0161 In conclusion, many home and private schoolers face a difficulty.
They want to teach their children and students about God and nature.
At the same time, they want their children and students to pass standardized tests constructed by government agencies that promulgate a religion, even though they declare themselves to be “not religious”.
This course is one way to approach the difficulty.
This course offers a path, a text, along which you, the adult, and your children and your students may walk together.
0162 No other work in the field of educationin 2022 compares.
Except of course, other courses by Razie Mah, such as A Course on The Archaeology of the Fall and A Course on the Human Niche.
Welcome to the fourth age of understanding.
0163 A Course on How To Define The Word “Religion” may be found at smashwords and other e-book vendors, using the search terms: Razie Mah, series, course, how to define the word “religion”.
The course consists of ten primers, followed by the masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”.
Each primer and masterwork is punctuated, not by page numbers, but by points. A one-hour class may cover between twenty and forty points. That is a little slower than one per minute. If you conduct a class, record the number of points covered per session and report to raziemah@reagan.com.
0164 These blogs provide a taste of the style and the content. They complement, rather than substitute, for the primers and the masterwork.
I hope that you enjoy these blogs and pass them onto others who may serve as guides in a world where education is the job of parents and those similarly motivated, rather than those who are certified by the state.
0044 The development of the word, “concupiscence” (D’), from the originating emphatic, I-myself (A), produces technical definitions of words, that are at odds with traditional definitions. Cupid (B’) starts by labeling the presence of self among other selves.
Figure 12
Cupid (B’) associates to self (B). If self (B) labels the intensional awareness of an internal consolidation of various, situational I-myselves, then cupid(B’) labels an extension of that awareness. This extension occurs, in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, as individuals cooperate in social circles, the family (5), intimates (5), teams (15), bands (50), communities (150) and so on. So, the consolidation that produces the self (B’) is motivated by a competition to perform as a self among other selves in various social circles.
That competition entails concupiditas (C’), the desire to perform as a self among other selves. Concupiditas (C’) corresponds to selfish (C). Concupiditas (C’) is an adaptation that satisfies the biological criteria of evolutionary selfishness and conforms to Domning’s criteria for original selfishness, manifested in the emphatic, I-myself (A).
0045 Here is a picture.
Figure 13
0046 Like cupid (B’), the technical term, concupiditas (C’), does not align with common parlance.
A contemporary example of a concupidic behavior (C’) takes place in bars and houses around college campuses. Drinking games meld competition and cooperation. Each participant is a cupid (B’), competing to shoot an arrow into a keg of beer, in order to endear oneself to others in the drinking group.
One must compete in order to cooperate?
How twisted is that?
0047 Concupiditas (C’) is situational. Concupiditas entails human choice. Concupiditas introduces rules to the game. Concupiditas is being with others, in particular situations, where performance is congruent with belonging.
The rule of the drinking game is simple. Drink as much beer as you can. This rule is given precedence over other rules, such as long-term cooperation necessitates that other selves are not injured. The drinking game entails risk. Concupiditas (C’) entails a human choice about which game to play. The games belong to concupiscence (D’). The choice belongs to the person and concupiditas (C’).
0048 Concupiscence (D’) corresponds to selfishness (D). One must compete to cooperate. One must perform in every social circle that one belongs to. That performance entails risk. Sometimes one is born into a social circle (the family, band and community). Sometimes one must choose (intimates, team). Concupiscence (D’) is the state of competing to cooperate. Each self desires to cooperate, because those who cooperate take the greater risks and enjoy the greater benefits. Each self desires to be among other selves. Each self has its own original selfishness. Every game and every social circle has rules, established by tradition.
Figure 14
We compete to belong to and to flourish within social circles. We compete to cooperate.
0024 The first singularity2H is a hypothesis inhuman evolution2H.
The hypothesis explains why our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The hypothesis pertains to the start of our current Lebenswelt.
The hypothesis is plainly stated in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
The hypothesis2H is dramatically portrayed, in tandem with originating sin2V, in the fiction, An Archaeology of the Fall.
This produces a balanced intersection.
Figure 06
0025 With this in mind, I digress, in order to discuss two complementarities between the contributing actualities (2H and 2V).
