05/10/22

Looking at Thomas Michaud’s Essay (2021) “Anatomy of the Progressive Revolution” (Part 4 of 9)

0011 The progressive agenda showcases a similar hierarchical flow diagram.

Figure 04

0012 Politics3 can change a culture and save it from itself.

How?

In the normal context of politics3, economic interventions2 transform the culture… or rather… its morality into one that conforms to the ideological ideals of an educated, judicious and articulate cadre of enlightened, “woke” and true believers1.

Here is a picture.

Figure 05

0013 Michaud elaborates nine points.

First and second, the Progressive’s devotion to political ideologies exhibits a type of religious zeal.  Yet, the progressiveself-identifies as “not religious”.  Progressive political movements3 are thus “not religious” religious enterprises3.

Third, fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth, economics is a tool for progressive revolutionary politics.  Economic interventionis a lever that transforms culture.  This requires the use of sovereign power.

Today’s progressives desire to identify and privilege groups who are victims of past and present exploitation, both real and imagined.  This fortifies allegiance of such groups (remember, this is democratic politics) and encourages individuals to identify as members of a victim group.  State education, the justice system and corporate media serve as ideological apparatuses that convey moral and cultural information to acolytes.

Fifth, the morality of social justice does not conform to traditional morality, because, in both theory and perception, people following traditional morals victimize(d) now-privileged groups.

Ninth, the progressive agenda is a permanent revolution.

0014 These nine points suggest that there are levels in the progressive agenda that are not envisioned in the traditional flow diagram.

Politics3 belongs to the situation level.

Social justice and permanent revolution are located above the situation level.

Progressive affiliation, victim group, individual, and identity reside below the situation level.

Figure 06
05/9/22

Looking at Thomas Michaud’s Essay (2021) “Anatomy of the Progressive Revolution” (Part 5 of 9)

0015 Now, I associate the elements above and below the situation level to nested form.  The result is an interscope, as described in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

0016 The perspective levelc stands above the situation levelb.

On this level, an unnamed, “not religious” normal context3c brings the actuality of a permanent revolution2c into relation with the potential of ‘social justice’1c.

The potential of ‘social justice’1c contextualizes the entire situation levelb.

0017 The content levela stands below the situation levelb.

On this level, the normal context of affiliation3a brings the dyadic actuality of group [contiguity] individual2a into relation with the potential of ‘identity’1a.

How should I label the contiguity between the two real elements of group and individual?

I choose the word, “subsumes”.

The group [subsumes] the individual2a.

0018 These associations yield a three-level interscope for the progressive agenda.

Figure 07
05/6/22

Looking at Thomas Michaud’s Essay (2021) “Anatomy of the Progressive Revolution” (Part 6 of 9)

0019 At this juncture, I stand at the threshold of the section titled, “Progressive Depersonalization”.

Michaud claims that the progressive agenda depersonalizes the individual.  He starts with the ironic, progressive slogan: The personal is the political.

0020 In order to appreciate this slogan, I start with the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality.  A virtual nested form is a feature of a three-level interscope.  It consists of a column in one of the three elements.  

Here is a picture of the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality for the progressive interscope.

Figure 08

0021 This virtual nested form may be spoken as follows.

The normal context of permanent revolution2c virtually brings the dyadic actuality, economics [transforms] morals & culture2b, into the potential of group [subsumes] individual2a.

This nested form operates as a demiurge.  A demiurge is a gnostic divinity that is forever building its world.  It is typically opposed to another demiurge that is forever building an opposite world.  So, it is always one demiurge against another.

0022 Of course, I can easily guess the identity of the opposing demiurge.

The opposing demiurge is the one that victimizes individuals who do not conform to morality or culture, thereby inspiring them to identify with a victim group.

Here is a comparison of the actuality2 of the traditional slogan and the actuality2b of the situation-level of the progressive agenda.

Figure 09

0023 Clearly, economic intervention2b is a tool for the permanent revolution2c to use, in order to transform the ways that traditional morality sustains culture2b.

Also, of all the groups that subsume the individual2a, none can involve traditional morality and culture2.

0024 Why?

In Christian morality, the individual is called into mystical union with Jesus Christ, one of the three Persons of the Triune Godhead.  So, the “group2a” is actually the divine oikos, or the economy of God.  This is discussed in the second interlude in How To Define the Word “Religion”.

The individual2a does not adopt an identity1a.  The individual2a becomes an identity1a.

0025 What is identity1a?

Ah, in the Christian schema, identity1a is the person that I call “me”.  It1a is not a group2a affiliation3a.

In Jungian terminology, the assumption of the individual into the divine oikos is called, “individuation”.  It is not called, “subsumption”.

0026 So, Michaud is on target in claiming that the progressive agenda depersonalizes the individual.

It does so by re-defining the word, “identity”.

In the progressive ideation, identity1a is the potential underlying group affiliation3a and supports the subsumption of the individual into a political group2a.

The personal2a is subsumed into the political2a.

05/5/22

Looking at Thomas Michaud’s Essay (2021) “Anatomy of the Progressive Revolution” (Part 7 of 9)

0027 The personal is the political.

In the progressive agenda, the content-level actuality2a is a dyad, group [subsumes] individual2a.

