0236 So, what is for the Positivist’s judgment belongs to the category of firstness (the realm of possibility) because phenomena have the potential to be observed and measured and their noumenon has the potential of being the thing responsible for the phenomena. 

What ought to be for the Positivist’s judgment belongs to the category of secondness (the realm of actuality).

0237 Triumphalist scientists propose to substitute a successful model for the noumenon because the substitution increases the potential that there is something real that is responsible for the phenomena.  Indeed, to a laboratory scientist, the model (overlaying the noumenon) is objectified by its phenomena.  Yes, the model is more “real” than its noumenon.

0238 The biosemioticians Sharov and Tonnessen propose to substitute their noumenal overlay, with similar results.  Phenomena objectify their noumenal overlay.

0239 Notice how the noumenal overlay has a dyadic structure.  Since the dyad characterizes the category of secondnessand since secondness is the realm of actuality, the dyadic structure increases the feeling that the the noumenal overlay is actual.  Indeed, the dyad is so actual that Kant’s slogan seems to apply.  This overlay has the feel that it is more than what it appears to be.

This is precisely what Sharov and Tonnessen claim.  Their noumenal overlay is what all noumena in the biological sciences have in common.  If the diverse noumena of the biological sciences (like the leaves on a tree) have one thing in common, it is the biosemiotic noumenal overlay (like the tree that bears the leaves).

0240 This includes the noumenon of the psychometric sciences.

Or, I should say, this applies to the model that the psychometric sciences aim to substitute for Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay.

After all, their model is a simplification of the S&T noumenal overlay.

0241 Science is about the search for truth.

This is the case for biosemiotics.

Science also is about empowering the human will.

This is the case for the psychometric sciences.

The human intellect₃ contextualizes the potential of the human will₁.  Does this normal context₃ and potential₁ describe human reason?  What actuality₂ does human reason_3,1 support?  How about what I think [is manifested by] what I say₂.

This nested form allows me to imagine that the above dyad may serve as a content-level actuality₂.

0242 Here is a picture.

0243 The content-level nested form belongs to the scrappy player.  The scrappy player will be situated by experts.  The experts provide opportunities for the one who relativizes all the jurisdictions of the experts.  I call the perspective level normal context, “the relativist one_3c“.

0244 The full three-level interscope is developed in Looking at Steve Fuller’s Book (2020) “A Player’s Guide To the Post-Truth Condition”, appearing in Razie Mah’s blog for July 2024, as well as in Part I of the e-book, Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0245 Ah, does that mean that the psychometric sciences are implicated in the current post-truth condition?

You bet.

The next move is to construct an expert level that situates the scrappy player.

0246 Note how what I say_2a has been modified to phenomena_2a available to postmodern expert_1b.  Experts_3bformalize_1b phenomena_2a in the process of constructing psychometric models of value_2b.  Various disciplinary languages_3b (relation, thirdness) are used in turning the phenomena of what people say_2a (what is, firstness) into observations and measurements_1b suitable to modeling as value_2b (what ought to be, secondness).

These disciplinary languages derive from capitalist and socialist ideologies, reformatted to sound like the natural and the social sciences.

Yes, capitalist and socialist theorists learn to speak in the style of the empirio-schematic judgment.  These advocatessound like natural scientists and they define their academic turf as “scientific”.  Perhaps, it is only make believe.  But, the empirio-normative judgment_2c takes it to be real_1c.

Compare the expert level with the empirio-schematic judgment, unfolded into a situation-level nested form.

Indeed, the comparison is fecund.  Both capitalist and socialist theorists speak the same style of scientific disciplinary discourse.  No wonder that the proposed models_2b never really make sense to the scrappy player_3a.  Capitalism_3b and socialism_3b come from different theoretical possibilities_1b.

0247 What do capitalist and socialist ideologies_3b have in common?

During the Third Battle among the Enlightenment Gods, the Cold War among Materialist Ideologies, capitalism and socialism fight over the same noumenon, the thing itself that can be modeled as value.  Now, in the Fourth Battle with the Enlightenment Gods, Empirio-Normative Domination of Subject Populations, capitalist and socialist theorists unite in the production of value_2b.  They do so in the imitation of natural science.  And, that is what they have in common.

0248 Here is the interscope for the post-truth condition.

Take a look at the above figure and see whether you can identify what the noumenon must be.

Yes, the noumenon must be what I think_2a.

0249 In the following figure, the noumenon is in red.

Its phenomena appear in green.

The resulting models appear in light blue.

0250 This raises a question, “How does a system, where experts_3b situate scrappy players_3a, substitute expert-determined values_2b for the noumenon_2a?”  

Sharov and Tonnessen answer in the first sentence of the abstract for chapter two of Semiotic Agency.  Signs are semiotic tools.

In this instance, a sign-vehicle residing on the perspective level (SV_i) stands for a content-level sign-object (SO_i) in regards to a content-level sign-interpretant (SI_i).

Specifically, a system-generated empirio-normative judgment_2c (SV_i) stands for what I think_2a (SO_i) in regards to my (the scrappy player’s) intellect_3a operating on my will_1a (SI_i).

0251 Here is a picture.

0251 What does this imply?

Well, a system-generated empirio-normative judgment_2c (SV_i) influences my reason_3a,1a (SI_i) in such a fashion as to impact my wishes, my habits and my choices_2a (SO_i).

I may not even realize that the interventional sign-relation is being used by some agent_3c on the perspective level,taking the opportunity_1c to project_2c an expert-fashioned psychometric value_2b my way.  I encounter the interventional sign-vehicle_2c (SV_i) without realizing that it is a semiotic tool, aiming to trigger my intellect_3a and my will_1a (SI_i) in such a way as to alter what I think_2a (SO_i).

0252 How crazy is that?

But, that is not the implication that I am looking for.

The implication is this: What I think_2a is a noumenon.  The empirio-normative judgement_2c aims to influence my intellect_3a and will_1a in order to alter my wishes, habits and choices_2a.  So, the dyad, choice [habit] wish, is a model that the perspective-level judgment_2c tries to lay over what I think_2a.

0253 The dyad, choice [habit] wish is a simplification of Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay.  Its simplicity adds to its plausibility.  If I make a habit of treating my wishes as if they are my choices, the the model successfully substitutes for what I think_2a.

And, what I say_2a serves as phenomena for the psychometric sciences to observe and measure.

0254 Clearly, the psychometric sciences use the interventional sign-relation as a tool.

Biosemiotics says that signs are tools.

0255 One science accounts for the other.

In the process, two features of science come to consciousness.

The psychometric sciences represent the tendency of science to manipulate and control the subject of inquiry.

Reason_3a,1a is the normal context of the intellect_3a operating on the will_1a.

Biosemiotics represents the tendency of science to pursue the truth.

Reason_3a,1a is the normal context of the intellect_3a seeking the truth_1a.