08/12/24

Looking at Vivek Ramaswamy’s Book (2021) “Woke, Inc.” (Part 18 of 20)

0467 Today, the same type of mysterious persona as the moon man speaks of winds moving across political and economic grids.

Yes, I am talking about the Forum for Universal Contemporary Knowledge and Unified Practices.

0468 Yes, I am talking about the “stakeholder”.

The stakeholder (SVi) stands for the Forum’s actualities [manifesting as] advisory decrees (SOi) concerning future global challenges such as the constellation of the fourth industrial revolution (SIi).

0469 What is happening3a?

The fourth industrial revolution.

What is the ‘something’ that resides in the potential1a underlying the fourth industrial revolution3a?

Future global challenges1a!

0470 This is not the world that Ramaswamy grows up in.  And yet, it is.

The Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods begins soon after Vivek is born.  The Forum has already transformed the very identity that Ramaswamy thinks he has.

What is that identity?

Ramaswamy is an individual.  And, individuals tell their own stories.

The individual2c (SVi) stands for the realness of what I think [manifesting as] what I say2a (SOi) in regard to the reader’s intellect3a operating on the reader’s sense of reality1a (SIi).

0471 In chapter two, Ramaswamy tells how he became a capitalist.

To an expert3b, capitalism2b is all about markets3H, value2H and price1H.

To the individual that is Vivek, capitalism2b is about getting ahead2a.  Capitalism is about creativity, fashioning new products that people want (and occasionally, need), manufacturing products safely and without too much in terms of third party effects, working on a team, coming together as a community and lots of work!  Plenty of things to do.  So, one must prioritize one’s time and efforts.

0472 Value for the capitalist is more than products that produce profits.

The corporation has a mission.

0473 I believe the Forum3aC warned about this type of nonsense.

The “capitalism” of “stakeholder capitalism” is not the same as the “capitalism” that arises from individuals pursuing their self-interest.  Success2c is not the same as “getting ahead2a“.  Success2c is finding a path towards all stakeholders getting ahead, especially the experts3b who represent the… um… people who are not willing to say what they think.

The experts3b represent the people who are not willing to say what they think, because if they thought what the experts would have them think, then they could easily say what needed to be recorded as phenomena2a for the observations and measurments1b required for expert psychometric formulations2b.  Psychometric models of value2b sustain opportunities1cfor the one of scientism3c to engage in empirio-normative judgments2c, which constitutes “success2c” by acting as a sign-vehicle (SVi) for an interventional sign-relation.

0474 Once again, here is a picture of the post-truth interscope for the enlightenment god that seeks to dominate by signaling to all stakeholders, as the stakeholder of stakeholders3aC, “The Forum’s normative judgment2c (SVi) stands for what I must think2a [in order to have my thoughts objectified as] what I say2a (SOi).

0475 Individuals may regard this as lunacy.

But, here is where the money is.

08/10/24

Looking at Vivek Ramaswamy’s Book (2021) “Woke, Inc.” (Part 19 of 20)

0476 Chapter one is titled, “The Goldman Rule”.

At first, I thought, “He can’t be talking about a gold man.”

Or maybe, he refers to a god man.

0477 The title calls to mind some ancient civilization, who has a king, blessed by a god with a particular trait.  Everything that he touches turns to gold.  Such a story is easy to debunk as scientifically impossible.

But, one lesson, “He who has the gold makes the rules.”, is not so easy to refute, and leads to an awkward corollary, “He who makes the rules gets the gold.”

0478 The same type of circularity is on display at the heart of the psychometric sciences.

He who controls the financial exchanges2H, makes the organizational objectives2V.

He who makes the organizational objectives2V, will get to control financial exchange2H.

0479 By the way, have you heard about the value2b of central-bank digital currency?

Just asking.

0480 Through the hybridization of capitalist and socialist expertise, reformatted into an image of empirio-schematic science, the market3H can manifest the potential of righteousness1V, not directly, but indirectly, through value2b. Similarly, sovereign power can potentiate order1V capable of nudging prices1H, not directly, but indirectly, through value2b.

