0023 Peirce’s categories label the number of elements. Thirdness has three elements. Secondness has two. Firstness has one.
0024 The three elements of thirdness are relation, actuality and potential. Each category is represented in thirdness. Thirdness exhibits the logics of exclusion, alignment and complement.
0025 The two elements of secondness are contiguous. One real element is contiguous with another real element. For nomenclature, I place the contiguity in brackets: one real element [contiguity] other real element. The contiguity has the character of substance, causality, embodiment, information and so forth. Secondness exhibits the logics of contradiction and noncontradiction.
0026 The one element of firstness can be really goofy. Imagine two frames. In one frame, the canvas is covered with the color gray. The other frame holds a painting of a park in Paris in the middle of summer. Both images belong to firstness.
Here is another way to imagine firstness. Picture a coin. One item has two faces. One can only observe one face at a time. Firstness exhibits logics that are inclusive and allow contradictions.
0027 Here is a picture of the nested form. The categories serve as subscripts.
Figure 07
0028 So, what do the covers for the primers, as well as the masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, portray?
Here is the pattern.
Figure 08
0029 Now, back to education.
I appeal to homeschoolers and private schools.
0030 How does one teach the ten primers as well as the masterwork?
The method is easy. Read and discuss. The text is marked with points. Step by step, both instructor and student can walk together and examine each point. Both will learn along the way.
Timing?
Each point takes one to three minutes.
An assessment of class time may be found in day 23 of this blog.
0031 The advantage?
Right now, so-called “public” schools teach the scientific facts of human evolution, according to a Darwinian picture of descent with modification. But, imagine that the facts constitute an actuality2 that will enter into a category-based nested form.
The following nested form results.
Figure 09
Indoctrination asks the student to recite the facts of human evolution2.
Education asks the student to consider the normal context3 and assess the potential1 underlying the facts2.
0033 The second primer covers sensible and social construction.
This primer is a little loopy, because, when sensible construction fails, social construction begins and when social construction ends, sensible construction begins once again.
0034 I proceed by way of example.
Today, in 2022 AD, all books on human evolution weave the fossil record into a seamless garment, starting around two million years ago and ending with paleolithic hunter-gathers.
A sequence of figures depict the actuality2 of descent with modification3.
Figure 10
0035 Descent with modification3a is situated by evolutionary science3b.
Here is a picture of a sensible construction.
Figure 11
0036 Clearly, a situation-level nested form emerges from (and situates) a content-level nested form.
Sensible construction is composed of content and situation levels, in a two-level relational structure.
Of course, some clever comedian adds more figures to the picture of human evolution painted by descent with modification.
The additional features raise a question.
Figure 12
0038 Comedians love to upset the narrative.
Clearly, the fat guy with a beer2a cannot be explained by evolutionary science3b with material and physical models2bbased on natural selection and genetics1b.
Neither can the hunch-back at the computer.
Sensible construction fails.
Figure 13
0039 When sensible construction fails, social construction begins.
A social construction appears within a nested form on the perspective level of a three-level interscope. A three-level interscope is a nested form composed of nested forms.
Figure 14
0040 Well, of course, the guy with the beer does not descend with modification from the guy with a spear. The two guys occupy different living worlds (or, in German, Lebenswelts). The guy with a beer belongs to our current Lebenswelt. The guy with the spear belongs to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Does this sound vaguely familiar?
Recall that actuality2 represents a dyad composed of two contiguous real elements. Actuality2 looks like this:
one real element [contiguity] other real element
Correspondingly the perspective-level actuality looks like this:
the Lebenswelt that we evolved in [first singularity] our current Lebenswelt2c
0041 Notice that elements of the perspective level are really empty slots.
0042 What is the potential1c?
A perspective-level potential1c virtually brings the potential of natural selection and genetics1b into relation with the potential of both archaeology and history1a.
The potential1c is triadic relations. Triadic relations include signs, mediations, judgments, normal contexts and category-based nested forms. The human niche is the potential of triadic relations1c.
0043 What is the normal context3c?
The normal context3c is not clear. Whatever it3c is, it3c puts evolutionary science3b into perspective, even as evolutionary science3b emerges from and situates the potential of Darwin’s foundational principle of descent with modification3a.
I do not think that the perspective-level normal context3c rules out theology.
If I look back at the original comedy, where the guy with a spear “evolves” into the guy with a beer, I see an intimation of a theocomedy, the humorous counterpoint to our great theodrama.
