10/12/20

Comments on Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s Podcast (2020) “Myths, Monsters and Mysteries” (Part 5)

0026 Now, I want to offer an example. This example may take Father Longenecker by surprise. It is the story of Adam and Eve found in the early chapters of Genesis.

Many argue that the temptation of Eve is pure fantasy. It is pure essence. There is no esse_ce. Really, a talking serpent?

0027 Longnecker may speak of the essence, using Jungian psychology.

I will offer a picture of the esse_ce, using the evolution of talk, as opposed to the evolution of language.

0028 Two works shed light upon the esse_ce of this myth. One is a scientific proposal, The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace. The other is the dramatic fiction, An Archaeology of the Fall. The evolutionary backdrop for both is found in The Human Niche.

0029 What is the evolution of talk, in a nutshell?

Starting with the adaptation of walking, characteristic the genus, Australopithecus, the foot is enslaved and the hand is freed. The hand is free to gesture. Why gesture? Manual-brachial gestures convey intentions during team activities. Why engage in team activities? That is how a band of walking apes survives.

Homo habilis and erectus adapt to the opportiunity that manual-brachial gestures offer. Gestures convey intent (message), content (meaning) and role (presence) during team activities. The semiotic qualities of hand talk are iconic (images) and indexal (indicators). So, a referent defines the message, meaning and presence of its word-gesture.

Hand talk is crucial for team activities, such as gathering seasonal vegetables and hunting or scavenging game.

0030 On top of that, word-gestures should differ from one another, fitting Ferdinand de Saussure’s definition of languageas two related systems of differences, parole (manual-brachial gesture) and langue (particular sets of messages, meaning and presences).

0031 The domestication of fire allows hand talk to become a team activity in itself. Hand talk expands from team-activities to something more general (that is, conversation). A full fledged grammar develops, all in the milieu of hand talk.

The generalization of talk is very successful, expanding brain volume and group size.

0032 Humans evolve in social circles of increasing size. Larger circles have different dynamics than smaller circles. Bands are permanent. Bands gather in community. Communities are semi-permanent. Communities gather into mega-bands. Mega-bands are seasonal. Mega-bands gather into tribes. Tribes meet occasionally.

Adaptation to gatherings of the larger groups includes the use of the voice for social synchronization. When the tribe gathers, time is limited. Everyone must quickly get in sync. The voice comes under neural control for singing. The Neanderthal and the Denisovan most likely practice lingusitic hand talk and sing.

0033 With the speciation of anatomically modern humans, around 200,000 years ago, the voice is exapted for language. The voice joins hand talk. From the very start, Homo sapiens practices hand-speech talk.

Hand-speech talk lasts for hundreds of thousands of years, until…

Something weird happens.

0034 Slightly before 7800 years ago, one culture drops the hand talk component of hand-speech talk. The Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia forms when rising ocean waters fill the formerly dry-lands of the Persian Gulf, pushing a river and coast dwelling mesolithic culture into the same territory as a dry-land stock-breeding culture. The cultures meld, despite thier vastly different traditions. Their way of talking breaks down into pidgin. The resulting creole is unrelated to any family of languages. This creole is the Sumerian language. Sumerian is a linguistic isolate.

0035 The Ubaid culture is the first speech-alone talking culture. Speech-alone talk has very different semiotic qualities than hand-speech talk. Speech-alone talk cannot image or point to anything. So, the referent cannot define the word. Instead, message, meaning and presence is projected into the mind, as if there is a referent that is pictured or pointed to.

0036 Does that sound like the snake-like serpent talking to Eve?

The snake says speech-alone words and Eve projects message, meaning and presence into the forbidden fruit.

This is what we do in our current Lebenswelt of speech-alone talk. Such projection is not possible in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, of hand and hand-speech talk.

0037 Needless to say, this shift in the semiotic qualities of talk potentiates the formation of unconstrained social complexity, including civilization. Speech-alone talk spreads to the far corners of the Earth, on the wings of power and wealth, the fruits of unconstraind social and labor specialization.

0038 Yes, the key to the talking serpent is this: The serpent has no limbs. It cannot engage in hand talk. Therefore, it presents an image of the actualization of speech-alone talk.

How creepy is that?

The talking serpent is more real that anyone imagined.

The talking serpent is a clue to the esse_ce of the story of Adam and Eve.