0026 The first complementarity matches the construction of what is in the Positivist’s judgment, as developed in Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy. What is presents itself as an actuality, composed of two contiguous real elements, characteristic of Peirce’s category of secondness. But, this presentation is an illusion, because the two elements are really the same thing, regarded from two different vantage points.
The real elements are a noumenon (the thing itself) and its phenomena (the observable and measurable facets of the noumenon). According to Kant, a noumenon cannot be objectified as its phenomena. So, the contiguity is [cannot be objectified as].
The two contributing actualities complement one another in the following manner.
Figure 07
The Fall is like a noumenon. The first singularity models its corresponding phenomena.
0027 The second complementarity matches the distinction between primary and secondary causation, which plays a role in Comments on Armand Maurer’s Essay (2004) “Darwin, Thomists and Secondary Causality” (see July 2020 of Razie Mah’s blog).
Secondary causation describes what goes on in the Peirce’s category of secondness, the realm of actuality2.Primary causation describes what goes on in Peirce’s categories of thirdness and firstness, the realms of normal context3 and potential1.
Figure 08
The two contributing actualities complement one another as follows.
Figure 09
0029 This digression into the complementarity between the two contributing actualities reinforces the idea that they should balance.
In chapter four, Haarsma discusses human evolution2H, as configured before the hypothesis of the first singularity. Indeed, he does not place any importance to the start of civilization, which is potentiated by the first singularity.
Does he realize that almost all of human evolution predates the stories of Adam and Eve?
I wonder.
Plus, I chuckle.
0030 Why?
Saint Thomas Aquinas, the great medieval philosopher, argues that original sin is the lack of original justice.
So, the long period of human evolution2H is joined to original justice2H in the single actuality2 of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Here is a picture.
Figure 10
0031 Wow. The size of the contributions match.
Plus, just as original sin2V asks theorists in modern Anthropology about a recent (and immaterial) natural transition in human evolution2H, which turns out to be the hypothesis of the first singularity2H,original justice2V challenges theorists in modern Anthropology concerning the nature of the ultimate human niche2H.
0032 At present, modern Anthropology has not confronted the concept of an ultimate niche in human evolution, now elucidated in the e-masterwork, The Human Niche. The ultimate human niche is not defined by material conditions. It is defined by an immaterial condition: The realness of triadic relations.
0033 The modern scientific community follows a rule: Actuality is all there is. Models are built from observations and measurements of material actualities. These models are couched in various disciplinary languages. In the empirio-schematic judgment, disciplinary language brings mathematic and mechanical models into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena.
0034 The problem?
Material actuality is not all there is.
0035 This point is obvious in the category-based nested form, derived from the semiotics-friendly philosophy of Charles Peirce. The category-based nested form manifests the realness of triadic relations.
In the nested form, a normal context3 bring an actuality2 into relation with the possibility of ‘something’1. The subscripts refer to Peirce’s categories of thirdness, secondness and firstness.
Material actuality2 is real.
Immaterial normal contexts3 and potentials1 are also real.
But, don’t tell that to modern anthropologists.
As soon as the hear, they will become “postmodern”.
0036 When a human encounters an actuality, the human does not understand. The human can observe and measure the phenomena associated with the actuality. The human may model these observations and measurements. The human may discuss the model using well-defined disciplinary language. But, understanding is not modeling.
Understanding is a triadic relation. Modeling is a dyadic formulation.
0037 Understanding concerns the noumenon, the thing itself. Actuality2 demands a normal context3 and potential1. Figuring out the normal context3 and potential1 leads to understanding.
Humans evolve to understand. Modeling things is only part of understanding.
0001 Matthew B. Crawford, at University of Virginia’s Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, publishes an essay at the website, UnHerd, on May 21, 2022. The website is worth investigating. Crawford is worth reading.
0002 But, that is not my only motive for this sequence of blogs.
It turns out that well-organized writers provide excellent material for triadic diagrams. These blogs aim re-articulate Crawford’s argument, following the technique of association and implication. The method is the same as with the other blog this month, concerning Vigano’s speech on how Vatican II serves the agenda of the Great Reset crowd.
0003 The title of Crawford’s essay is displayed in the header. The subtitle reveals the nature of the endgame. Liberal individualism has an innate tendency towards authoritarianism. That tendency manifests as real behavior.