The word, “individual”, no longer means a person who stands before God.   The individual reduces to someone carrying a group identification tag.

Similarly, identity1a potentiates group affiliation3a, not the person that I call “me”.

0028 Michaud calls this, “depersonalization”.

With this in mind, I consider the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility for the progressive interscope.

Figure 10

0029 The normal context of social justice1c virtually brings the actualities of ideological apparatuses (such as state education, justice system and corporate media, to name a few)1b into relation with the possibilities inherent in identity1a.

If “justice” is a virtue for traditional folk, then “social justice1c” is a hegemonic, demiurgic alternative.  Social justice1ccontextualizes the actuality of economics [transforming] morals [&] culture2b and answers the question, “When is justice (in the traditional frame) injustice (in the progressive frame)?” 

0030 Here is one of the resulting twists.

The category-based nested form for the traditional view appears below.

The arrows, however, depict trans-categorical flows from the progressive point of view.

Figure 11

0031 Is this a misperception?  Or, is this an accusation?

To the progressive, there is one deterministic flow to the traditional schema.  Religion3 flows through morality and culture2 and pours into alienating political systems and exploitative economic arrangements1.

To the traditionalist, there are two transcategorical flows.  Religion3 flows into morality2. Politics and economics1 enliven culture2, through cooperative and laborious human action.

05/4/22

Looking at Thomas Michaud’s Essay (2021) “Anatomy of the Progressive Revolution” (Part 8 of 9)

0032 According to progressive doctrine, traditional morals and culture2 yield economic and political structures1 that inherently victimize groups that do not adhere to the morals and the cultural expectations of the dominant tradition.  That is, religion3 promulgates a morality2, that sustains a culture2, bent on victimizing those who are “not religious”.  The victimization occurs through political and economic means1.

0033 In response, progressives encourage the sovereign state to expand in every fashion.  According to How To Define The Word “Religion”, progressive institutions are infrasovereign religions calling on sovereign power in order to implement their objectives.  They call on the sovereign to regulate the organization tier, through economic interventions.  They also call on the sovereign to fund ideological apparatuses1b that promote the doctrine of social justice1c and popularize the necessity of possessing an identity1a (as a badge of group subsumption2a).

0034 Consequently, the progressive (situation-level) category-based nested form has the same flows as the original, traditional category-based nested form.

In the original, religion3 flows into morality2, morality2 sustains culture2, and the potential of ‘politics and economics’1underlies the dynamism of culture2.  In terms of Adam Smith’s model, the first transcategorical flow corresponds to “moral sentiments” and the second transcategorical flow associates to the so-called “invisible hand”.  So, the arrows go from normal context3 and potential1 towards actuality2.

In the progressive, politics3 flows into economic interventions2, economics2 transforms (traditional) morals [&] culture2.  At the same time, the potential of ‘ideological apparatuses’1 undermines (traditional) morals [&] culture2 and reinforces (progressive) morals [&] culture2.

0035 Here is a picture.

Figure 12

0036 In sum, the progressive misrepresents the transcategorical flows for the traditional schema, while practicing the identical transcategorical flows as the traditional schema.

05/3/22

Looking at Thomas Michaud’s Essay (2021) “Anatomy of the Progressive Revolution” (Part 9 of 9)

0037 Michaud concludes that the progressive revolution hinges on redefining the human person.

Can “subsumption2a” be the sine qua non of the permanent revolution2c?

Does “subsumption2a” characterize infrasovereign religions?

Michaud writes, “The progressive revolution aims to change the way people understand themselves, understand their very humanity as collective beings.”

These category-based re-articulations picture the relational dynamics of Michaud’s argument.

There is much more to ponder in these diagrams.

But, these considerations are left to the readers.

0038 I conclude with the virtual nested form in the realm of normal context.

Figure 13

0039 A “not religious” normal context3c virtually brings the actuality of politics3b into relation with the possibility of group affiliation3a.

Surely, this “not religious” normal context3c fits the definition of the term, “religion”.

Plus, this normal context3c grasps for sovereign power in order to implement its objectives.

0040 I thank Thomas Michaud for his excellent essay.

Perhaps, this brief examination will lead to a more profound understanding of the nature of our current Lebenswelt.

07/12/21

Looking at Josh Hammer’s Opinion Piece (2021) “…Experts” (Part 4 of 4)

0019 Second, I look at the confounding of the sovereign and institution levels of the society tier, implicit in Josh Hammer’s opinion piece, and intrinsic to BG(il)L corporate media’s use of the word, “expert”, in reference to a federal bureaucrat.

0020 The following two-level interscope portrays the first two levels of the society tier.  The interscope for the society tieris developed in the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”, available at smashwords.

0021 Here is a diagram.

0022 According to the first paragraph of Josh Hammer’s opinion piece, bureaucrats exercise federal power2b within the “bowels” of the administrative state3bC.  They do so by filling in legislative ambiguities and authorizations2bC. Bureaucratic decrees2bC establish the order1bC that vague legislation2bC mandates.

0023 How do federal bureaucrats develop their rule-based protocols?

They follow their “guts”… I mean… their “experts”.