Human evolution comes with a twist.
0044 Here is a picture of the beginning of a new age of sensible construction.
A nested form is composed a three elements. The subscripts for each element are 1, 2 and 3.
An interscope is composed of three nested forms. The subscripts for each level are a, b and c.
A three-tiered relational structure is composed of three interscopes. The subscripts for each tier are A, B and C.
0046 In some specialized social circles, a three-tiered relational structure is called a “cake”.
Unfortunately, the term, “cake”, applied to the three-tiered relational structure, sounds half-baked.
0047 The individual in communityA is the first tier of this grand relational structure.
The discussion starts with a nested form, as depicted below.
Figure 16
0048 This nested form comes from theology.
A theological question gets raised, “What happens when a person dies?”
A theological answer is provided.
0049 Then, a three-level interscope for the individual in community is constructed by expanding each element of the “partially differentiated” nested form into a “fully differentiated” interscope.
Here is a comparison of the elements of the less differentiated nested form and the virtual nested form in the realm of normal context for the more differentiated interscope.
Figure 17
0050 The normal contexts are key psychological questions.
0056 The fourth primer introduces the organization tier.
The organizationB tier occupies the slot for actuality in a primal nested form.
The individual in communityA tier occupies the slot for possibility.
An unnamed upperC tier labels the slot for normal context.
Figure 20
0057 Why is the upperC tier not named?
Of course, the thirdC tier has a label.
But, as soon as a label occupies the slot for normal context, the actuality of the organizationB tier gets turned. The current term is “spin”. For example, corporate media “spins” the “narrative”, into which organizationB-tier actualities appear to fit.
The issue of “spin” presents a great challenge for the disciplines of economics and sociology, which aim to scientifically study the phenomena of organizations. Academics are tempted to judge the organizationB tier, as if the thing itselfB could be ethically evaluated.
0058 Take a look at the nested form for the organizationB tier.
Assessment3B brings transactions2B into relation with the potential of ‘people working together’1B.
What do these words mean?
Every term tells a story.
Consequently, each element in the partially differentiated relational structure expands into a nested form, resulting in a three-level interscope.
Figure 21
OrganizationB is not differentiated.
The nested form of assessment3B, exchange2B and ‘working together’1B is partially differentiated.
The interscope with the levels of assessmentcB, exchangebB and ‘working together’aB is fully differentiated.
0058 How can an inquirer appreciate the three-levels of the organizationB tier?
Three metaphors encourage an intuitive grasp of these levels. The family, the team and the tribe are social structures that belong to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. We innately anticipate these three social circles.
0059 But, there is a problem.
Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, all social circles work in harmony. Intimates (5), family (5), teams (15), band (50), community (150), mega-band (500) and tribe (1500) co-evolve with humans. Indeed, society, organization and individual in community are not differentiated. Culture and nature co-evolve. So, our innate appreciation of the organizationB tier assists inquiry only so much.
0060 The inquirer must also find examples of the organizationB tier in our current Lebenswelt.
In the fourth primer I consider two historical examples and one pair of historical traumas.
0063 The fifth primer of the organizationB tier wrestles with two interscopes. The content-level becomes the corporation interscope. The remaining situation and perspective levels remain nested forms.
Perhaps, one day, these, too, will differentiate into interscopes.
0064 For the moment, I want to focus on the contenta and the situationb levels of organizationB tier.
Recall that a three-level interscope associates with social construction and a two-level interscope goes with sensible construction. In the former, the perspective-level actuality serves as a social construction. In the latter, the situation-level actuality operates as a sensible construction.
0065 Yes, both types of construction are in play. The corporationaB, the content level of the organizationB tier, is sensibly situated by the situation level, exchangebB. But, the contentaB level is a three-level interscope.
So, the perspective levelc of the content-levelaB interscope has the same relational structure as social construction. And, the situationb level of the organizationB tier manifests the relational structure of sensible construction.
0066 Here is a picture.
Figure 25
0067 In sum, exchangebB associates with sensible construction and the perspectivec level of the corporationaB associates with social construction.
0068 So I ask, “How does the marketbB virtually situate the managementc level of a corporationaB?”
0069 Consider biology. The body is the actuality2 in the perspectivec level of the corporationaB interscope. What actuality2bB virtually situates the body2caB? Encountering the world2bB does.
