0307 Chapter thirteen discusses critical diversity theory.

Surely, each word calls to mind the post-truth condition.

What is “diversity”?  What is “critical theory”?

Well, “diversity” is the word that gets sandwiched between “critical” and “theory”.

0308 Each of these words are explicit abstractions. Each spoken word uses reason_3a,1a, defined as the intellect_3acontextualizing the will_1a.

So, I might guess that “critical theory” goes with the intellect_3a and “diversity” goes with the will_1a.

The intellect_3a produces a critical theory that engages the desire_1a for “diversity_2a“.

0309 Reason_3a,1a also acts as an interventional sign-interpretant (SI_i) for an empirio-normative judgment operating as a sign-vehicle (SV_i).

The resulting opinions [can be objectified as] phenomena_2a are sign-objects (SO_i), that may be observed and measured_1bby the psychometric sciences_2b.

The psychometric sciences generate novel configurations of capitalist and socialist expert-level nested forms that embody a single contradiction-filled actuality called “value_2b“.

0310 Now, let me say that again.

Opinions_2a on the scrappy-player level are actualities_2a created in the normal context of an intellect_3a engaged in critical theory (in some content-level fashion) and a will_1a sensing a desire for diversity (again, in some content-level fashion). Some of these opinions_2a will be regarded as phenomena_2a to be observed and measured_1b by the psychometric sciences_2b.

0311 Those scrappy players who already are under domination by the empirio-normative judgment_2c are more likely to produce statements_2a that will be regarded as phenomena_2a.

Those scrappy players who are not under domination by the empirio-normative judgment_2c may feel a social pressure to conform or issue a statement that can be regarded as relevant phenomena_2a.  Otherwise, what they say_2a will be ignored, ridiculed or dismissed.

0312 So, impressions_2a engaging critical_3a diversity_1a theory_3a on the content-level, are formalized as knowledge in the form of data_1b (that is, observations and measurements_1b of phenomena_2a).  Data_1b are then situated by the psychometric sciences_3b, employing both capitalist and socialist models_2b, constituting a single contradiction-filled actuality_2b (in this case, “diversity”), called “value_2b“.

0314 Here is a picture.

0315 Diversity_2b is the intersection of transactional (or financial) value₂ and transcendental (or social) value₂.

I suspect that theoreticians_3b involved in producing psychometric models of diversity_2b aim to maximize righteousness_1(2b) and minimize price_1(2b).  However, they_3b may end up producing models_2b that minimize righteousness_1(2b) and maximize price_1(2b).

In part, this is due to the fact that expert conclusions inspire slogans that provide opportunities_1c for the scientismist one_3cto execute an empirio-normative judgment_2c, as shown in the following figure, reminiscent of earlier figures.

0316 Once these associations pass through the sausage-grinder of legislative action and are distilled into items on a checklist, they are neither intelligible nor universal.  They are nonsensical and incredibly picky.

Hilariously, Ramaswamy wants to legislate diversity of thought, rather than the current checklist encouraging organizational objectives that come out of various bigilib committees and legislatures.

Good luck on that.

0317 Here, is it fair to ask, “What does an exercise in critical diversity theory entail?”

Before I discuss that, I want to briefly recapitulate the situation level.

0318 First, capitalist and socialist expertise, originally depicted as situation-level nested forms, are removed from the questionable boxes of capitalism and socialism, in order to serve as templates for psychometric models.  A psychometric model hybridizes value from both experts into one actuality_2b.  The psychometric model exhibits the relational structure of an intersection.

An intersection occurs when the actualities of two category-based nested forms constitute a single contradiction-filled actuality.

0319 The psychometric model is the moral equivalent to what ought to be for the empirio-schematic judgment of the natural sciences.

Plus, I must not forget, the empirio-schematic judgment is what ought to be for the Positivist’s judgment.

Here is a picture of the empirio-schematic judgment.  Note where “models” appear.

0320  In the Third Battle of the Enlightenment Gods (1945-1989), there is only one type of model at any given time.  The perspective-level judgment_2c call for either a capitalist or a socialist model_2b.