That means that the capitalist gold man and the socialist god man find opportunity1c in modeling values2b that lead to actionable judgments2c for the one of scientism3c.

0481 Here is a picture of an empirio-normative judgment.

The specialized disciplinary languages of experts on capitalism and socialism (relation, thirdness) brings a normative narrative, exhibiting the intelligibility of value from the psychometric sciences (what ought to be, secondness), into relation with observations of a universality in what people say, corresponding to phenomena salient to the psychometric sciences (what is, firstness).

0482 Two crucial qualifiers are depicted in red.

The psychometric model, the normative narrative, and what ought to be need to exhibit intelligibility.  Since this element is imbued with secondness, it should be intelligible enough to enter the slot for actuality2 when the actionable judgmentunfolds into a category-based nested form.  Intelligibility must seem real.

Observations and measurements of phenomena of what people say, corresponding to what is, need to seem universal,rather than biased, selective or conjured out of thin air.  No scientist would dare say, “I made up the phenomena that I observed and measured.”  Contemporary marketers and journalists take note.  You are experts in the psychometric sciences.  You cannot make up what people are saying in order to show that your models of value2b are supported by data.

0483 For the scientismist one3c, the empirio-normative judgment2c offers the opportunity1c to broadcast an interventional sign-vehicle (SVi) to be received by a sign-interpretant consisting of the reason3a,1a of people on the scrappy-player level (SIi).

0484 The resulting interventional sign-object (SOi) is what people think [that may or may not be objectified as] what people are willing to say.  Individuals say what they think.  Stakeholders say what they feel that they are being told to think.

0485 This brings me to the introduction of Ramaswamy’s book.

In the very first statement, Vivek Ramaswamy proclaims himself to be a traitor to his class.

What does this mean?

0486 Ramaswamy is an individual.  Individuals stand before God.

His class are stakeholders.  Stakeholders objectify the interventional sign-vehicles broadcast by the Forum for Universal Contemporary Knowledge and Unified Practices.  Stakeholders stand before the dominating deity of the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods and proclaim, “We submit!”

08/9/24

Looking at Vivek Ramaswamy’s Book (2021) “Woke, Inc.” (Part 20 of 20)

0487 Here is a picture of the interscope for the post-truth condition.

0488 In the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods: Empirio-Normative Domination of Citizen Populations (1989-present), the scientismist one3c endeavors to first, bring a judgment2c into relation with the potential of an opportunity1c.

In this judgment, the disciplinary languages of the psychometric sciences (relation, thirdness) brings a normative narrative, expressing real intelligibility (what ought to be, secondness), into relation with something universal in what people say (what is, firstness).

Second, this judgment2c may serve as an interventional sign-vehicle (SVi) triggering people’s reason3a,1a (SIi) and creating a dyad where what I think coincides with the broadcast normative narrative [and is objectified as] what I am willing to say (SOi).

0489 Submission to the one of scientism takes the same character as when triumphalist science situates empirio-schematic research by placing a model over its noumenon, as discussed in Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2024) (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues) as well as Razie Mah’s blogs in April, May and June 2024.

Here is a comparison.

0490 The interscope for the post-truth condition allows the inquirer to step back from the conditions of submission, in order to explore the nature of the Woke World War.  The actuality of the scrappy player, who is yet to submit, but cannot ignore the broadcasts, perfectly mimics a thing that is the ‘what is’ of the Positivist’s judgment.  That is to say, the scrappy player is the subject of a scientific inquiry and is trapped, like a rat, in the laboratory of the psychometric sciences.

Here is a comparison of the scrappy player’s actuality versus what is of the Positivist’s judgment.

0491 Standing against these two comparisons is a proposition that has been proclaimed by Christianity for centuries and has been rejected over and over again, because it forces the person to stand before God.

This actuality implies a fatal weakness of the post-truth condition.

Reason3a,1a is more than the intellect3a operating on the will1a.