0039 Fr. Dwight Longenecker is onto something. The stories of the Bible have esse_ce and essence.

Longenecker’s work on the infant narratives stands at the threshold of the use of both Jungian psychology and independent inquiry to address revelation. Real world events, like grains of sand, hide within Biblical stories, embodying pearls of revelation. In myth, esse_ce meets essence.

10/9/20

Comments on Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s Podcast (2020) “Myths, Monsters and Mysteries” (Part 6)

0040 The esse_ce and essence of myth coheres to the dyadic structure of Peirce’s secondness. It also expresses Aristotle’s hylomorphism.

The esse_ce of myth is an intimation of a real world event.

The essence of myth is explored with Jungian psychology.

These two approaches complement one another.

0041 What does this have to do with monsters?

Monsters appear in myths. And, we perceive them as monsters.

There are monsters in the content of myth. Then, our perception constructs thier monstrosities.

0042 On the content-level, the myth, a story told by a story-teller, is an actuality₂, emerging from the possibility of common attention₁, in the normal context of what is happening₃.

The following formula is introduced in A Primer on The Category Based Nested Form. In a normal context₃, an actuality₂ emerges from (and situates) the possibility of ‘something’₁. The subscripts refer to Peirce’s categories.

0043 Here is a picture.

A situation level emerges from (and situates) a content level, according to A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

Monsters appear as content in myths.

This content is then situated by the human imagination.

0044 A myth_2a is situated by possibilities inherent in the imagination_1b, giving rise to a phantasm_2b, in the normal context of what it means to me_3b.

The two-level interscope is typical for sensible construction.

0045 Each column produces a virtual relation.

The imagination_1b virtually emerges from (and situates) common attention_1a.

Phantasms_2b virtually emerge from (and situate) the telling of a myth_2a.

What does it mean to me_3b virtually emerges from (and situates) what is happening in the story_3a.

0046 Jungian psychology studies the ways that imagination_1b situates myth_1a. Imagination picks up on essence. Essence associates to form. More than that, essence goes with the filling in of a form (that is, [substance] form). The way that form is realized addresses the question, “What do the various features of the story mean to me_3b?”

But, the phantasm_2b is not pure fantasy. It is not solely essence. The imagination also brings experience into the picture. For this reason, the child perceives a myth as literally true and the adult senses that the myth is a mix of fact and fiction. The more experience one has, the more important the matter that goes into the story becomes. Or, should I say, “being”?

0047 Experience includes one’s own personal accounts. Experience includes one’s traditions. Experience includes encounters described in myth. Experience is both practical and theoretical.

Experience tells us that something real is going into the essence of the myth. The esse_ce may be taken to be literal (making the story a historical documentation) or figurative (making the story a fantasy) or any mix of the two (bringing us back to the continuum in the first blog).

There is a continuum between matter, which is material, and being, which is immaterial.

Both contribute to esse_ce.

0048 So, what is going on in one’s head when one encounters a myth?

The mind_3b constructs a phantasm_2b that appropriates the structure of Aristotle’s hylomorphism. Actuality is dyadic. A myth_2a is actual. So, the phantasm_2b uses imagination_1b to construct the same dyadic structure, but in a way that reveals the monstrosity_1b in monsters_2a.

0049 Here is a picture of what the phantasm constructs.

10/8/20

Comments on Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s Podcast (2020) “Myths, Monsters and Mysteries” (Part 7)

0050 The myth is hylomorphic. So is the phantasm_1b that the myth’s telling_1a inspires.

The hylomorphism of the myth_1a is some real event [hides within and gives rise to] a story.

The hylomporhism of the phantasm_2b is a configuration of matter and form by way of the imagination_1b. Matter or being (in Latin, ens) should substantiate the form.

0051 Here is how that looks.

0052 What does an independent corroboration of the stories of Adam and Eve accomplish?

It changes what is happening_3a by revealing an esse_ce that lends the story_2a a realness that we cannot ignore_1a.

To the modern, the stories of Adam and Eve are suppposed to be fairy tales. Adam and Eve are not supposed to serve as harbingers of civilization. They are not supposed to be weirdly consistent with a scientific hypothesis on the potentiation of unconstrained social complexity, that is, the first singularity. They are not supposed to be witnesses.