For the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods (1989- present) there are two judgments.

Here is a picture of the new empirio-schematic judgment that will unfold into the situation-level category-based nested form.

0321 The situation-level nested form for the one of scientism_3c contains both capitalist and socialist expertise.  Discussion of markets₃ and social order₃ are conducted in specific disciplinary languages₃.  Models of value₂ are the topic at hand.  Observations and measurements₁ for specific disciplines concern the potentials of price₁ and righteousness₁.

0323 Two once-conflicting models of value_2b go into each contradiction-filled psychometric valuation_2b.

Here is a picture for the topic of chapter thirteen.

0324 Take a look at the two actualities that constitute the single actuality of “diversity”.

For capitalist expertise, the actuality is “transactional value_2H“.

Why the subscript, “H”?  Wait and see.

325 The more important question asks, “What practical action connects to an assessment of transactional value_2H?”

0326 One answer is a financial exchange.

Financial exchange is what ultimately produces capital.  Market exchange is located on the situation-level of the so-called organization_B tier.  The society_C tier puts the organization_B tier into perspective.  The organization_B tier situates the individual in community_A tier.  The three tiers are discussed in the chapter on presence in the e-book How To Define The Word “Religion”, as well as in the ten associated Primers (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

Now, sovereign power can influence financial exchange_2H by manipulating markets_3H or prices_1H.  Also, sovereign decrees can directly regulate financial exchange_2H, thereby impacting markets_3H and prices_1H.

0327 What practical actions connect to assessments of transcendental value_2V?

Organizational objectives_2aC (or “objects^org_2aC“) actualize the potential of righteousness_1aC in the normal context of institutions_3aC.  Institutions_3aC are normal contexts₃ on the content_a level of the society_C tier.

0328 What potential_1bC situates institutions_3aC?

Order_1bC is the potential_1bC that situates institutions_3aC.  The situation_b level of the society_C tier says, “The normal context of sovereign power_3bC brings the actualities of sovereign laws, decrees and actions_2bC into relation with the possibility of order_1bC.

Now, the same sovereign power_3bC can influence financial exchange_2bB and influence objects^org_2aC through direct regulation (that is, order_3V) or through propaganda (that is, righteousness_1V).

0329 Now, once again, it is fair to ask what does an exercise in critical diversity theory entail?

Intersections are inherently mysterious.

So diversity_2b embodies a mystery.

Mystery is the message underlying the word, “religion”.

0330 Chapter eleven proclaims, “Actually, wokeness is literally a religion.”

From a purely legal point of view, Ramaswamy demonstrates that wokeness is a religion.  Judicial rulings may be sequenced in order to show that even a person who claims to be “not religious” may be protected by laws against discrimination on the basis of religion.  So, by extension, employers should not have the privilege of firing someone who is not religious based on the employer’s religious beliefs.

After all, what does the term, “not-religious” really mean?

0331 Does “religious” label a Christian faction?

If so, then “not religious” indicates a person who does not belong to a Christian denomination.

But, can that person be “religious”?

In terms of legal precedents, the answer is “yes”.

0332 This leads me to wonder, “How does one define a spoken word?”

In 2015, Razie Mah publishes an e-book titled, How to Define the Word “Religion”.  This work is available at smashwords and other e-book venues.  

0333 The answer to the question comes by way of a category-based nested form.

The normal context of definition₃ brings the actuality of the spoken word, “religion₂“, into relation with the potentials₁ of meaning (D), presence (E) and message (F).

0334 The masterwork elaborates.

0335 The meaning₁ underlying the word, “religion”₂ (D) is social construction.  Social and sensible construction are not the same.  Social construction is on display in many three-level interscopes.  Sensible construction goes with two-level interscopes.

For example, consider the following three-level interscope.

0336 Psychometric models_2b may be regarded as sensible constructions that virtually situate content-level actualities_2a.

The empirio-normative judgement_2c may be regarded as a social construction that puts sensible construction into perspective.