0492 Ramaswamy knows this.

He knows that the sociopaths who run woke corporations and non-governmental organizations know this.  Reason is more than the intellect operating on the will.  But, this is the post-truth condition that bigilibs have grown to love, for fun (virtue-signaling) and for profit (financial benefits accruing through sovereign-imposed organizational objectives).

Deception thrives in the post-truth condition.

0493 Woke, Inc. tells a story that runs deep.

The beginning writes the end.

0494 My thanks to Vivek Ramaswamy for his engaging text.

08/8/24

Artistic Concordism.  Harmony between Genesis and Evolution?

0001 On August 14, 2024, Razie Mah, the blogger and author of The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How To Define the Word “Religion, releases an e-book, titled “Exercises in Artistic Concordism“.

Concordism is harmony between religion and science, particulary, the biblical origin stories and evolutionary history.  Concordism attempts to build a bridge.  But there is always a problem.

0002 According to current interpretations of these matters, either religion or science has to give.

Enter semiotics. Semiotics is the study of sign-relations. Sign-relations are triadic relations.  Triadic relations?  Thirdness (the triadic realm of normal contexts) brings secondness (the dyadic realm of actuality) into relation with firstness (the monadic realm of possibility).

0003 What if Genesis One is a sign of the evolutionary record?  

If one reads the Creation Story through the lens of Charles Peirce’s typology of natural signs, then each day of creation offers icons, indexes and symbols of a corresponding epoch. The days, like pearls, string perfectly onto the evolutionary record. The aesthetic correspondence is beautiful to behold.

0004 What has to give?

The interpretation that the Creation Story is itself the revelation? Perhaps, Genesis One records a revelation. That means there is a visionary, which brings up the question. How do we (as the ones who will hear the words of the vision) evolve to be who we are created to be? We are created to recognize the signs of God. What does this mean?

And, what if the stance that the Creation Story is a vision gives us ways to answer these questions?

0005 What else has to give?

Our theoretical formulation of human evolution?  Yes, there is more to our evolution than fossils and genetics. What if, as the Genesis text indicates, our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?  What if there is a cultural twist in recent prehistory?

0006 If one reads the awkward textual transition between the Creation Story and the stories of Adam and Eve as discontinuity, then one may wonder why all the written origins stories of the ancient Near East portray the origin of humans as a recent event. Humans are created, de novo, by differentiated gods. 

Why can’t any of the civilizations of the ancient Near East see past a time horizon that an anthropologist may place, say, at the start of the Ubaid archaeological period of southern Mesopotamia?

Why can’t these ancient civilizations see the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

These queries lead to a much more inflammatory question. Why is our current Lebenswelt not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

Imagine the answer to that one!

0007 Today, civilized folk are abuzz about the coming singularity. What if it is not the first?

Uh oh, the first singularity is a scientific hypothesis that harmonizes a cultural twist in human evolution with the stories of Adam and Eve.

0008 Both religious appreciations of the text and scientific blind-spots must transform if there is to be concord.

Plus, that concord will be neither religious nor scientific.

It will be artistic.

08/8/24

Looking at Josef Pieper’s Book (1974) “Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power” (Part 1 of 8)

0756 The essay is originally published in German by Kosef-Verlag, Munich.  In 1988, the essay is translated by Lothar Krauth, in an edition by Schuabenverlag AG, Osterfindern bei Stuttgart.  The essay before me is published in 1992 by Ignatius Press, San Francisco.

Why should I examine this essay?

Is the post-truth condition a manifestation of original sin?

0757 If the answer is “yes” to the latter question, then the answer to the former is partially unveiled.

Obviously, there is no direct path from the post-truth condition to a reincarnation of the doctrine of original sin, but both can enter the cognitive space carved out by Pieper’s title.  The stories of Adam and Eve portray an abuse of language similar to the type that we see today.  

0758 The post-truth interscope is formulated in Looking at Steve Fuller’s Book (2020) “The Player’s Guide to the Post-Truth Condition” and applied in Looking at Vivek Ramaswamy’s Book (2021) “Woke, Inc.”.