0004 What is the real behavior?
Italian Giorgio Agamben (b. 1942) captures its essence with the political philosophical… or is it theological?.. label, “state of exception”. During the past eighty years, emergency declarations become more and more the norm. An emergency declaration inaugurates a state of exception and provides cover for top-down programs of social transformation.
0005 What do emergency-justified “liberal” projects aim to accomplish?
The core of the “liberal” regime is both political and anthropological: to remake humans.So, the answer depends on the meaning of “make”.
Two key political philosophers articulate two visions.
0008 John Locke (1632-1704 AD) regards humans as self-governing creatures. Humans are endowed with reason. Commonsense allows us to rule ourselves. Democracy is the mode of government most suitable for reasonable citizens.
Liberals remake humans by changing their votes.
Locke’s position may be re-articulated as a nested form. A nested form? See A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
Here is the nested form. The normal context of human nature3 brings the actuality of commonsense2 into relation with the potential of a form of governance suited for self-governing people1. Democracy1 labels that potential1. Democracy1 is the potential of a state arising from self-governing people1.
Here is a diagram.
Figure 01
0009 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679 AD) claims that each human is vulnerable, especially in regards to other humans. Every person is vulnerable to the ambitions of other people. We need a state to protect us (from one another).
Liberals remake humans asking the government to protect them from harm.
Hobbes’s position may be re-articulated as a nested form.
The normal context of the state of nature3 brings the vulnerability of each person (especially with respect to other people)2 into relation with the possibility that the state will protect us (from ourselves)1. Hobbes has a label for a form of governance that manifests the potential of protecting us from one another. He calls it1 “leviathan”. Leviathan1 is the potential of a state capable of protecting us (from one another)1.
Here is a picture.
Figure 02
0010 From its inception, the liberal civic religion holds both Locke’s and Hobbes’s positions as a mysterious union. Of course, this union is filled with contradictions that cannot be resolved. But, that is the nature of mystery.
What is a mystery?The chapter on message, in Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, describes a relational structure corresponding to mystery. An intersection of two nested forms portrays a mystery.
0011 What is the relation between the following two nested forms?
Figure 03
Remember that democracy1 is the potential of a state arising from self-governing people1 and leviathan1 is the potential of a state capable of protecting us (from one another)1.
0012 Enlightenment liberals know that each nested form does not emerge from and situate the other.
The normal contexts are different. For example, the word, “nature”, in the two normal contexts, has different meanings, presences and messages.
Similarly, the potentials are different.
For example, the second amendment of the original American Constitution says that all citizens can own and carry guns.
On the one hand, any rational person has the right to defend “himself”, especially against those who would take “his” property (such as a zealous government official). That’s democratic.
On the other hand, a zealous government official may be commissioned to protect “vulnerable persons”. Vulnerable persons may be conditioned to fear people carrying guns. The self-acknowledged vulnerable folk may demand that the zealous government official take the guns (property) away from other citizens. That’s leviathan.
The Constitution rules in favor of democracy.
0013 So, how do the two nested forms relate to one another?
Enlightenment liberals know that both nested forms constitute a single, contradiction-ridden entity. I call this actuality2′, “the individual”.
Figure 04
The individual2′ is an actuality that is constituted by the intersection of two nested forms. The intersection binds two independent actualities. According to the masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, intersections associate to the message underlying the word. Intersections are mysteries.
0014 The construction may be also be portrayed in the following fashion.
Figure 05
Now, that looks like an intersection.
This diagram conveys the mystery underlying the liberal civic religion, which accompanies the spread of democracy in the modern Age of Ideas.
0015 Usually, an intersection serves as an actuality2 in a category-based nested form.
Here is a picture.
Figure 06
0016 But, according to the chapter on presence in the e-book, How To Define The Word “Religion”, the individual in communityA belongs to firstness in the following undifferentiated nested form. Each element in the figure below designates an interscope (a nested form composed of nested forms).
Figure 07
Yes, the mystery of liberalism2′ applies to the tier related to firstnessA. It2′ resonates with the actualities contained in the interscope for the individual in communityA. The comparison will be further developed, later.
0017 Since the liberal tradition is a civic religion, liberalism also belongs to the societyC tier.
The societyC tier contains two types of religion, ones above the sovereignbC (suprasovereigncC) and those below the sovereignbC (infrasovereignaC).
