0695 I recap.

Here are two key word comparisons between the scrappy player_a and the expert_b in regards to the post-truth condition.

0696 “Success” and “value” are crucial terms.

But, since they are spoken words, they are actualities₂ within the normal context of definition₃ that arise from the potential of meaning, presence and message₁.  The nature of spoken words is one of the central concerns of Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

Clearly the scrappy player and the expert imbue the same two words with very different meanings, presences and messages.  The words sound exactly the same.  Each word may be spoken as if they have the same meaning, presence and message.  But, the potentials are not the same.  The technical definition of words like “success” and “value” benefits the expert and confounds the scrappy player.

Propaganda constitutes a war of words.

0697 Here a picture of the interscope of the post-truth condition.

0698 On the scrappy player level, the normal context of the intellect_3a brings the dyad, what I think [cannot be objectified as] what I say_2a, into relation with the potential of the will_1a.  The question has been raised.  Whose reason_3a,1a is involved in any application of the post-truth interscope?

On the expert level, disciplinary-language based expertise_3b brings the actuality of psychometric models of value_2b into relation with the potential of ‘formalized knowledge’_1b.

On the relativist one level, the normal context of the one of scientism_3c brings the actuality of an empirio-normative judgment_2c into relation with a perspective-level opportunity_1c to contextualize value_2b.

0699 Here is an example of an application.

An assistant professor_3b writes a grant_2b, proposing research that will validate a particular valuation_2b composed of financial transactions_2H that will satisfy certain organizational objectives_2V.  This grant has the opportunity_1c to occupy what ought to be for an empirio-normative judgment_2c because it is apparently intelligible (after all, the grant is written by an expert).

0700 But, why would a federal agency_3c fund the grant?

Perhaps, they_3c have a hidden agenda_1c to promote the universality of the particular political topic_2c.  They want people to encounter the topic_2a.  Plus, the research_2b does not directly reveal the hidden agenda_2c of promoting a topic that favors certain financial transactions_2H and objects^org_2V.  If the research_2b promotes the certification of more experts_3b that will write more grants_1c in this particular academic field, then why not? The agency_3c wants the grant_2c to operate as an interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) that will impact the way people reason_3a,1a and influence what they think_2a and what they are willing to say_2a.  What the granting agency_3c wants_1c serves as what is for the empirio-normative judgment_2c.  The relation then becomes rewarding a grant using taxpayer’s money.

0701 Success_2c is defined as a federal agency funding the proposed grant (that is, the execution of an empirio-normative judgment).

0702 For the scrappy player, formalized knowledge_1b includes the why and how of performing specialized and productive tasks.  The psychometric expert_3b, in contrast, regards formalized knowledge_1b, as the observation and measurement_1b of social phenomena_2a, in regards to a very narrow spectrum of opinion.

Narrow spectrum?

Yes, in the instance of the funded grant, what people say_2a becomes phenomena_2a when it pertains to what would correspond to the sign-object (SO_i) and sign-interpretant (SI_i) of an interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) impacting and influencing the scrappy player level.

0703 On the scrappy player level, what the player regards as “my” intellect_3a brings the actuality of what I think [and] what I am willing to say_2a into relation with the possibilities inherent in “my” will_1a.  In the post-truth interscope, “reason_3a,1a” is characterized as “the intellect_3a contextualizing the will_1a“.  “My” becomes “ours”.

0704 Plus, as depicted above, an SV_i can impose an SO_i and impact a person’s SI_i, simply by staging an event_2a (here, a questionnaire_2a) that produces the possibility of ‘something’ happening_1a in the normal context of what is happening_3a(corresponding to the content level of the scholastic interscope of how humans think).

0705 This leads to a question that is the topic of chapter ten.