The post-truth interscope has three levels.

Here is a picture.

0759 The content level is labeled “scrappy player”.  This is a level of under contention.  How so?  The actuality does not look like the scrappy player’s own self-impression.  Typically, people feel that what I think [accords with] what I say,rather than a dyad that has the characteristics of what is of the Positivist’s judgment.  So, the content-level actuality for the post-truth condition comes across as weirdly familiar, yet unnatural.  The same goes with the normal context3a and potential1a of reason3a,1a.  Reason3a,1a is the intellect3a contextualizing the will1a.  Plus, the interscope is not clear as to who engages reason3a,1a.  Is reason3a,1a the sign-interpretant (SIi) for the scientismist one3c‘s sign-vehicle (SVi)?  Or is reason3a,1a a feature of the scrappy player’s cognition?  Or both?

0760 The situation level is labeled “expert”.  Psychometric scientistsb situate what the scrappy player is willing to say2aas phenomena that may be formalized as observations and measurements1b.  Also, psychometric experts3b bring models of value2b into relation with the potential of ‘formalized knowledge’1b.

0761 The perspective level is labeled “relativist one”.  This is a level that is difficult to grasp.  The current relativist one3cis called, “the one of scientism3c“, because science has become the common style for expert3b expressions of value2b, where value2b is the intersection of capitalist and socialist nested forms.  So, the scientismist one3c may be regarded as “the system” or “the style” (or even, “the hive”) for the current interscope of the post-truth condition.

Fuller notes that there is an absolute character to the relativist one3c.  In order to truly operate as a relativist, one must be outside of all relativized jurisdictions.  That observation indicates that the relativist one3c should occupy the perspective-level normal context of the post-truth interscope.  Plus, that observation indicates that relativized jurisdictions should belong to the situation level.  So, all sciences and experts3b are relative from the point of view of the scientismist one3c.

0762 So, let me make a prediction as to how Josef Pieper’s argument will play out.

08/7/24

Looking at Josef Pieper’s Book (1974) “Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power” (Part 2 of 8)

0763 Now, to the text itself.

Modern philosophers love to start with Descartes or Machiavelli.

Old school philosophers love to start with Socrates.

0764 Plato’s stories about Socrates portray one of the cleverest, and oddly Christ-like, pre-Christian Greek philosophers.  At the time, philosophy is in the air.  Sophists, who are trained in rhetoric (so don’t try to debate them), make a lot of money arguing for particular positions in open forums.  In effect, sophists situate the average citizen.  They are like today’s experts.

The sophists are put into perspective by a thought-style that appreciates refined reason.  Yeah, it’s like sugar.  Take a certain plant and cook the living daylights out of it, then remove the solids and place the liquid in a container where the water evaporates, and there it is: refined sugar.  The same process happens with argumentation in ancient Greek forums.  People publicly debate long enough that specialists start to figure out which styles of argument work and which styles don’t.  Then, they retail their discoveries under the label, “education”.

Rhetoric is sweet business.

0765 Pieper claims that Plato reviles the sophists.  But, Plato is not bitter.  Plato figures out that the sophists are mercenaries, rhetoricians for hire, and are notoriously both good looking and eloquent in their argumentation.

Today, many academics regard the sophists as the earliest humanists, educators, teachers and advocates of… well… whatever concern that someone is willing to pay for.

0766 Okay, what about an interscope?

The Greek citizen concerned with what is going on matches the scrappy player level of the post-truth interscope.  The Greek citizen does not see who pays the sophist who argues before him.  Rather, the Greek citizen hears an argument and says what he thinks.

The sophist is concerned about winning the argument.  If the sophist wins, then the assembly will vote to implement a policy that will benefit the person who is paying him.

So, there are the two actors on the content level.

0767 Now, all the classical transcendentals (truth, beauty, goodness, nobility, prudence, temperance, and yes, I am throwing a few virtues into the mix) apply to the average citizen, because the citizen is at the forum to speak his mind.  So, I do not associate the average citizen’s nested form to a post-truth condition.