In light of the first singularity, the Genesis myth becomes counterintuitive to the modern imagination. It becomes monstrous. Essence without esse_ce can be ignored. Essence with esse_ce cannot.

0053 Strangely, this may be one of Lonenecker’s subtle contentions. As soon as one adds esse_ce to essence, a fantasy becomes more real than previously imagined. Myths may become monsters.

The same surprise works for the phantasm generated by the myth. The monstrosity of a monster comes from an unanticipated balance between esse_ce and essence.

0054 Premodern monsters have this character.

For example, the minotaur is a monster dwelling within the labyrinth of King Midas. The minotaur is half-bull and half-human. Its esse_ce is human. Its essence is a bull.

What a monster!

But, there is something natural to this monster, because it informs us of a familiar actuality, the matter of a human [substantiating] the essence of a bull. Here is a monster worth pondering. Where does the word, “bully”, come from?

Premodern monsters have an imbalance between esse_ce and essence.

0055 Moderns take this imbalance to the limit, making two radical discoveries. Both discoveries are built on one insight. We can lose touch with the contiguity between matter and form. We have discovered (indeed, even actualized) worlds without substance.

I label these two discoveries, the zeroth order of existence and form. I label then existence⁰ and form⁰.

This is how they work.

0056 Existence⁰ is esse_ce without substance.

Form⁰ is essence without substance.

Work serves as an example.

Humans are designed to work. Work gives people purpose and honor. Work goes with the essence of a civilized human.

So, what is work without humans?

What is pure work without substance?

May I mention the industrial revolution?

How modern can I get?

The modern era is full of monsters.

0057 Machines do work. Then, humans work machines. Sometimes, this takes great skill.

Now, with robots, humans get in the way. The robot is awarded the status of purpose and honor. Today, postmodern economists call the robots, “the fourth industrial revolution”. Make room for the pure existence⁰ of robots and the pure form⁰ of robotic work. Robots are not aware of what they are making. Robots do not know why they are working.

0058 Here is a picture.

0059 How does this play out in our phantasms?

Humans become less than human.

Consumers are a type of monster. We choose among flavors of peanut butter without knowing what a peanut is.

One may reply, “Robots manufacture things that consumers buy. So this is an essence.”

Here is an essence that denies humans the dignity of work, turning humans into things (that is, consumers).

Savor the word, “consumer”.

0060 A consumer dies, leaving an estate filled with manufactured momentos, icons of life as a consumer. This monstrosity must be dealt with. Maybe a robot can be designed to do the job. The sheer bulk of the consumer’s life weighs down the world. Imagine the cynicism required to build a robot that performs this work.

0061 The sequence of movies, titled “The Matrix” (1999), portrays a cyncial resolution to these two great philosophical discoveries. The human becomes (1) a battery that powers a machine world and (2) the one who accepts the illusionary works of the machine world. The matrix is the deception that allows humans to be used as batteries.

0062 Both the machine world and the matrix are monsters.

0063 In these movies, the hero’s journey gives substance to these twin monsters through a sacrifice. This is not any sacrifice. This is a human sacrifice. In doing so, the hero humanizes the two monsters. He provides substance, allowing the monsters to continue for another iteration.

If Rene Girard is correct, this plotline is as ancient as the most ancient civilizations. This plotline begins with the first singularity.

0064 Modern monsters are exemplars of things without substance.

Where does substance come from?All substance flows from God. God’s grace pours into the interstices between matter and form, body and soul, and a real event and its myth. Substance is the contiguity between being and form. God is foundation of substance.

10/7/20

Comments on Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s Podcast (2020) “Myths, Monsters and Mysteries” (Part 8)

0065 Now, I proceed from monsters to mysteries.

Many Jungian commentators of the Matrix movies say that the hero, named “Neo”, is a Christ-like figure.

Is the comparison appropriate?

If it is, then Jesus gives substance to twin monsters through a human sacrifice. In doing so, he humanizes them.

0066 What are the monsters?

The Roman empire is like the machine world.

The fixation of the Jewish law into ritual is like the matrix.

Here is a picture.

0067 Every monster is an actuality₂. Every monster is an ill-proportioned thing. Esse_ce and essence are out of balance. That tells us something. It produces phantasms that serve as warnings.

0068 Remember the minotaur?

Do you have some money to invest?