The three levels of the societyC tier are (from top to bottom) suprasovereigncC, sovereignbC and infrasovereignaC.
In comparison, for the individual in communityA tier, the three levels are judgmentcA, perceptions and phantasmsbA, and sensations, decodings, impressions and feelingsaA.
“Decodings” convert what someone speaks into a meaning, presence and message underlying the statement.
Figure 08
0018 I offer this comparison because liberalism is a religion on the societyC tier. Yet, a core mystery of liberalismcoincides with the virtual nested form, in the realm of actuality, for the individual in communityA tier.
So, allow me to juxtapose the virtual nested forms in the realm of actuality, for both the societyC and individual in communityA tiers.
Figure 09
0019 So, the question arises, “Is liberalism a suprasovereign or an infrasovereign religion?”
This answer is both. Liberalism consists of many different institutions3aC, striving to remake humanity1aC, according to diverse organizational objectives2cC. The variety of causes is enormous, from teaching people proper manners to ending human trafficking. These causes appeal to the commonsense2V and the awareness of vulnerability2H characterizing individuals2′.
Only fools have no commonsense2V. Only sociopaths have no awareness of vulnerability2H.
So all liberal institutions, appealing to anyone who is not a fool or a sociopath, share a relational object2cC, the mysterious intersection of Locke’s and Hobbes’s nested forms.
Furthermore, this relational object2cC, is an actuality that associates to the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality for the individual in communityA tier.
0020 Remember, the technical definitions of democracy1V(2cC) and leviathan1H(2cC) are:
Democracy1V(2cC) is the potential of self-governance or the potential of a state arising from the cooperation of self-governing people. Another way to describe this term is the potential of being sensible1V(2cc). Only fools are not reasonable.
Leviathan1H(2cC) is the potential of a state that will protect us (from one another). Another way to describe this term is the potential of feelings of security1H(2cc). Only sociopaths dismiss such feelings.
0021 We thought-align to the liberal objectrel2cC by applying commonsense2V and being aware of our vulnerabilities2H. In doing so, we embrace the technical definitions of both democracy1V(2cC) and leviathan1H(2cC).
Figure 11
0022 With this denkalignment in mind, Crawford raises the question (more or less), “How stable is the individual?”
0023 The individual2cC is the object that brings the modern nation state into relation. Liberalism stands at the heart of every legitimate nation-state.
Liberal policies operate in the arena of leviathan1V. These policies must gain the assent in a democracy1H.
Liberal agendas touch base with feelings of peace and security1V. Peace and security provide motives for adopting a particular policy. These agendas must be reasonable and sensible1H. They must not defy commonsense2V.
0024 For example, the liberal civil rights movement in the USA during the 1950s and 1960s demand that the leviathan (the courts) overturn discriminatory laws (“Jim Crow”) in southeastern states. Protests peacefully threaten civic order1H. The liberal civil-rights movement appeals to commonsense1V and Christian values.
0025 Christian values?
The concept of the individual is conceived within the womb of the Christian tradition. The Church gives birth to the individual. Through the sacraments, an individual can come into mystical union with the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah. The Church delivers a template for commonsense action and for peace of heart in the political realm. But, it cannot impose its template. The leviathan can.
The liberal civil rights movement says, “According to commonsense and Christian values, every person, even the descendants of slaves, are individuals (hence, citizens).”
0026 The liberal civil-rights movement also relies on legal warfare that challenges the so-called “Jim Crow Laws”, supports legislation to assure civil rights in federal jurisdictions and undermines apparently “unequal” separate educational institutions.
0027 The civil-rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s succeeds in implementing its organizational objective2aC and remakes humans, that is, re-orients individuals in communityA.
The concept of the individual, liberalism’s relational object2cC remains intact as individuals in communityA change alignment on the content, situation and perception levels.
Figure 12
Here is a liberal movement that successfully remade humans by changing individual hearts and minds.
0028 Unfortunately, the use of lawfare, short for “legal warfare”, during the civil-rights movement, calls the stability of the individual2cC into question.
Subsequent movements follow under the banner of “civil-rights”. None carry the same legitimacy. Each defies commonsense1V. The federal government gains in scope and power, promising to reduce the vulnerability of its citizens to a diverse range of threats, from industrial pollution, to financial distress, to systemic discrimination, to lack of “equity, and to more and more, until finally, to the sudden appearance of a novel coronavirus that can be “diagnosed” by a newly marketed polymerase chain reaction test (that, everyone learns later, also tests positive for influenza).