0337 Typically, social constructions operate in the background, while sensible constructions work in the foreground.  For diversity, a list of checkboxes for readily determined traits_2b may serve as an implementation of psychometric models for the value of diversity_2b.  In the background, an empirio-normative judgment_2c stands unchallenged and invisible, leaving some scrappy players_3a,1a feeling that success_2c has already been decided, because the check-box routine_2b does not convey the possibility of opportunity_1c.

0338 Yes, the game is rigged.

One gets a feeling similar to a sinner facing the Christian doctrine of predestination.

0339 The presence₁ underlying the word “religion”₂ (E) consists of two objects residing in the society_C tier.

Tiers?

In order to appreciate the presence underlying the word “religion”, the inquirer must construct three tiers.  Each tier is an interscope.  The society_C tier brings the organization_B tier into relation with the individual in community_A tier.  The two objects on the society_C tier are the perspective-level actuality, labeled the relational object_2cC, and the content-level actuality, labeled the organizational object_2aC.

Consequently, there are two types of religion, one suprasovereign_2cC and one insfrasovereign_2aC.

Imagine the interplay between these two objects, one on the perspective level and one on the content level, above and below the sovereign_b level of the society_C tier.

0340 The message₁ underlying the word, “religion”₂ (F) is composed of two actualities, each with its own nested form, constituting a single actuality.  The intersection is a purely relational structure that is full of mystery.  Mystery?  The contradictions within the single actuality may be delineated, but they cannot be resolved without destroying the intersection.  Occasionally, intersections resolve into two-level interscopes and mystery gives way to sensible construction.

As already noted, for the scientismist one_3c, psychometric models_2b contain an intersection of two values, one for capitalism and one for socialism.  An intersection resides at the core_2b of the interscope for scientism_3c.

Value_2b exemplifies the message underlying the word, “religion”.

0341 Chapter ten introduces the idea that wokeism may be a religion.

Since I am obviously going backwards, through Ramaswamy’s text, let me review.

My examination of chapter eleven shows how the interscope for the scientismist one_3c technically expresses the three potentials that underlie the word, “religion”.  Therefore, since sovereign power is implicated in establishing the scientismist one_3c, the American federal government has established a religion, in violation of the first amendment of the Constitution.

I dare anyone to litigate that!

0342 Well, litigation aside, Ramaswamy introduces his idea by recounting the story of the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov.

The Grand Inquisitor meets Jesus, the Christ, who has returned (and, of course, is now imprisoned).  The Inquisitor explains to Jesus that Christ did not need to return, because the Church discovered that people are incapable of doing good, therefore the Church has solved the problem by forcing them to do good in the name of Christ.

0343 The irony is clear, although difficult to explicate.

There seems to be two religious objects in the story.  One_2cC is represented by Christ.  One_2aC is described by the Grand Inquisitor as an organizational objective of the Church.  The two religious objects become apparent when looking at the interscope of the society_C tier.

0344 Once again, the following comes from the chapter on “presence” in How To Define The Word “Religion”.

The society_C tier brings the organization_B tier into relation with the potential of the individual in community_A tier.

0345 That is foundational.

Each tier represents an interscope.

So, the big picture entails nested forms (A,B,C) composed of nested forms (a,b,c) composed of nested forms (1,2,3).

That is to say, three tiers (A,B,C) of interscopes, each containing three category-based nested forms (a,b,c).

0346 Here is the interscope for the society_C tier.

0347 On the content level, the normal context of an institution_3aC brings the actuality of organizational objectives_2aC into relation with the potential of ‘righteousness’_1aC.  Righteousness_1cC puts the organization_B tier into perspective.

On the situation level, the normal context of sovereign power_3bC brings the actuality of laws, decrees and sovereign actions_2bC into relation with the possibility of ‘order’_1bC.  Order_1bC situates the institution_aC level.

On the perspective level, the normal context of the act of assuming_3cC brings the actuality of a relational object_2cC into relation with the possibility of ‘bringing all things into relation’_1cC.  ‘Concilience’_1cC or ‘reconciliation’_1cC or ‘creation’_1cC puts the sovereign_bC level into perspective.