Most investors have met a minotaur. He is someone so bullish that it makes him dangerous. He survives in a labyrith of rules, conditions, and documentation filled with fine print. Once your money is in, it cannot come out of the investment. The financial minotaur is completely confident. He is fully capable of losing your investment.

0069 Longenecker may talk about monsters like the minotaur.

0070 Perhaps, he will talk about the most horrifying monstrosities. These monsters lack substance. Such is the case for the monsters of Roman power and Jewish ritual law.

Roman power is like esse_ce without substance. Rome serves the order that it imposes. Sure, Romans pay tribute to their gods. But, their gods did not order them to construct an empire. Roman power survives because trade flourishes under its rule. Romans place tariffs on trade. Romans rule foreign subjects and tax their wealth. Romans take slaves and sell them at their markets. How does this serve Jupiter?

Jewish ritual law is like essence without substance. Self-described scholars examine the Pentateuch for legal proscriptions. By the time of Christ, scholars accrue lists with hundreds of regulations. There is no way that a Jew could fulfill all these proscriptions correctly. Of course, wealth provides options. One can hire a scholar to manage one’s divine legalities for a reasonable fee.

That fee, of course, is unreasonable for the common person.

0071 Roman power is existential, existence⁰.

Jewish legalisms are formalisms, form⁰.

0072 Is there a relation between these two monsters?

At first, it seems that Roman rule_2b situates Jewish legalism_2a. Standard histories of first-century Palestine make this assumption. These histories try to establish what happened. They propose material and instrumental reasons for conditions and parameters.

In the context of modern history, the following sensible two-level interscope applies. The following configuration is one answer to the question, what does this mean to me_3b. That answer is proximate. It addresses the esse_ce, not the essenceof history.

0073 There are other answers. After all, history does not reduce to conditions and parameters. Is there an essence to history?

These are the answers – or perhaps, the questions – that Longenecker addresses.

In the context of what it ultimately means to me_3b, Roman law₂ does not situate Jewish legalism₂. One monster cannot honestly situate the other, because something is missing on a higher level. Rome does not have righteousness and Jerusalem cannot impose order. What brings them into relation?

0074 The passion of Christ, depicted in the four gospels, is masterful. It reads like a fantasy. It reads like a historical document. The four gospels embody and transcend myth.

Both Roman rule₂ and Jewish legalisms₂ play out in the contradiction-filled theological and political arenas of first century Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a provincial capital for Rome. Jerusalem is the center of message, meaning and presencefor the Jews.

0075 Two monsters occupy Jerusalem. Each accommodates and resists the other. Neither wants to see anyone like Jesus. Jesus appears to threaten Roman order. That is easy to accomplish. Gathering a crowd will do. Crowds intimidate the lion. Also, Jesus obviously undermines the letters of Jewish legalities. He upsets the sheep. He insists that the Jewish Law has a substance, a moral and theological vision.

0076 Monsters do not necessarily create mysteries. No, monsters are drawn into mysteries.

One way to appreciate how Jesus unites both Roman rule₂ and Jewish legalism₂ is found in a permutation of the previous diagram.

0077 In the life and passion of Jesus Christ, Roman rule₂ and Jewish legalism₂, one monster filled with esse_ce and the other full of essence, are drawn into a single actuality₂. For this moment in history, two monsters coalesce. This is the type of event that eventually leads to myths. It happens right before the eyes of the disciples.

0078 What is this single actuality₂?

If Roman rule₂ does not honestly situate Jewish legalism₂, or visa versa, then they cannot align. Their normal contexts₃are mutually exclusive. They may accommodate one another. But, in the encounter with Jesus, they coalesce, forming a single actuality that resists Jesus.

This is the way of theodrama₃. The essence of history is theodramatic.

The theodrama of power₃ appears independent of the theodrama of revelation₃. Until, of course, they are not. They are never independent in the eyes of God. They are never independent in the presence of God.

0079 Intersections are mysteries. Intersections are described in the chapter on message in How To Define the Word “Religion”.

Here is a picture of the intersection.

0080 Indeed, before the eyes of the disciples, Roman law₂ and Jewish legalism₂ coalesce into one intersection, one mystery.

What is the single actuality that labels this intersection?

