0124 The ninth primer concerns classical political philosophy.
What do classical philosophers talk about?
Well for one (1), they ask people for their opinions and for two (2), they try to figure out what is really going on,concerning the topic of opinion.
0125 The first (1) involves a strange game, concerning the difference between sensible and social constructions. Most people regard their opinions as sensible constructions, in the same way that they regard their spoken words as real.
A spoken word labels an artifact that validates the… um… spoken word. So, opinions are sensible in so far as artifacts validate them.
0126 That is where the second (2) comes on stage. What happens when artifacts no longer validate their words? Or, even more unsettling, what happens when the origin of opinions is social, rather than sensible construction?
Where have I heard that idea before?
0127 Now, I want to discuss one small section of the ninth primer, in order to explore a referral from classical political philosophy back to the distinction between sensible and social construction in the second primer.
0128 Here is a general picture of social construction.
Figure 39
0129 Note the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality.
A perspective-level socially constructed reference2c brings the actuality of a bewildering experience2b into relation with a content-level originating reference2a.
I shorten this nested form into a coherent whole with the label, “a reference2c constructed3b on a reference2a“.
Here, the term, “constructed3b“, points to the failure of sensible construction and the triggering of social construction.
Also, the entire label has the character of secondness, the realm of actuality, when social construction really has the character of thirdness, the realm of triadic relations.
Unwittingly, my label changes categories.
0130 In the next blog, I will apply this pattern to one of my cherished opinions.
0133 A perspective-level socially constructed reference2c brings the actuality of a bewildering experience2b into relation with a content-level originating reference2a.
The normal context of the nectar of the gods2c virtually brings the actuality of intoxication2b into relation with a glass or two (or three?) of wine2a.
0134 My label, reference2c constructed2b on a reference2a, turns the bewildering experience of intoxication into a contiguity between the perspective-level naming of “the nectar of gods” and the content-level encounter with wine.
Figure 41
0135 When I say, “Wine is the nectar of the gods.”, the verb, “is”, actually points to the bewildering experience of intoxication.
But, look up the definition of “is” in a leather-bound dictionary. “Bewildering experience of intoxication” is not listed as one of the definitions of “is”, except in so far as the intoxication is a state of being.
0136 So, what happens when I meet my philosophical friends and state my opinion?
The conversants assume that I am making a statement subject to sensible construction.
Figure 42
0137 What does one of my philosopher friends reply?
“How can wine be the nectar of the gods?”
Yes, the logic of secondness includes the laws of contradiction and noncontradiction.
0140 Well, “intoxicating” is not the only term that may be applied to A Primer on Classical Political Philosophy.
Another phrase is sobering. It says, “The sovereign will not be denied.”
The classical philosopher replies, “The glitter of your crown pales in comparison to the constellation of virtues shining above your head.”
Is that reply philosophy? Or poetry?
0141 The tenth primer returns to a world where the suprasovereign level of the society tier is occluded.
0142 Classical political philosophers are always caught in the middle.
The middle of what?
The middle of two opposing factions.
0143 What happens when a suprasovereign religion3cC harbors the single point of agreement between two opposing factions2cC?
For classical philosophers, the object that brings all into relation2cC consists of a constellation of virtues2cC.
For opposing factions in a divided society, the object that brings all into relation2cC brings everyone into conflict. After all, what is everyone fighting over? No one can say? Well, perhaps, the single point of agreement is that the other party is wrong.
0144 There are no grounds for reconciliation. So, each contesting party3aC demands sovereign power3bC in order to achieve its organizational objectives2aC, which is based on the conviction that the other party is wrong1aC.
Of course, two movements at each other’s throats2aC gives the sovereign3bC plenty of room for asserting legal authority2bC.
0145 Here is a picture.
Figure 43
The sovereign3bC is in charge of maintaining order1bC.
But, sovereign acts and decrees2bCmerely maintain the fight between competing institutions3aC.
The sovereign gains more and more authority by satisfying no one.
0146 Indeed, a sovereign3bC capable of accommodating two opposing camps, keeping the conflict roaring, does not need to look up and see a constellation of virtues in the heavens above. Rather, accommodation encourages a lack of virtue among the opposing factions3aC. The two antagonistic righteousnesses1aC may boil over into chaos1bC.
0147 Oh, chaos1bC increases the demand for sovereign power3bC.
So, sovereign power3bC stokes the flames without realizing that chaos1bC can also destroy the reigning order1bC.
0148 Can a sovereign3bC keep a lid on two opposing factions3aC and, in the process, continually gain legal authority2bC?
Or, does another dynamic enter into the play?
0149 Enter the classical political philosopher.
Like Socrates, the classical political philosopher is a journalist. Not the propaganda variety of journalist. But, the curious variety.
0150 In this instance, the classical political philosopher asks people their opinions and notes that they fall into two camps. One camp calls members of the second camp, “evil”. The second camp labels members of the first camp, “stupid”.
Why?
The first camp3aC has a rhetorical excuse for the unintended consequences of their organizational objectives2aC. They cover up their policy failures by blaming the second camp, who acknowledges the unintended consequences (of the first camp) and say that they are no good.
The second camp3aC learns to ignore rhetorical abuse1aC (by the first camp) and attempts to protect itself from the material consequences of the first’s implemented policies2aC.
Like Aristotle, the classical political philosopher in an anthropologist, who observes the organizationalB realities associated to each camp3aC, then reaches the conclusion that the opposed parties3aC agree to a single assumption2cC.
Plus, that assumption is wrong.
0151 The assumption is not that the second camp is evil because it says that unintended consequences2aC are bad, and therefore (according to the first camp) the second camp must be responsible for awareness that the unintended consequences are bad.
The assumption is not that the first camp is stupid because it blames the unintended consequences of their policies on the second camp.
The assumption is that… aargh!
Both parties are attacking the poor political philosopher!
0152 Christian humanist, Rene Girard, identifies this dynamic. He studies the literature of many civilizations. Stories portray the dynamics of mimetic contagion over and over again. Mimetic contagion is found in every period of every civilization. Mimetic contagion is a property of our current Lebenswelt.
What is another word for this dynamic?
Scapegoating.
0153 Scapegoating occurs when the reigning order1bC gets into trouble. Scapegoating preserves a unity residing above the reigning order1cC. Scapegoating renews the object that brings us all into relation… er… conflict2cC.
The object that brings all into relation2cC is really an object that brings us all into conflict2cC. That is why the actuality2of the perspectivec level of the societyC tier is occluded. No one can say what it2cC is.
Until God intervenes and reveals the truth.
0154 The Father sends His Son into the world, in order to establish a kingdom, above the sovereign. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit2cC bring all into relation. God does not bring all into conflict. Rather, the Son2cC reveals of the dynamic of mimetic contagion, itself.
0155 In the movie business, the previous blogs would be called “trailers” or “teasers”.
They assure the reticent adult that the material of the course is not only interesting, but also accessible. There are no trained instructors in this field of inquiry. There are only fellow travelers. Or, maybe, I should say, there are adults who may be motivated to serve as fellow travelers for their children and other students.
0156 Now, I want to get technical.
Suppose that you walk with your students.
At what pace?
For middle-school students, maybe 20 points in an hour.
For high-school students, around 30 points in an hour.
For college students, say, 40 points an hour.
How long would the course take?
0157 Here is the breakdown for the first five primers.
Figure 44
0158 Here is the breakdown for the second five primers.
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.
