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.