The most appropriate label is the name of Jesus Christ, who rises from the dead to defy Roman rule₂ and who offers a pathway to the Father in defiance of Jewish legalism₂.

0081 In mythic terms, Jesus tames two monsters. The lion lies with the lamb. The power of the state and the legalism of religious institutions come into conflict, but that conflict is contained within the object that brings us all into relation, Jesus Christ.Without Jesus, two monsters are set loose upon the world.

10/6/20

Comments on Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s Podcast (2020) “Myths, Monsters and Mysteries” (Part 9)

0082 Longenecker introduces a podcast entitled “Myths, Monsters and Mysteries”. My guess is that he intends to proceed through these three topics using insights from Jungian psychology. This is good, but not complete.

Jungian psychology addresses essence. Longenecker may argue that if the essence is convincing, in terms of patterns of the human psyche, then esse_ce needs not be actual. He may argue this even though his previous independent research locates the magi, not as Persians, but as traders living between Persia and Israel.

0083 Myth has a hylomorphic structure, requiring attention to both esse_ce and essence. Without substance, the myth becomes a fantasy (pure essence) as opposed to a historical documentary (pure esse_ce).

0084 The doctrine of original sin rests on the esse_ce and essence of the Genesis stories of Adam and Eve, even though they are fairy tales.

Augustine paints Adam and Eve as the first humans.

The hypothesis of the first singularity pictures Adam and Eve as fairy tale figures that encapsulate the theodramatic appearance of the Ubaid culture. Speech-alone talk is realized and sets the Ubaid on an irreversible course towards unconstrained social complexity.

0085 In terms of mystery, a single actuality forms out of two. The Lebenswelt that we evolved in intersects with our current Lebenswelt.

0086 This intersection depicts the first singularity. Adam and Eve stand at this intersection. So does the esse_ce and essence of the doctrine of original sin.

The myth Adam and Eve is a fairy tale. As such, the metaphor of grain of sand [hides within and gives rise to] a pearlapplies. The oyster is the human mind. The oyster is also our world of unconstrained social complexity.

0087 In sum, the stories of Adam and Eve bring us to the beginning of our current Lebenswelt.

Ours is a world of mysteries.

Ours is a world of monsters.

Ours is a world of myths.

0088 A grain of sand hides within and gives rise to a pearl.

00892 The myth of Adam and Eve sets the stage for the two monsters that Jesus brings into one. Roman rule₂ is all about state power. State power maintains order₁. Jewish legalism₂ is all about the routinization of righteousness₁. Legalities₂confer righteousness in the eyes of God₁.

Jesus Christ stands as the single actuality₂ containing Roman rule₂ and Jewish legalism₂. This intersection serves as the starting point for all political theology. In Roman rule₂, the state does not serve the people. In Christian political theology, it does. In Jewish legalism, the deed does not stand for the intention₁. In Christian ethics, it does.

Jesus is the one who tames the two monsters of state and church. One without the other leads to catastrophe. Both without Jesus leads to devastating conflict.

0090 In sum, political theology transforms one of the mysteries of Jesus Christ into a hylomorphism, a thing to be discussed and explored.

Here is a picture.

0091 Myths are like pearls, expressing both esse_ce (being as existent) and essence.

Myths offer monsters to perceive.

Our perception of monsters allows us to appreciate imbalances between esse_ce and essence.

0075 The most horrifying monsters are articulated in the modern era. They are existence⁰ (esse_ce without substance) and form⁰ (essence without substance).

They are not confined to the modern era. Indeed, they have been here since the beginning. They include Roman rule₂and Jewish legalism₂.

The life and passion of Jesus Christ takes on the characteristics of myth. Jesus brings two historic monsters into a single actuality. Jesus both contains and transcends these monsters. Jesus serves as their intersection. All roads lead through Christ.

Political theology brings this mystery back into Aristotle’s hylomorphism. The mystery becomes a field of inquiry. That inquiry is called, “political theology”.

0076 This concludes my comments on Fr. Dwight Longnecker’s Podcast (2020) on myths, monsters and mysteries.The progression from myths to monsters to mysteries constitutes a profound insight that inspires these comments. My gratitude for Fr. Longnecker’s intiative.