0348 Let me go back to the Grand Inquisitor.  Ramaswamy tells the story.

The Grand Inquisitor’s view comports with the institution_a level of the society_C tier.

The normal context of the “church”_3aC brings the actuality of the need to force people to make the right choices_2aC into relation with the possibility that people should do good, but are incapable of doing so_1aC.  

0349 Organizational objectives_2aC contribute to the presence underlying the word, “religion”.  The Grand Inquisitor’s “church” may be called an infrasovereign religion.  The various organizational objectives_2aC of “wokeism” deserve the same label, including the example that Ramaswamy chooses to discuss in chapter ten.  He calls the example, The Church of Diversity.

0350 Organizational objects_2aC are not the only contributors to the presence underlying the word “religion”.  A relational object_2cC occupies the perspective-level actuality.  The virtual nested form in the realm of actuality helps me to appreciate the two styles of religion that appear in the society_C tier. 

0351 The normal context of a relational object_2cC virtually brings the actuality of exercises of sovereign power_2bC into relation with the potential of organizational objectives_2aC.  This makes sense because (on the perspective level) one relational object_2cC emerges from (and situates) the potential of all things coming into relation_1cC and (on the content level) many organizational objects_2aC emerge from (and situate) the potential of righteousness_1aC.  Correspondingly, righteousness_1aC not only contextualizes the organization_B tier, righteousness_1aC may orient its institution_3aC towards the assumption_3cC that, indeed, all things can be brought into relation_1cC.

Theoretically, order_1bC does not need to be imposed when righteousness_1aC both contextualizes and orients.  Sovereign power_3bC is not necessary when the object^relation_2cC and objects^organization_2aC are in communion.  Individuals_A should enter organizations_B that are contextualized by righteousness_C and each institutional expression of righteousness_1aCshould be able to come into relation with all other expressions of righteousness_1aC because all_1cC honor the same relational object_2cC.

In this way, Jesus receives the honorific “King_2cC of kings_3bC“.

0352 Well, the Grand Inquisitor_3aC is not going to have any of that!

As he_3aC explains to the one_2cC that he has signed the decree to execute, Christ_2cC is no longer necessary because the “Church_3aC” has learned that sovereign power_3bC establishes order_1bC and state action_2bC is required to force people to make the right choices_2aC.  Why?  People are not capable of consistently fulfilling the righteousness that satisfies the Grand Inquisitor_1aC.

0353 What does this imply?

If the scientismist one_3c of the post-truth interscope is the dominant divine instrument_3aC in the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods (1989-present) then there is no need of a relational object_2cC, in the same way that the Christian church of the Grand Inquisitor_3aC no longer needs Christ_2cC. 

0354 Well, my examination of chapter ten ends with a disturbing conclusion.

If wokeism manifests the post-truth condition of scientism_3c, contextualizing the intersection of capitalism and socialism_2b and operating on the potential of the human will_1a, then there is no need for the entire suprasovereign_c level of the society_C tier.

Scientism_3aC is enough.

Scientism_3c brings all phenomena_2a into organization_B, through the ministrations of the psychometric sciences_2b.  The scientismist one_3c finds success_2c in rendering actionable judgements_2c.  Actionable judgments_2c corresponds to organizational objects_2aC of the society_C tier.

0355 How does scientism_3aC compare to other institutions_3aC?

On one hand, a religious movement_3aC that aligns with the suprasovereign assumption_3cC will spontaneously organize_B in order to accomplish its_3aC organizational objectives_2cC.  Businesses_3aC that provide for obvious needs_1aC also spontaneously organize_B as scrappy players strive to get ahead and earn a living.  Religious institutions and businesses contribute to civic society.  Sovereign power_3bC is only necessary to maintain order_1bC.

On the other hand, scientism_3aC requires sovereign power_3bC. How so?  Sovereign acts and decrees_2bC are required in order to enforce empirio-normative judgments_2aC emanating from the righteousness_1aC that satisfies the experts_3aC.

