0128 Millerman’s essay would make Leo Strauss proud.
Millerman’s argument is exoteric. Strauss and Dugin share an interest in Heidegger. That is not the only feature that they have in common. Therefore, a Straussian should not dismiss Dugin’s political philosophy out of hand.
0129 The centerpiece turns out to be a translation, by Millerman, of a list of what needs to be done, according to Dugin, in order to establish the possibility of a Russian philosophy.
0130 The three tasks involve…
…dismantling Russian archeomodernity. Ironically, for Americans and western Europeans, the task is precisely the opposite. For western Europe, the archeomodern groove is a receptor. For Russia, the archeomodern groove is a trap.
…correctly comprehending the West. Ironically, the West may not be comprehending itself. The modern West is all about science. But, what is science? Is science a purely relational structure composed of the Positivist’s and empirio-schematic judgments? Plus, is there something vulnerable within this relational structure? Does phenomenology exploit that vulnerability? Does Heidegger’s Sein correspond to the noumenon? What happens to the West if noumena take on lives of their own?
….elaborating a philosophy of chaos. The narod harbors cautionary wisdom that is ignored by modern political movements, who imitate the practices of the empirio-schematic judgment. Chaos is not necessarily the absence of order. Chaos may be the order that cannot be situated by sovereign power.
0131 The placement of Millerman’s translation, along with its surprising content, offers an esoteric message.
0132 All the blogs for February 2023 at www.raziemah.com examine selected chapters from Michael Millerman’s book (2022) Inside “Putin’s Brain”: The Political Philosophy of Alexander Dugin. Millerman has been studying Dugin’s works for over a decade. If there is to be a truly philosophical underpinning to Eurasianism, then Dugin begins the quest.
As for this reviewer, my first endeavor to read Dugin, Comments on Alexander Dugin (2012) Fourth Political Theory, may be found at smashwords and other e-book venues. I ask the question, “If I were to say what Dugin is saying, using triadic relations, then how would that work?” The answer intrigues.
Obviously, I am not interested in whatever box the literati of modern political philosophy want to put Dugin in. I am interested in the purely relational structures that Dugin reveals.
0133 So far, I reviewed chapters two and six. In this blog, I will briefly touch on chapter nine. Well, less that that. I see a Greimas square in the seventh section of chapter nine. Its title is “Theologico-Political Implications”.
In this section, Millerman hones down on the difference between the Heideggerian Left (HL) and Heideggerian Right (HR) in regards to the theological-political issue of the returning of the religious and the receding of the secular.
0134 Recall, Dugin’s formulation of “the people” associates to the following Greimas square.
Figure 01
0135 A is the focal term, “the people”. What is the political expression of the people? In America, the Declaration of Independence starts with “we, the people”. So the answer is involved. Suffice to say that, until recently, the political expression is the democratically elected representative. Until recently? Mailing out unsolicited ballots is unconstitutional. It makes me wonder, what do modern intellectuals mean when they say the word, “democracy”.
B contrasts with A. Here, the three political theories (of liberalism (1), communism (3), fascism (2) and big government (il)liberalism (1, again)) model phenomena of a prepolitical world in terms of the individual (1, 1-again), class membership (3) and citizenship and noncitizenship (2).
C contradicts B and implicates A. Dugin uses the Russian word, “narod”, for prepolitical people that various schools of modern political philosophy regard as noumenon. The people (A) are political. The narod (C) is the people before being objectified by explicit political theories. For me, the narod (C) is humanity in our current Lebenswelt.
D contrasts with C, contradicts A and implicates B. Dugin uses the Russian word, “ethnos“. The narod (C) comes out of the ethnos (D) and cannot return. To me, the ethnos (D) is us in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Our current Lebenswelt (narod (C)) is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in (ethnos (D)). The hypothesis of the fist singularity contributes an evolutionary dimension that complements Dugin’s theologico-political analysis.
0136 Dugin is an example of the Heideggerian Right (HR). HR philosophers are few in number and for good reason. They are considered to be the enemies of the Heideggerian Left (HL), who want to co-opt Heidegger for their theological-political convictions.