09/9/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 1)

0001 Yoram Hazony publishes a six part opinion piece, concerning the relation between Enlightenment traditions and Marxism. on August 16, 2020, in the Quillette website (http://vlt.tc/41uo). The essay is eye-catching for its portrayal of the capture of liberal institutions by marxists (now, with a small “m”) during the past three-score years. Marx is back in a big way.

0002 In the prior blog, discussing the Be Little Men movement, two actualities come to the fore. The first is a slogan_2a, based on righteousness_1a, that addresses the mirror of the world_3a. The second is an organizational objective_2b, telling what the slogan means to the marxist_3b. This object^org_2b arises from the possibility of submission_1b. Submission_1bvirtually situates (and emerges from) marxist righteousness_1a.

0003 Here is a picture of the two-level interscope, composed of two nested forms, following the style in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

0004 According to Hazony, marxists have infiltrated American media companies, universities, government bureaucracies, courts, so-called profits, so-called non-profits and churches. Classical liberals have lost control of their own institutions. Classical liberals do not have the intellectual or spiritual resources to combat the threat.

09/8/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 2)

0005 How should I define the righteousness of the classical liberal?

The classical liberal entertains a perspective_c that occludes the foundational world of Christianity. The classical liberal extols_3c equality, freedom and fraternity_2c. These_2c are the means to human fulfillment_1c.

The American Bill of Rights declares life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Equality is the right to life and justice. Freedom is the liberty to make one’s own choices. Fraternity involves private property. One must own the possessions that one shares with family, friends, teammates and other social circles. Otherwise, one usurps.

0006 The classic liberal perspective-level nested form looks like this.

0007 Surely, this perspective_c level does not contextualize marxist content_a and situation_b levels.

Why?

Hazony speaks of two steps. In the first step, the Enlightenment covers up Christianity. In the second step, Marxism occludes the Enlightenment.

So, let me start at the first step.

Christian social virtues describe what God reveals about human sociality. Saint Paul discusses equality in his letters. Christ frees humans from the chains of original sin. The body of Christ, the Church, possesses an object that brings all into relation. Finally, all these actualities emerge from the potential that a human can attain eternal life with God, the ultimate fulfillment.

The Enlightenment makes these virtues immanent.

0008 What does this immanence entail?

How does the Enlightenment perspective play into situation and content levels?

0009 First, let me simply slide the normal contexts of the situation_b and content_a levels of the marxist sensible construction underneath the Enlightenment perspective_c level. Here is the resulting three-level interscope, a relational structure discussed in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

0010 Second, I fill in the blanks.

The content level actuality_2a turns extols_3c into a dream_2a, an object associating with an individual’s future, choices and companions. The individual’s dream_2a arises from talents and dispositions_1a.

What possibility_1b situates the individual’s dream_2a?

Of course, there must be opportunity_1b.

Then, with hard work and luck, one realizes_2b that dream_2a.

0011 This sounds so American. Here is the interscope.

0012 The French Enlightenment, on the other hand, rots as it ripens. Unlike eighteenth-century America, France is loaded with god-defying intellectuals, salon-attending little royals and cunning lawyers, who dream of running political affairs without the burden of king and church. They have talents and dispositions_1a toward promoting organizational objectives_2bbased on reason_1b. Reason_1b gives opportunity to righteousness_1a. As such, their dreams_2b,2a are tautological.

The Marxist frame, perceptively delineated by Hazony, develops in situ within French Enlightenment civilization. The sarcastic godless intellectuals, self-absorbed gossip-bearing little nobles and the reason-worshipping lawyers consider themselves to oppressed by the oppressors, king and church. King and church express a false consciousness. The system works for them, not everyone else, especially the discontented. Revolution will reconstitute society and the inherent ironies of the present regime will disappear.

0013 Here is a diagram.

09/7/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 3)

0014 Part 3 concerns the attractions and power of marxism.

The individual is attracted to classical liberalism.

The discontented are attracted to marxist (il)liberalism.

The current iteration of marxist religion is Big Government (il)Liberalism (BG(il)L).

0015 What do marxists have that liberals do not?

Here is a picture of the marxist’s sensible construction

0016 Where is the perspective level_c?

Is it too horrible to view?

The Enlightenment perspective-level actuality (equality, freedom and fraternity_2c) addresses three important aspects of human sociality in our current Lebenswelt.

0017 According to Marx, these are not sufficient.

What else is required?