Not so for the sophist.  The transcendentals apply only insofar as they increase the potential of winning the argument.  So, the sophist’s transcendentals are conditional.  Truth becomes a property of logic.  Beauty describes the cleverness of an argument.  Nobility concerns how handsome the speaker looks.  Prudence describes the way that, once an argument is won, the sophist does not recklessly celebrate victory.  And, temperance connects to sophistication as a quality of all sophists, even the maniacs.

0768 So, even though sophists participate on the content level, where transcendentals are relevant to what people thinkand what people say, they simultaneously situate the content level with the normal context of rhetorical discourse3b bringing the actuality of sophisticated values2b (consisting of conditional transcendentals) into relation with the potential of framing propositions in such a way that victory is achieved1b.

0769 As far as the sophists (and the rich citizens who employ them) are concerned, the following is a sensible construction.

The sophist level virtually situates the content level.

0770 Well, this two-level interscope is sensible enough. The corruption resides off stage, so to speak.  Off stage?  Hmmm.  Am I referring to a perspective level?

Really, what about the rich citizens who make their huge fortunes from… how to say it?… public initiatives that are approved after debate in the forum?  Where do they fit into the so-called sensible construction?  After all, they are the movers and the shakers of the entire scam, aren’t they?

We can only guess.

0771 Pursuit of the gritty details of what would be a perspective level of corruption (which was once the dangerous mission of journalists) may be thwarted… oh, a better word is “diverted”… by the construction of a perspective level that journalists can get paid advertising.

The normal context of refined reason3c brings the actuality of a public decision2c into relation with the potential1c of the sophist’s values2b, based on conditional transcendentals.  Another word for that potential1c is “opportunity1c“.

Here is the resulting three-level interscope, characteristic of social construction.

0772 Where do the terms “sensible” and “social” construction come from?

Consider the series A Course on How To Define the Word “Religion”, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.  The series contains two small works.  A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.  These works introduce the terminology that I use in this examination.

0773 What does the above interscope suggest?

The modern post-truth and the ancient Greek interscopes are so similar as to suggest that the one of scientism2c is actually a style of refined reason3c, rather than a person.

Yet, a person can represent refined reason3c and serve as the sophist3b that (according to latest opinion) puts sophistry into perspective1c.  In Plato’s stories, one of these acclaimed philosophers is Prodicus.  Another is Gorgeous… er, I meant to say… Gorgias.

08/6/24

Looking at Josef Pieper’s Book (1974) “Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power” (Part 3 of 8)

0774 What does Plato… er… Socrates hold against the sophists?

Pieper suggests that insight may be gained by comparing the two words, “perfection” and “perfectionism”.

“Perfection” is a word that represents a whole or a completion.  Perfection applies to things that have achieved what they were intended to be.  For example, the perfection of an acorn is a full-grown oak tree.  Applied to the topic at hand, I imagine that perfection also applies to the transcendentals, because they represent an end point for what I think2a and what I say2a.

0775 “Perfectionist” is a word that represents a person who fixates on perfection.  But, that perfection is what the perfectionist intends the perfected object to be

For example, the perfection of a debate is a decision2c in the normal context of refined reason3c, that exploits an opportunity1c, which is the potential of… well, let me not fill in those details.

Instead, let me point out that perfectionists (as well as sophists) love to qualify transcendentals. For example, logic defines truth.  Seduction characterizes beauty.  Gorgias looks noble.  Prudence describes the behavior of sophisticated winners.  “Temperance” is a word that characterizes everyone who agrees with my argument.  Everyone else is “intemperate”.

0776 Does that sound like abuse of language?

Here is a picture of the virtual nested form in the category of firstness.

Debate over public policies takes place in a forum.  The citizen level has two actors: citizens and sophists (representing whoever is paying them to argue).  So, there are two wills.

0777 The citizen does not fully comprehend that the sophist establishes a situation that emerges from (and situates) policy debates.  That situation starts as soon as the sophist frames propositions1b in such a manner as to support sophisticated values2b, which opens opportunities1c for public decisions2c.