Millerman poses this question (more or less), “How does the HL view the theological-political issue of receding secularism and returning religiosity?”
0137 Here is how I associate the discussion to the Greimas square.
Figure 02
0138 According to the HL, A, democracy is under threat because…
0139 …B, democracy must be secular.
Even though secular is an adjective and democracy is a noun and therefore B contrasts with A, secular is a necessary qualifier. A democracy cannot be a democracy unless it is secular. Hence, when HL-friendly pundits on public-private partner television say the word, “democracy”, they actually mean “secular democracy”.
0140 C contradicts B and complements A. C is religious. Non-secular means religious, just as secular means “not religious”. But, this too is wordplay, since religions are not “non-secular”, they are believers in an ultimate foundation, D. However, from the HL Greimas square, C is nonsecular.
At this point, secular institutions take on a scientific glow. The secular (B) use theoretical disciplinary languages to model observations and measurements of social phenomena. Naturally, these models end up defining the options available for ballots in… um… a democracy (A). Thus, the ultimate foundation (D) complements the secular (B) because it (D) does not exist.
0141 D contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B. Already, I know how D complements B. The fact that an ultimate foundation fills the slot for (D) yet does not exist, according to HL, reveals the nature of the way the ultimate foundation (D) is itsown lacking.
Surely, this sounds like a contradiction in terms. But, that is the way HL rolls.
There is no God. There is no ethnos. The possibility that these statements (D) are wrong contradict (A), “democracy”, which, according to HL, must be godless (B). If these statements are incorrect, then the political system would not be a “democracy”, but a “theocracy”.
0142 Okay, HL is into wordplay.
The Heideggerian Right takes the Heideggerian Left’s wordplay at face value, producing the following remake of the HL Greimas square.
Figure 03
0143 As before, A, the focal word, is “democracy”.
0144 B contrasts with A, in the way that an adjective contrasts with a noun. The secret handshake allows HL pundits to indicate a secular democracy when they use the word, “democracy”, and use the word, “theocracy”, when religious folk take to the ballot box.
0145 C contradicts B because the word, “radical” (C), means “rooted”, and “secular” (B) means not religious. This implies that the radical (C) adheres to emptiness (D) with the same conviction that the religious, er… non-secular (C) adheres to an ultimate foundation (D). No wonder the radical (C) strives to eradicate the ontological and theological facets (phenomena) of the narod. The radical (C) creates conditions where other social phenomena (such as the individual, class membership, the roles of citizen and noncitizen) can be observed and measured by modern scientifically minded theoreticians (B).
0146 Emptiness (D) entails the absence of (1) an ultimate foundation encompassing both God and humans, (2) the ethnos, (3) what we evolved to be and (4) the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
D contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B.
Emptiness (D) contrasts with radical (C) because it (C) is rooted in ‘something’ (however ephemeral, such as an act of will).
Emptiness (D) contradicts democracy (A) because the implementation of secular policies (B) reveals the root (C) to be a pure act of will, rather than a product of say… philosophical inquiry.
Emptiness (D) complements the secular (B) because the secular knows that its politics will undermine whatever traditions that they are rooted in (C).
0147 In sum, the HL diagram celebrates democracy (A) and the secular (B) while denying the religious (C) and the possibility of an ultimate foundation (D). The HR view of the HL diagram positively labels the negative attitude towards religion as “radical” (C) and the denial of an ultimate foundation (D) as “emptiness”.
0148 To me, the Greimas square for the HL and for what the HR thinks of the HL’s views must be regarded as funny. Perhaps, hilarious.
How so?
The ethnos is where our sense of humor evolves. The narod is where people formulate jokes. The secular is where people lose their sense of humor . Democracy is where the comedy of the humorless plays out on the world stage.
0149 I do not know whether Heidegger’s “fourfold” or “das Geviert” can be re-articulated as a Greimas square. It might be worth trying. Perhaps, use of the Greimas square will allow the HL to take themselves less seriously and the HR to chuckle under their beards. The problem, of course, is that Dugin is no longer laughing, because the ones who take themselves seriously have designated him, not as a philosopher, but as a threat.
Pray for the soul of Alexander Dugin’s daughter.