First (A), people form cohesive classes or groups. May I call them, “institutions”? Second (B) these classes or groups invariably oppress and exploit one another, culminating in one (the state) enforcing order. Third (C), the state eventually functions as an instrument of the oppressing class.

0018 Weirdly, Marx’s insight is captured in the chapter on presence in the masterwork, How To Define The Word, “Religion”. The three elements appear in the institution (content) and sovereign (situation) levels of the society_C tier.

0019 In theory, Enlightenment liberalism achieves order_1b, while using the fewest official acts and decrees_2b. It cultivates personal commitments_2a to life (equality), liberty (freedom) and the pursuit of happiness (fraternity)_2c. Civic culture consists of various fraternal institutions_3a, some Christian (“religious”) and some not Christian (“not religious”)_1a, pursuing diverse objectives_2a.

Righteousness_1a does not arise from within Enlightenment liberalism. Rather, Enlightenment liberalism is conducive to a wide variety of inspirations. Liberal righteousness_1a demands that each individual pursues opportunities_1b offered by competing civic institutions_3a according to their talents and dispositions_1a.

0020 In contrast, the Marxist vision proposes that a number of otherwise civic institutions_3a (A) will pursue organizational objectives_2a (B) that require official acts and decrees_2b for their implementation_1b (C).

0021 Hazony offers examples.

Ideally, public education should be implemented through a general decree stating that all individuals over a certain age must pass a civic exam in order to gain citizenship. The exam would be offered by (not one but) a suite of competing voluntary institutions, each operating with transparency due to competition. Education may be subsidized by vouchers to parents.

In practice, modern education engages unionized teachers (A) who demand a monopoly over “public” instruction and examination, as well as a host of other organizational objectives (B), that require state enforcement through official decrees (C).

In sum, Big Government (il)Liberal education exemplifies the Marxist vision.

0022 Hazony offers other examples. But, the point is clear. Marxist righteousness_1a sensibly constructs organizational objectives_2b, that, on one hand, arise from directly from the potential of submission by a target (individuals or institutions)_1b, and, on the other hand, are virtually situated by official acts and decrees_2b in the sensible construction of society_C.

0023 One reason why Marxist ideas are so attractive is that they promote a righteousness_1a that both demands submission from others_1b and entangles sovereign power_3b.

The task of identifying like-minded individuals is relatively easy, since conservatives, Christians, nationalists and (above all) enlightened liberals espouse other styles of righteousness_1a. All institutions in a modern civic society are vulnerable to infiltration by marxists.

In sum, marxists can easily identify one another, selectively promote one another, and humiliate perceived competition within each institution. Those who are not marxist within each institution are increasingly expected to toe the party line and to promote entanglements with sovereign power.

0024 Amazingly, Enlightenment liberals find themselves dispossessed by the very institutions that they built.

Does this imply that the marxists hold a perspective-level actuality_2c that (if you will excuse the pun) trumps equality, freedom and fraternity_2c?

Hazony does not directly raise this question.

He does so, indirectly.

He discusses the flaws that make marxism fatal.

09/5/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 4)

0025 Hazony points to the obvious. Humans evolve in social circles where there are many relationships between a more powerful individual and a less powerful one, starting with mom, dad and their children. The organizational structure of this foundational institution is discussed in A Primer on the Family.

0026 The family starts in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. So, there is more.

We must add the unconstrained social and labor specializations that characterize our current Lebenswelt.

Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0027 The organizational structures of civilization_B is a topic worthy of consideration. The institution_aC and sovereign_bClevels of the society tier_C contextualize the organization tier_B. The organization tier_B encompasses production_aB, exchange_bB and assessment_cB. The organization tier_B emerges from (and situates) the individual in community_A.

Too bad inquiry into the organization tier_B is yet to be initiated.

Advancements are blocked by marxist theory, in its various guises. Marxist theory offers a “scientific” model that forecloses intellectual exploration of the organizations tier_B.

0028 The model goes like this:

The diverse relations between more powerful and less powerful individuals in the organization tier_B are equivalent to the relation between oppressors and oppressed.

The two are more than equivalent. They are contiguous.

0029 What does contiguity imply?

Peirce’s category of secondness consists of two contiguous real elements. The contiguity is not a real element, it is the substance that causally binds the two real elements. The marxist substance carries the character of equivalence, but that is not enough. Ask any marxist. The causality is systemic.