Does this sophisticated process include the conditioning of transcendentals?

I suspect so.

0778  The meaning, presence and message underlying a spoken word1a that is supposed to represent a transcendentalmay be manipulated1b in such a fashion as to generate sophisticated values2b for any particular debate.  This occurs within the situation level, as the proposition is framed1b as promoting sophisticated values2b, in the normal context of rhetorical debate3b.  This is what sophists do.  They tell the citizen what he wants to hear while satisfying the ambitions of those who are paying for his services.

Welcome to “our” democracy.

0779 The opportunity1c for a decision2c arises when the boiling of the crudities of spoken words2b is further refined by the evaporation of the water, the matrix of debate, thereby crystallizing the words of the decision2c itself.  Reason3a,1a is refined3c in so far as the very terminology that goes into the decision2c abuses the words framing the proposition1b in favor of sophisticated values2b, because the implementation of a decision2a is not necessarily the perfection of the decision itself2c.

0780 You may ask yourself, “What the hell does that mean?”

Does it suggest that crystalline sugar refined from some unfortunate plant serves as a metaphor for whatever the hell that means?

Does it suggest that the abuse of language is, to the realm of possibility, what the abuse of power is to the realm of normal contexts?

0781 Does it suggest the following?

Yeah, that looks abusive.

0782 So, what does Plato have against the sophists?

Just as perfectionists2b spoil perfection2a, sophists ruin the spoken words2a that they weave into sophisticated valuations2b.

0783 Let me start with the perfection of spoken words.

Spoken words do two things.  They convey reality.  They facilitate common understanding.

But, what is “reality”?  What is “understanding”?

0784 Reality is the perfection of a spoken word in so far as the word indicates or images its referent.  Yes, spoken words are supposed to refer to a reality that can be pictured or pointed to.  In effect, spoken words are supposed to accomplish what hand-talk (or sign language) performs effortlessly.  Hand-talk words are holistic manual-brachial gestures that picture or point to their referents.  Speech-alone talk cannot picture or point to anything.  However, we (humans) seem to innately anticipate that it does.

0785 But, that does not mean it does.

So, let me put a pause on reality as the perfection of a spoken word.

What about understanding?

0786 Understanding is the perfection of spoken words in so far as understanding is the completion of a category-based nested form.  I may encounter an actuality.  But, I do not understand until I can frame the encountered actuality2 with a normal context3 and potential1.

0787 On top of that, I claim that there are three characteristics that go into a category-based nested form that allows me to define spoken words.

Meaning associates to what I think.  Meaning also touches base with reality or reference.

Message associates to what I say. Message also touches base with my motivations, in regards to reality or reference.

So, meaning should be related to message.

Here, meaning is like matter. Message is like form.

0789 Presence associates to me.  My intellect3a contextualizes my will1a.

But, in conversation, there are other intellects3a and wills1a, so the normal context and potential of understanding is ambiguous.  What about “our intellect3a” and “our will1a“?  Does mean that there are others who are influencing me?   So, does a perfection of understanding occur when I surrender “my” intellect3a and “my” will1a to the reasoning3a,1a of others?

0790 These are interesting questions.

However, I need to put a pause on understanding as the perfection of a spoken word.

08/5/24

Looking at Josef Pieper’s Book (1974) “Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power” (Part 4 of 8)

0791 Okay, spoken words are supposed to convey reality and facilitate common understanding.

Reality and understanding are two perfections of the spoken word.

And, these two perfections have been put on pause.

0792 One lesson is clear.

If what I say corresponds to what I think, then the perfection of spoken words point to the content level of the sophist’s interscope, as a location for reality and understanding.

0793 But, what about abusing these perfections through something that corresponds to perfectionism?

Ah, if the perfectionism of spoken words associates to sophisticated values2bthen that perfectionism is facilitated by the potential to ‘frame propositions’1b as well as the potential of ‘formalizing knowledge’1b.

0794 So, I wonder, how would rhetorical discourse3b virtually situate reason3a,1a in a fashion that accords to refined reason3c?