0150 My thanks to Millerman for his excellent book. Please check out the Millerman School and dugin.com.
0001 Daniel Estulin holds a notable resume. He is a doctor of conceptual intelligence and a foreign policy advisor to sovereign states in Latin America and Eurasia. He has authored many books, and hosted a Spanish language TV show on RT (formerly, Russia Today). The subtitle of the book is “Tectonic Processes of Global Transformation”.
This look is a teaser for a more extensive examination, Comments on Daniel Estulin’s Book (2021) “2045 Global Projects At War”, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0002 Estulin formulates the concept of global project and applies it to a number of civilizations, nations and international cabals. His approach is intuitive and relies on his considerable experience and knowledge. Estulin’s book is not structured in a manner that the reader learns a particular technique. Consequently, the above-mentioned comments add value. Perhaps, there is a method to Estulin’s approach.
0003 Certainly, the concept of global project is valuable, especially when applied, by Estulin, to the world in the present day. Estulin is so well informed that he exercises the concept without trouble. Does he want the rest of us to wield this tool without his years of experience, trials and reflection?
I don’t know.
0003 All I know is that humans tend to think in the ways of purely relational structures, often without realizing that fact. So, I read Estulin’s text with two purely relational structures in mind, the Greimas square and the category-based nested form.
I start with a Greimas square and focus on the key word of “capitalism”. A quick introduction to the Greimas square may be found in the other blog for this month (at www.raziemah.com for January 2023).
0004 Here is the result.
Figure 01
0005 The four elements are clarified by the following statements.
A is the focal term. A is also the social head. A goes with economics.
B contrasts with A. B is also the social body. B goes with politics.
C contradicts B and complements A. C is capital. Capital goes with information, intelligence and conspiracy system. Anyone who gets an investment newsletter appreciates this. The stuff of investment letters scale up when considering prices, markets and monetary policies. C is what the social head fixates on. C functions as a mind-independent being. C is what the social head thinks about.
D contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B. D is communion. Communion (D) is the object that brings us together. Communion (D) is not a mind-independent being, even though it appears to be. It (D) is mind-dependent, in the same way that a stomach and lungs are mind dependent. We don’t just want to eat or breath. We want to eat and breathe well. Communion (D) is aesthetic, while economics (A), politics (B) and conspiracy system (C) are calculating.
0006 After the prior discussion, here is another diagram of Estulin’s Greimas square.
0007 This Greimas square spawns three nested forms, each with a triadic normal context, a dyadic actuality corresponding to matter and form, and a monadic potential. (See A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).
I skip all the steps of development. These are in the commentary.
Here is the first of three permutations.
0008 The normal context is economics (A)3. Economics (A) associates to the social mind and to capitalism.
The actuality consists of two contiguous real elements, in the same fashion as matter2m [contiguity] form2f. Here, politics (B)2m serves as matter. Conspiracy system (C)2f goes with form. The contiguity is [ministers].
The actuality is politics(B)2m [ministers to] conspiracy system (C)2f.
Politics (B)2m associates to the social body, communism and the idea that the state governs the social body.
Conspiracy system (C)2f associates to capital, information and intelligence.
0009 For example, for two global projects, the British (and formerly American) and the New Babylon (currently American), the conspiracy system (C)2f takes the form of money and usury. For the British, money is a precious metal. For the New Babylon, money is fiat currency.
0010 For both the British and the New Babylon global projects, communionA (D)1 can be described by a idealized image of Renaissance Venice.
The triadic normal context of economics (A)3 brings the dyadic actuality of politics (B)2m[ministering to] usury and fiat currency (C)2f into relation with the monadic image of ‘Renaissance Venice (D)‘1.
0011 Of course, the Venice of today is a reliquary of the so-called Renaissance. Plus, it is slowly sinking. Soon enough, it will be underwater, not unlike the central banks of the New Babylon global project. Can the Midases of the New Babylon global project stop the tide?
In the normal context of politics (B)3, the actuality of conspiracy system (C)2m[contiguity] economics (A)2f emerges from (and situates) the potential of communionB (D)1.
