I enter my third floor home, I readjust my zero reference from the ground outside to the floor inside, even though this is three stories above the ground. When I travel, I put my luggage in the overhead luggage bin, which is also about six feet "high" in addition to the thirty thousand feet the airplane was already flying at.

We use these customized CRP's to rationalize our actions. This is evident by watching any of the law enforcement shows on television. As soon as someone is arrested, the very first thing out of the arrestee's mouth is their justification as to why they pursued an action that violated the law, but was well within their categorization of the law.

In restaurants we may ask how spicy-hot the food is. What may be very hot in one restaurant may be considered mild in a Cajun restaurant.

Where our personal CRP's get us into trouble biblically and typologically, is that many times we allow our own personal CRP's to overshadow God's Cognitive Reasoning Points. This is what God calls "sin". The action we take while committing this sin is called "pride". In our categorization structures relating to both the Bible and our lives, we must strive to abide by God's categorization structures and not our own. We may say that we have the "right" to live our lives the way we want to, and this is true. Christians however, have voluntarily sacrificed this "right" according to Jesus' teachings that we give up what we can't keep, in order to gain what we can't lose.

Our understanding of any new encounters will be processed through the lens of our previous encounters. We even use this information to determine what type of challenges we are willing to face and which ones we try to avoid, based on our previous successes and failures. If we have faced numerous defeats in similar situations, we may attempt to avoid similar situations in the future.

Anais Nin , The Diary of Anais Nin, volume 3, 1939-1944
US (French-born) author & diarist (1903 - 1977)

On the other hand, if we have already had numerous successes in the past regarding a particular situation, we may not hesitate to enter again into a similar situation.

Often times, we short-circuit the collection of information by interrupting the speaker, or skipping over the writing, when we consider the topic we are studying to have been already resolved. Many times, we miss important facts by this process, or invalidate valid facts because of a previously faulty explanation.

Occasionally we learn a false lesson, but maintain a special preference for this lesson because we learned it first, and then ignore later information that would complete our understanding of the situation. This type of error in logic is called argumentum ad antiquitum.

I recall hearing about an experiment several years ago about a wall-eyed pike and some minnows This pike was used in a behavioral experiment where it was kept in a tank full of minnows. The pike could move freely and eat as many minnows as it wanted. Then a glass barrier was placed between the pike and the minnows. The pike would strike at the minnows, but would only encounter an invisible barrier that kept him from eating the minnows. After a while, the pike stopped striking at the minnows. After the glass barrier was removed, the pike still would not strike at the minnows because he had been trained to understand that the minnows were unattainable due to an invisible barrier that separated it from the minnows.

When the tank was flooded with minnows, the pike would not strike at the minnows even out of frustration. This pike had a reference point, which was changed by conditioning. The pike's new reference point included information that demonstrated the fact that minnows were unattainable because an invisible barrier blocked access to them.

When we have encountered invisible barriers in the past, we must use our reasoning ability to continue testing our environment to determine if these barriers are still in place. That is, if we wish to have a spiritual life beyond that of a pike.

If we began our spiritual lives with barriers, we must overcome these barriers, or like the pike, we will starve to death spiritually.

If we began our Bible studies with a CRP that included false information demonstrating to us that the study of typology was invalidated after the Victorian Era, and as such, is "old fashioned", we may not pursue this type of study. This fallacy is called argumentum ad nouveau.

When we use a cognitive model frequently, we develop an "Idealized Cognitive Model", or an ICM. This ICM seems very real to us, to the degree that it may even seem impossible that some other interpretation is possible, beyond our own personal ICM. We represent this frustration with phrases like "Why can't you see it, its right in front of your eyes?" It may well be in front of their eyes, but it is not a part of their systematicity.

This situation has been represented positively by Barwise, as an "NI", or a "Naked Infinitive", as "The Principle of Veridicality": If S sees J, then J. (If Steve[S] saw John eat an apple [J], then John ate an apple [J]). I believe this same principle is often understood in the negative where; if S does not see J, then not J. In this case, J may be a verifiable fact, yet the viewer will not believe J because the experience of J falls out of the experiential collection of the viewer.

The Principle of Substitution states that if S sees F(t₁) and t₁=t₂, then S sees F(t₂).

I believe this principle also works in the negative. In cases like these, we may say something like, "It was conspicuous by its absence."

Upon conversion, Christians experience the beginnings of a new cognitive structure. Christianity teaches that this conversion includes a "spiritual birth".

And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. Romans 12:2

This spiritual awareness helps Christians understand parables. Nonbelievers can also understand parables, but not in a spiritual way, in that they cannot apply the spiritual lessons conveyed in the parables of Jesus. I say this because the elements in the parables of Jesus represent real life spiritual applications, and unless the reader is born spiritually, spiritual lessons are not effective.

The parables of the seeds in Matthew demonstrate that these messages were not meant to provide understanding for everyone that heard them, but were intended to prevent some from understanding what was said.

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Christians are expected to understand the parables of Jesus. In Matthew, Peter asks Jesus the meaning of a parable, and Jesus scolds him and calls him "dull".

Explain the parable to us.” “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. Matthew 15:15-16

This statement also implies that mental and spiritual growth is expected from the Christian.

We begin to see through spiritual eyes. It is with these spiritual eyes that we must view typology.

Typology is an interesting facet of Bible study, but just as in other types of Bible study, one should expect to be attacked by secular critics.

People do not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself, but because it contradicts them.

Our perception of things is based on our conceptual cognitive structures and our conceptual cognitive structures are based on our experiences, both physical (natural) and spiritual. Spiritual birth changes our mindset, our gestalt, with which we process information.

Each of the sixty-six books in the Bible has a specific purpose, all of which are a part of the revelation of Jesus, the Christ. Just as the whole of the Bible is made up of parts, the parts of typology all contribute the whole of the Bible. There are parts of the Bible that are poetry, parts that are history, and parts (some say) that is mystical in nature. I believe the entire Bible is mystical, not instead of being poetry, history, prophecy or some other thing, but simultaneously poetry, history, prophecy, etc...

2) Gloer, Holman Bible Dictionary.

3) Ibid.

4) http://www.amyfound.org/awaart9.html

5) George Lakoff, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).

6) Ibid.

Chapter 4
Categorization

Figure 3	Figure 4

Figure 5		Figure 6