0024 Of course, the metaphors of bowels and guts point to digestion.  Digestion nourishes the body.  What body?  The administrative state?

0025 So, I ask, “What if the administrative state is a body?”

Well, the body is animated by a soul.

What is the soul of the administrative state?

0026 Well, why do the legislators pass vague laws2bC that authorize federal bureaucracies to do what they deem appropriate in order1bC to achieve certain organizational objectives2aC?

They do so on the basis of righteousness1aC.

0027 Does this imply that the Congress confounds the potential for order1bC with the potential for righteousness1aC?

Yes, for the past century, Congress establishes institutions3a within the federal government3bC on the basis of righteousness1aC, leaving the (federal) institutions themselves3aC to fill in the details of the authorizations2bC.

0028 This confounding constitutes one of two types of religion.  Infrasovereign religions are institutions3aC arising out of righteousness1aC and bounded by the necessity of order1bC.  Sovereign religions are institutions3aC that require (and exercise) sovereign power3bC in order to implement their organizational objectives2aC.

The other type of religion is suprasovereign3cC.

0029 While Josh Hammer’s point concerns the manipulative use of the word, “expert”, to refer to a federal bureaucrat, there is a deeper current in his opinion.  Vaguely-worded legislation authorizing bureaucracies to fill in the details2bCconfounds order1bC and righteousness1aC and constitutes the formation of a sovereign religion3aC.  Such legislation2bCviolates the first amendment of the Constitution, forbidding the federal government from establishing a religion.

07/7/21

Looking at Manvir Singh’s Article (2021) “Magic, Explanations, and Evil” (Part 1 of 5)

0001 This blog compliments Comments on Manvir Singh’s Essay (2021) “Magic, Evil and Explanations”, available at smashwords and other websites selling electronic works.

0002 Singh’s article appears in Current Anthropology.

Manvir Singh is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, France.

To me, his work contrasts with Sasha Newell, who, in 2018, publishes a theoretical piece titled, “The Affectiveness of Symbols”, also in Current Anthropology.

Singh aims for science.  Newell focuses on interpretation.

0003 Will the discipline of Anthropology turn towards an empirio-schematic approach or towards an approach where the word, “science”, is no longer relevant?

Mark Horowitz, William Yaworsky and Kenneth Kickham publish a survey, under the title, “Anthropology’s Science Wars: Insights from an New Survey”, in 2019, in Current Anthropology.

0004 These three papers tell us much about the divided discipline of contemporary Anthropology.

07/6/21

Looking at Manvir Singh’s Article (2021) “Magic, Explanations, and Evil” (Part 2 of 5)

0005 Anthropology stands astride the narrower, more technical, disciplines of Sociology and Psychology.

Manvir Singh constructs a modern paradigm for a topic dear to Anthropology, but not to the narrower disciplines.

What is the nature of magic?

0006 Singh publishes the results of a Mystical Harm Survey, applied to 60 societies on the Probability Sample File of the electronic Human Relations Area Files.  He uses principal component analysis to reduce forty-nine raw variables to two principal dimensions with the greatest variation.

Principal components?  Greatest variation?

0007 Principal components are the dimensions with the greatest variation in a scatterplot.

Typically, principal component analysis shows variables that are relevant to the topic at hand.

For example, when considering mystical harm, one would expect significant variation between a common person and, say, a warlock, along some parameter that might be called, “warlockness”.

0008 Singh finds two parameters distinguishing common folk, sorcerers and witches.  Witches are high in PC1 and low in PC2.  Sorcerers are low in PC1 and high in PC2.

PC1 is witchiness.  Witches fly, meet in secret in the forest on a full moon, suddenly appear and disappear, and so on.  To me, witchiness is the embodiment of malicious magic.  Witches not only perform magic, they live it.

PC2 is the evil eye.  Sorcerers do not embody the magic that they perform.  Instead, the magic resides in their gaze.  The evil eye is a harmful mystical operation that signifies a whole range of magical works.  The evil eye is the worst.

0009 Singh does not dwell on the seemingly philosophical distinction between embodiment and gaze.  Neither do the anthropologists who are pleased with the scatterplot of PC1 and PC2 in Figure 1 (of the article).  Anthropology looks like science.

07/5/21

Looking at Manvir Singh’s Article (2021) “Magic, Explanations, and Evil” (Part 3 of 5)

0010 Singh identifies two principle components to harmful magic, witchiness (PC1) and the evil eye (PC2).

What happens next?

0011 Singh proposes a model to account for the observation.  The model consists of three schemes of cultural selection.

The first selection (F) is for intuitive techniques of harmful magic.

The second selection (G) is for plausible explanations of misfortune.

The third selection (H) is for myths that demonize a subgroup (in this case, sorcerers and witches).

0012 Singh misses the scaffolding beneath the glass that he stands on.  His exposition is on malevolent magic.  He does not seem to realize that malevolent magic recapitulates the open, generative magic of group living, including…

…intuitive techniques for beneficial magic (F’)…

…plausible explanations of fortune (G’)…

…myths that celebrate the group (H’).

0013 Here is a table.