Anyone who disagrees speaks with what Jacques Lacan calls, the master’s discourse. Here is the oppressor.

Anyone who agrees speaks, to me_3b, in discourses that Lacan labels, hysteric (for some) and scientific (for others). For the most part, I find it hard to tell the difference. I suppose the label depends on the slogan_2a. Each slogan_2a addresses the one who asks what does this mean to me_3b.

“Me_3b” is a placeholder, virtually situating the person’s reflection_3b in the marxist mirror of the world_3a.

0030 Oppressed? Or oppressor? Find a location within the abundance of asymmetric relations contained within the organization tier_B.

Here is a diagram of the marxist interscope, as far as this discussion sees.

09/4/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 5)

0031 From the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion“, one finds that there are three tiers to the presence underlying the word, “religion”.

They are the society_C, organization_B and the individual in community_A.

The society tier_C puts the organization tier_B into perspective. The organization tier_B emerges from (and situates) the individual in community_A.

Each tier is diagrammed as a three-level interscope.

0032 So, let me talk business.

When an young individual in community_A enters the organization tier_B, by going to work, “he” engages a number of asymmetric relations.

How does a young person_A navigate these relations_B?

Obviously, the individual in community_A relies on what “he” has been taught.

0033 American classical liberals teach that the individual should have a dream_2a.

French classical liberals instruct the individual with tropes about equality, freedom and human brotherhood_2a. These expectations_2a encourage asymmetric business relations to be “win-win”.

Marxist (il)liberals indoctrinate slogans raising awareness of how asymmetric relations between individuals somehow cause (are contiguous with) systemic oppression_2a.

0034 Liberalism offers a dream. Marxism offers a nightmare. Choose your false consciousness.

0035 Hazony describes the pairing as a dance. In this dance, one party negates the other. Thus, the dance is more like the mating ritual between the male and the female praying mantis. The dance ends when liberalism gets devoured as food for the fertilized egg sacs of marxism. Afterwards, an all-consuming fecund marxism dies from her own contradictions, in the winter of her totalizing reign.

0036 Why do I say this?

Compare the perspective-level actualities_2c for American enlightenment and postmodern marxism.

0037 When the American enlightenment is reflected in the mirror of the world_3a, slogans_2a call for individuation_1b. The asymmetric relations characterizing the organization tier are depicted as opportunities and hazards for fashioning a dream_2a based on one’s talents and dispositions_1a. When confronted with oppressors, the individual should learn how to detect, avoid and escape. When confronted with mentors, the individual should figure ways to flourish.

0038 Indeed, in America, opportunities_1b for success are manifold, ask any movie actress_2b promoted by the notorious Harvey Winerock, who turns out to be a postmodern marxist_2a,b,c.

In contrast, millions of less-promoted actresses now live in movies of their own, the comedies and tragedies of life in the family_2aB, the traditional portal to the organization tier_B. For every one actress who reaches an accommodation_2b with Harvey, by playing through his disgusting game_1b, millions of women discover that the asymmetric relations inherent in the family realize_2b their dreams_2a.

Who should be teaching whom?

Surely, a Hollywood actress stands in asymmetric relation to innumerable mothers, among others.

So, what does she preach?

Marxist slogans_2a?

Why?

In order to attain her dream_2b, she is required to become so oppressed_2c that she cannot recognize herself as an oppressor_2c. She lives out the scientific truth of marxism_2c. She submits_1b and receives both rewards and marxist illumination_2b.

0039 Why are so many civic institutions of American liberalism now controlled by marxists?

The marxist perspective translates the asymmetric relations of the organization tier_B into the languages of oppressor and oppressed. Mirroring this perspective_2c, slogans_2a emerge from a righteousness_1a that demands submission of the oppressors_1b. One party in all asymmetric relations_B is already guilty of oppression_1a on the basis of participation in the system. That party cannot be the marxist, who represents the oppressed.

By definition, the oppressed_2c, such as Harvey Winerock and the Hollywood actress, are exempt because each is a marxist occupying a powerful position in a once civic, now marxist, institution. Each, in his and her own way, is a victim in an asymmetric relation with a more powerful individual.

For the actress, that more powerful individual is Harvey.

For Harvey, that more powerful individual is the one who bought his soul.