0013 Not to be hasty, but here is the application for the New Babylon global project.
0014 Well, this does not look good for any place whose image recounts Edinburgh, in the British industrial heartland. Or, should I say, “rustbelt”?
Usury and fiat currency are all about concentrating ownership (A)2f in the hands of an interest-collecting few (C)2m, in the normal context of politics (B)3.
For example, financial speculators (C)2m [makes present] the asset stripping of America’s industrial heartland (A)2f.
Remember what Cain Capital did to Abel Industries?
The normal context of capital (C)3 brings the dyadic contiguity of economics (A)2mas matter and politics (B)2fas forminto relation with the possibilities inherent in communionC (D)1.
0016 Perhaps, you can guess where this is going for the New Babylon global project.
0017 The City of London is at once a capitol and a hub for capital. It is like an alchemic mix of Washington D.C. and New York City.
Plus, I have to admit, no one does the politics of compromise (B)2f better than the British. By that, I mean politics (B)2fconducted by people who are compromised (A)2m in the normal context of usury and money (C)3.
0018 What politician is not compromised in the British and New Babylon global projects?
Consider the cost of broadcasting a 20 second television ad containing a ruthless ad hominem attack on some opposing candidate for the office that one holds.
It costs a fortune.
An economic system (A)2mfixated on usury and fiat currency provides the funds. And, they expect a return on their investment. They do not want to spend their hard-churned money foolishly. The politician represents the financial capitalists, not the people.
0019 It even makes me wonder, what does the word, “people”, really mean?
0020 So, consider the cities imaged by the global project of the New Babylon. Say “yes” to Renaissance Venice. Say “no” to Edinburgh, ship those jobs overseas and repackage the assets. Say “hello” to the City of London, full of intrigue, secret societies and corruption.
0021 Unfortunately, New Babylon is at war with other global projects.
In order to appreciate the drama, one must read Estulin’s own words.
0022 Nevertheless, Razie Mah’s e-work, Comments on Daniel Estulin’s Book (2021) 2045 Global Projects at War, available at smashwords and other e-book venues, adds value by providing a technique that students and educators may find beneficial.
Each global project contains all three permutations, arranged into an interscope. An interscope is like a three layer cake. The layers are content, situation and perspective. P1, P2 and P3 combine into three different interscopes. These interscopes associate to global projects.
0023 This examination is only a teaser for both Estulin’s book and the corresponding commentary by Razie Mah.
The New Babylon global project is one among many. Estulin covers almost a dozen.
So, one must be selective.
Razie Mah’s commentary develops diagrams for the global project of China.
0024 For all who are interested in the dynamics of global projects, Estulin’s book is a good place to start. Mah’s comments offer a comprehensible technique to apply. The latter complements the former. I encourage intellects to play with Estulin’s approach and Mah’s diagrams.
0025 Alex Jones, bubbalatory founder of the InfoWars website, is currently hounded by deep-state legal-predators. He was recently fined an unimaginable number of dollars to pay for the psychological damage that he apparently inflicted as a bombastic, yet entertaining, provocateur who speaks fiction to fact. Or, is it fact to fiction?
Does fact or fiction matter? If Jones had been a provocateur for the established revolutionary spirits, there would have been no repercussions. Take a look at Steve Colbert and Keith Olbermann, who serve as provocateurs for the diverse monocultures of big government (il)liberalism.
0026 What does matter?
Or, should I ask, “What does not matter?”
At the same time that Jones is fined a grave sum, the actual murderer, who caused the plaintiffs’ real trauma, gets sentenced to life in prison, rather than execution. Perhaps, the second judge should have fined the murderer the same package that the first judge levied on Jones. Which is worse, life in prison or permanent penury?
After all, the event itself is as horrible as questioning the realness of an event.
Is it not?
0027 Of course, it is, to some.
The scholastics of the Latin Age debate this question for around 500 years (roughly, from 1100 to 1600 AD). There are two kinds of beings: ens reale (mind-independent being) and ens rationis (mind-dependent being). The terms are Latin. Speak them with an Italian or French or Spanish accent. The Latin term, “ens” is translated as “being”.
What is “being”?