0795 I have a suggestion.

Let me start with how to define a spoken word.

Does this nested form provide the appearance of reality for rhetorical discourse?

0796 Note how the content-level of the interscope for the ancient Greek reasoning one1c is repackaged into the above nested form.

What I say2a is the spoken word2 and the very act of speaking associates to a message as an actuality2 and as a potential1.

What I think goes with definition3 and touches base with the potential of meaning1.

The intellect3a contextualizing the will1a goes with presence, which (in the above figure) only stands in the realm of possibility.

Ambiguities concerning whose intellect and whose will capture the attention of the inquirer.

There are many ways to resolve these ambiguities.

For example, a written English dictionary presumes that the presence (of an authority’s reason3a,1a) is substantial enough to inscribe the definition3 of a spoken word2 onto a page, in indelible ink1.

0797 Now, I can bring in the situation level.

If I associate the potentials1 underlying the definition3 of spoken words2 with elements of the nested form on the citizen level, then I can co-opt the elements that correspond to the citizen, but not the elements that correspond to a sophist’s participation on the citizen’s level.

For the citizen, meaning1 underlies a spoken word2.  Meaning is what I think2a.

For the sophist, what I propose (is the meaning)1 underlies a spoken word2.

For the citizen, message1 underlies a spoken word2.  Message is what I say2a.

For the sophist, what I proclaim (is the message)1 underlies a spoken word2.

For the citizen, presence1 underlies a spoken word2.  That presence1 is my intellect3a and my will1a.

For the sophist, the intellect3a characterizes whether one particular word2 is used or not.  The presence of one particular word as opposed to another particular word may be crucial to victory1a.  This selection corresponds to the machinations of the intellect3a, directly, and the victorious will1a... er… the will1a, indirectly.

0798 Now, I may reconfigure the category-based nested form for definition into a style where the “I” becomes more ambiguous.  The citizen may think that “I” is me”.  But, the sophist is confident that “I” is “we”, the ones who are participating in the forum.

Here is a diagram of the reconfigured definition.

0799 Technically, what I say2a no longer associates with the spoken word2, it2a only goes with the potential of message1.

Also, what I think2a no longer associates with definition3, it2a only goes with the potential of meaning1.

0800 So, theoretically, while the potential of meaning presence and message associates to the all three elements of the citizen-level nested form, this reconfigured definition no longer implies that what I say2a entails both actuality2 (of spoken words2) and potential1 (of message1) and that what I think2a entails both normal context3 (of definition3) and potential1(of meaning1).

Practically, the potential of framing propositions1b and formalizing knowledge1b packages the entire contenta-level of the citizen interscope.  It1b does so through definition3.  The normal context of definition3 brings the actuality of spoken words2 into relation with the possibilities of meaning, presence and message1.  Yes, that entire nested form goes into the situationb-level potential1.

0801 Here is a picture.

08/3/24

Looking at Josef Pieper’s Book (1974) “Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power” (Part 5 of 8)

0802 Once again, here is the interscope for the Sophist tradition.

0803 The purposes of spoken words are two fold.  The first is to convey the reality of rhetorical discourse.  The second is to package understanding.  Rhetorical discourse3b and properly packaged understanding1b sustain sophisticated values2b.  Sophisticated values2b virtual situate the content-level actuality2a where the citizen imagines that what I think [should correspond to] what I say2a.

A clever student may have noticed that the presence underlying the spoken word associates to both the intellect3a and the will1a.  So, what does it imply that an education in rhetoric involves intellectual exercises?  Lots of intellectual exercises!  Why else would someone take a course from Prodicus?  Everyone in Athens knows that the five-drachma lecture is a teaser for the fifty-drachma lecture. And, the fifty-drachma lecture delivers the intellectual goods on how to frame propositions1b.

0804 Oh, the power of intellectual success!

Pieper tells a story about Albert Einstein, who is both perplexed and amused when an American university offers him a million dollars in order to buy the twelve original handwritten pages of his theory of relativity.