Figure 26
0070 How sensible is that?
0071 What happens when my body2caB encounters the world2bB?
Well, I see, hear, smell, touch and maybe, taste the world. Also, I have feelings about those sensations. The medieval scholastics have a word for this combination of sensations and feelings. The Latin term is species impressa. Say the word like you are ordering it in an Italian restaurant.
Does the term sound vaguely familiar?
What if I say that an impression is a dyadic actuality: active body [substantiates] sensate soul?
Does that help?
0072 Does the same relational structure apply to a commercial enterprise?
Here is a picture.
Figure 27
0073 Well, I suppose that a bakery business2caB is like a body2caB, even though I never thought that I am running my body like a business. It seems that my body2caB runs itself.
Also, I never imagined that a customer buying a loaf of bread2bB is how a bakery encounters the world2bB. At the same time, I can see that the relational structure is similar. Sensible construction applies, until something goes wrong.
0074 What an unanticipated way to enter the discipline of economics.
Encounters with the world2bB are certainly causal. They occur in the realm of actuality. So do purchases of loaves of bread2bB.
Since the realm of actuality corresponds to the category of secondness and since secondness consists in two contiguous real elements, I may ask, “What are the real elements involved?”
0075 Well, it depends on the question (that is, the normal context).
Okay, the question is, “Why does this exchange occur?”
Well, the baker wants to sell the bread. I call the bread, “a quality product”.
Plus, the customer wants to buy the bread. I call the willingness, “demand”.
These two realnesses are somehow contiguous.
Figure 28
0076 What is the contiguity?
Price?
Price is not a thing. It is the contiguity between a willingness to sell and a willingness to buy. As such, price is substantial. Price is a site of contention.
The Second Primer on the Organization Tier introduces economic concepts, such as quality and demand. It does so without naming the upperC tier.
0077 The organizationB tier, like the individual in communityA tier, is a noumenon, a thing itself, whose phenomena are subject to scientific inquiry. Phenomena are the observable and measurable facets of a noumenon.
What does this imply?
Science investigates phenomena. A noumenon cannot be reduced to its phenomena. So, scientific inquiry cannot elucidate the noumenal features of either the organizationB or the personA.
In contrast, the category-based nested form can.
0078 How so?
Economics can measure and observe prices and build models and discuss these models using its disciplinary language.
But, economics cannot objectify the thing itself.
Price is the contiguity between two real motivations.
In order to understand price, one must inquire about these motivations.
0079 Thus, at this juncture, I implore the reader to consider teaching these primers, as well as the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”. The method is read and discuss.
0080 This course is a wonderful way to introduce your children and your students to the difference between science and understanding. Search for the keywords, Razie Mah, series, How To Define The Word “Religion”.
0081 The sixth primer introduces the content level of the societyC tier.
Prior to primer six, the family appears twice as a metaphor for the organizationB tier.
In primer four, the family associates to the entire organizationB tier.
In primer five, the proper familyaB associates to the contenta level of the organizationB tier.
0082 The family as a corporationaB expands into an interscope. The provider associates to managementcaB. The nurturer goes with productionbaB. The child matches serviceaaB. ManagementcaB, productionbaB and serviceaaB go with a corporationaB. ProvidercaB, nurturerbaB and childrenaaB go with the family as a proper organizationaB.
0083 Like the corporation, the familyorgaB is founded on an accommodation, which I call “the marriage deal”. The marriage deal3aB is more than the feelings, perceptions and judgments of individuals in communityA. It3aB is the normal context of human pair-bonding1aB. Human pair-bonding is evolutionarily ancient. So, we are innately prepared to recognize the marriage deal3aB whenever we encounter it3aB.
0084 What does this imply?
The family associates to all three tiers of the presence underlying the word, “religion”.
Figure 30
0085 Once again, the family participates in three associations.
0086 Familyinst3aC goes with the contenta level of the societyC tier, also called “the institution level”. An institutionaC is not the same as an organizationB or a corporationaB, even though they may appear to be the same. An institutionaC puts the organizationB into perspective. It is the difference between a mission statement and an organization chart.
0087 FamilyB, the family as an organization, associates to the entire organizationB interscope.
Here is a picture.
Figure 31
The ancient Greek word for “household”, “oikos“, is the root word for today’s term, “economy”.
0088 FamilyorgaB, the family as corporation, associates to the content level of the organization interscope.
The marriage deal3aaB stands as the normal context3 of the content levela of the corporationaB interscope.
0089 What possibility1aaB underlies the marriage deal3aaB?
The potential of the male-female pair bond1aaB does.