0029 The leviathan’s response to the last threat, according to Crawford, unravels the mystery.
The intersection unravels into a resolution, where one nested form emerges from (and situates) the other. A two-level interscope results. One nested form goes into the content level. The other occupies the situation level. The two-level interscope is discussed in A Primer on Sensible on Social Construction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0030 Say what?
To start, what would produce the conditions where a mystery resolves into a heresy?
The intersection2 is the union of two actualities2, so it2 should enter the slot for actuality2 in a nested form. So if the normal context3 shifts, then the internal dynamics of the actuality2 may change.
Crawford suggests that the recent political response to the novel coronavirus completes a historic transition, from modern liberalism3 to hypermodern (some would say, “postmodern”) technocratic progressivism3.
0031 Here is a picture.
Figure 13
0032 In liberalism3, the goal is to move the mystery2, in a spiritual sort of way, by exploiting democracy’s and leviathan’s abilities to remake humans1. Appeal to the people’s commonsense. Set limits to what is acceptable. Offer inspiration. Apply peer-pressure. Certainly, liberals think that they are smarter (or better, more enlightened) than other citizens. But, they respect the wisdom of tradition, particularly the Christian tradition. Indeed, liberalism3 seeks to practically implement the Christian vision in a fallen world, by calling the individual to be reasonable and by cajoling individuals to recognize their weaknesses.
0033 In technocratic progressivism3b the goal is to move vulnerable persons2b, in an efficient sort of way, by using the leviathan1b to situate the impulses of human nature3a. Insist that commonsense2a is defined by technocratic calculations1b. Frame every challenge as a fear-inducing crisis. Offer scientific and technical explanations, using terminology that confounds the literal meanings of words. Insist that alternate policies have dire consequences. Label the opposition, “malevolent”.
0034 The result is a new relational structure, “the unraveled individual”, which casts a shadow upon the originating mystery.
Figure 14
Vulnerable persons2b virtually emerge from (and situate) commonsense2a.A mystery unwinds into a heresy.
0035 A mystery resolves into a heresy. An intersection unravels into a two-level interscope. One nested form goes into the content level. The other nested form enters the situation level. Two configurations are possible. Typically, one predominates.
What is a heresy?
You tell me. The answer appears before you.
0036 In the heresy of technocratic progressivism3, leviathan1b virtually situates democracy1a.
What is leviathan1b?
Leviathan1b is the potential of a state that will protect us (from one another)1b. Another way to describe this term is the potential of feelings of security1b, in a world filled with sociopaths2a.
Figure 15
0037 The implication is that human nature3a coheres with purely calculated judgments2cA, dispassionate perceptions2bAand stoically accepted sensations and decodings2aA.
Such dedication to reason means that humans are basically sociopaths, unable to register the emotional reactions of others. There is no way that these sociopaths can govern themselves. Therefore, democracy1a, the potential of self-governance1a or the potential of a state arising from people being reasonable or sensible1a, must be virtually situated by a leviathan1b, underlying a state of nature3b.
Figure 16
Human nature3a is sociopathic3a.
The state of nature3b is a state of fear3b.
0038 Yes, the state of fear3b, which describes what the leviathan1b apparently aims to prevent, becomes the normal context favored by technocratic progressivism3, as it3brings the actuality of the unraveled individual2 into relation with the potential of ‘remaking humans’1.
0039 Surely, this does not makes sense. Yet, it is precisely what Crawford witnesses during the lockdowns.
Human nature2a is ruthlessly3b suppressed by sovereign acts and decrees from a department of the leviathan1b aiming to protect vulnerable people2b, on the basis of a threat to health from the state of nature3b. Lockdowns and mask requirements violate commonsense2a, yet anyone questioning the sovereign acts and decrees is regarded as a sociopath1a, who does not care about the health of vulnerable people2b.
I suppose that Crawford’s witness implies that the state of nature3b is a state of fear3b that, contrary to rational calculation3a, arises from the potential of a state that aims to promote feelings of security1band to provide both material and psychological safe harbor for vulnerable people2b.
Does that sound like lockdowns and stimulus checks?