0805 What is that university3c purchasing?

It3c is not purchasing the argument2a, that is already published.  Nor is it3c purchasing the way that Einstein reframed the propositions of physics, from the point of view where all things are in motion, consequently no location is fixed1b.

Instead, the university3c sees an opportunity1c for the ownership2c of the handwritten papers that document Einstein’s theoretical breakthrough2a.  These papers2a represent Einstein’s victorious will1a.  These papers2a are the content that is situated by Einstein’s monumental reframing of physics1b.  To purchase2c these papers2a is to acquire the reputation2bafforded to Einstein3a,1a, but at a much lower price2b.  The ancient Greeks have a word for this type of transaction.  English does not. English translators translate the Greek word into “flattery1c“.

See 1 Thessalonians 2.5.

0806  Here is how flattery enters into the picture.

08/2/24

Looking at Josef Pieper’s Book (1974) “Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power” (Part 6 of 8)

0807 After this rollout on the abuse of language, I return to the virtual nested form in the category of firstness.

0808 I summarize.

The will1a to speak my mind2a addresses the two-fold purpose to spoken words and language.

First, spoken words should picture or point to their referents.  In this, they do not.  But, they do the next best thing.  Spoken words convey reality.  Reality is one perfection of spoken words.

Second, spoken words intend to establish a common understanding.  What is understanding?  Understanding is a complete nested form, where a normal context3 brings an actuality2 into relation with its potential1.  Spoken words2 need to do that.  That need is satisfied for a spoken word when a definition3 brings that spoken word2 into relation with the potential of meaning, presence and message1.

0809 In the normal context of rhetorical discourse3b, sophists formally package understanding1b according to variations of the above formula.  Definition3 brings a spoken word2 into relation with the potentials of what I think (meaning)1what I say (message)1, and the intellect1as that which characterizes whether one particular word is used or not.

0810 What about the will1a?

Well, the only reason why the sophist3b situates the citizen3a,1a through rhetorical discourse3b is to be victorious1a.

Oops.  I should not have mentioned that.

0811 Instead, let me say that the sophist3b frames each proposition1b in order to articulate sophisticated values2b (the citizen3a,1a is obviously incapable of doing this, since he is merely saying what he thinks2a).  This requires that the understanding that the citizen expresses2a be repackaged into well-defined propositions1b in such a manner that the ongoing discourse3b reveals the reality that the sophist wants the citizen to endorse.

0812 Finally, the packaging of knowledge1b, the sophistication of the argument2b and the reality of the discourse itself3bflatter1c the one who pays the sophist3c and provides the opportunity1c for a decision2c that will provide well-deserved remuneration.

I suspect that the last sentence may be regarded as offensive by the one who pays3c.  No one is supposed to talk about the one who pays the sophist from the riches that he earns from political manipulation of public decisions.

Plus, sophists3b are not really redefining the meaning, message and presence underlying spoken words.  They are “adjusting” them to suite their needs.  Yes, particular situations call for particular adjustments.  Finally, the victorious will1a does not opportunistically say what is necessary to win1a.  The intellect3a with the he victorious will1a only stateswhat furthers a rhetorical position1a.

0813 Now, the reason why Plato despises the sophists becomes a little more transparent.

Their abuse of words leads to the corruption of language.

After all, the two functions of spoken words are to convey reality and to achieve understanding.

Neither is furthered by the virtual nested form pictured above.

0814 The sophist is not concerned about the truth.  The truth should resonate with my will1a, but it does not, because there are two wills in play on the content level, the will of the citizen1a and the will of the victory-oriented sophist1a.  The same can be said for the intellect3a.

0686 Here is a picture.

0815 Indeed, in regards to the content-level normal context, my intellect3a confronts a sophisticated intellect3a in the arena that serves as a forum for citizens making decisions3b.

0816 Is this an abusive relationship?

What chance does the citizen have?  When the citizen speaks, he says what is on his mind.  He speaks what he is thinking.  When his opponent speaks, he says what is necessary to achieve victory.