Being has presence, just like things. But, things are grounded in the material and being includes the immaterial as well as the material. A being may be a purely relational structure.
0028 So, what of the crime that Alex Jones contested?
Clearly, the event of the crime is ens reale.
Also, the skeptical questions that Alex Jones raises are ens rationis.
0029 Ens reale is not the same as ens rationis.
This poses a difficulty for those schoolmen.
0030 Fast forward to the previous century, where a literature-oriented structuralist, Algirdas Julien Greimas (1917-1992 AD), adds a twist. He proposes that a spoken word (or term) generates a purely relational field of contrasting and contradicting elements, according to a particular style. The result is the Greimas square, pictured below.
Figure 01
0031 Here is how the Greimas square works (more or less).
A is the item in focus.
B contrasts with A.
C speaks against (or contradicts) B and complements (or implicates) A.
D contrasts with C, contradicts A and implicates B.
0032 Now, I associate these slots to the scholastic business about mind-independent (A) and mind-dependent (B) being.
Figure 02
0033 Well, I already can see why medieval academic debates take so many bizarre turns. The Greimas square has two items that are not labeled.
Not labeled?
Look and see.
I suspect that experts on those scholastic debates can provide the appropriate Latin terms.
0034 Today, I offer labels for C and D.
An illusion (C) is a mind-independent being that is regarded as mind-dependent.
For example, a ten-dollar bill is a mind-independent being that is regarded as a mind-dependent tool for purchasing something. Here is an illusion that functions on a day to day basis.
A delusion (D) is a mind-dependent being that is regarded as mind-independent.
For example, confidence in the value of a ten-dollarbill is a mind-dependent being that is regarded as mind-independent. Inflation erodes confidence.
0035 Does the Greimas square apply to Jones’s legal conundrum?
Here is a diagram of the updated scholastic debate.
Figure 03
0036 Here are my associations.
A is a real heinous crime.
B is Alex Jones questioning the veracity or “realness” of the event, especially corporate media’s reporting of the event.
C is the fact that the murderer is sentenced to life in prison, rather than the death penalty.
Say what?
The real perpetrator gets life in prison, because he is crazy. His psychological conditions are the mind-independent beings that are responsible for the mind-dependent crime. So, the real criminal is a puppet of a mind-independent being, called “psychological conditions”.
D is a judge fining Jones many many many dollars for the psychological distress of those effected by the crime.
Here, Jones’s mind-dependent questions are regarded as mind-independent causes of the psychological distress of those effected by the crime.
Figure 04
0037 Hmmm. I used all the clues I have. But, this square does not make a lot of sense.
Each association technically fits the rules established in the prior blog.
Still, I cannot quite grasp the idea that the psychological damage inflicted by Alex Jones is anything equivalent to the real damage inflicted by the perpetrator on those effected by the crime. Unless, Jones’s questioning (B) derails an alternate mind-dependent being (B’) that would have evoked an illusion (C’) supporting a very expensive delusion (D’).
0038 Now, that sounds more like it.
If Jones thwarts an alternate Greimas square, then the foiled conspirators take vengeance using the cloak of an implausible legal theory. The questions and concerns of Jones (B) are mind-dependent beings that point to the psychological conditions of the perpetrator of the actual crime (C). Yet, the mild sentence (of life in prison, as opposed to execution) show that the justice system does not regard the criminal responsible for the real crime. Rather, psychological conditions account for the criminal act (C) and the criminal is not really responsible for the heinous crime (C). Jones’s questions (B) actually point in this direction, as well as to other possible conditions.
However, Jones’s questions stand in the way of promoting the one who is really responsible for the crime (C’).
We all know who is really responsible. Don’t we?
0039 The implausible legal theory (D) separates the crime itself from its psychological damages.
In the minds of those effected by the heinous crime, Jones is legally responsible for the psychological consequences of a crime that he did not commit (D).
Or something like that. I am not a lawyer. So, who knows what I am talking about?
Oh, I suppose that I am talking about a conspiracy theory.
Don’t worry. My speculations are purely theoretical. I am merely examining the various implications of associating particular aspects of Jones’s legal drama to the Greimas square.