0356 To me, this implies that the one of scientism_3c,3aC is not a spontaneous organization, but a requisition of existing organizations.

0357 In order to drive home this point, consider the creepiness of the following comparison.

Does this comparison imply that the one of scientism_3c wants to bring all organizational objects_3aC into harmony, with a relational object_3cC, on the basis of characterizing righteousness_1aC as opportunity_1c for contextualizing expert-driven valuations_2b?

Or does the scientismist one_3c merely promote its empirio-normative judgments_2c based on its own opportunities_1cwithout regard to consilience_1cC to a relational object_2cC?

0358 Okay, let me say it again.

My examination of chapters fifteen, backwards to ten, ends with the disturbing comparison pictured above.

0359 In chapter nine, Ramaswamy addresses a prime example of wokeness as an infrasovereign religion_3aC: big technology corporations.  The beauty of Big Tech_3aC is that it is already entangled with the Deep State_3bC and serves as a medium through which the sovereign_3bC promulgates order_1bC under a veil of righteousness_1aC.

0360 How does the sovereign_3bB, in this case the American Federal Government, establish order_1bC on the internet?

Do the words, “market”, “transactional value” and “price” come to mind?

There is more.

Many people rely on big tech corporations for services, such as internet access, that provide a venue for their businesses.  The small company website or Facebook page are examples.  Typically, in order to run a business, one must have a state license.  Licensing businesses is the job_2bC of the sovereign_3bC.

In 1996, Congress passes and President Bill Clinton signs the so-called “Communications Decency Act”.  Ramaswamy discusses this legislation at length.  In a certain way, the federal government_3bC farms out the internet licensing business_Bto big tech companies_3aC, by providing internet service providers with legal immunity_2bC.  This is very similar to a state government not being held legally liable for the actions of a business that it has registered.

0361 So far, so good.

Section 230 says that first, internet providers_3aC are not to be treated as publishers.  Instead, publishers are those who broadcast using an internet service.  Second, the provider may not be held liable for good-faith actions to restrict the access or the availability of obscene, lewd, lascivious… or otherwise objectionable displays of “information”, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

Or, something like that.

0362 From what I understand, Section 230 provides a loophole that is large enough to negate the first amendment.

Perhaps, America’s supreme court will rue the day when they ruled that pornography is the same as free speech.

Why?

Some say that “free speech” is “pornography for people who hate”.

Since pornography is obscene, lewd, lascivious… and so on, then any statement that violates “community standards” must be removed from display on the internet, as if it is pornographic.

0363 The rhetoric is rather confusing.

On one hand, actual pornography qualifies as “free speech”.

On the other hand, dissenting opinions must be treated as if they are pornographic and removed from display on the internet.

0364 Ramaswamy proposes an incredibly simple correction.  Access to obscene, lewd, lascivious… or otherwise objectionable displays should be restricted, except for material covered by the first amendment of the constitution of the United States.

Imagine the lawsuits that would come from that correction!

0365 Here is a picture of the society_C tier for this example.

On the situation level, the normal context of the Federal Government_3bC brings the actuality of the 1996 so-called “Community Decency Act”_2bC into relation with the possibility of ‘order on the then-fledgling internet’_1bC.   The title gives sovereign authority_3bC to internet providers_3aC in order to first, provide platforms_2aC (and not be held liable for the material that is published by users on the platform) and second, ensure that community standards_1aC are upheld.

Of course, this raises a question, asking, “Who is going to propose the criteria needed to establish whether internet published material does not violate ‘community standards’?”

Who is going to enforce that criteria?

Am I talking about experts_3b?

0366 I suspect the reader can guess where I am going with this.

0367 Community standards_2b are constituted by financial exchange_2H, associated with a user publishing on an internet service provider, and organizational objectives_2V, associated with establishing criteria concerning what is objectionable and what is not objectionable.   

Community standards_2V can be ensured_1aC by internet providers_3aC through a wide variety of manipulations, including biasing search algorithms, defunding incentives, as well as temporary and permanent deplatforming.  There are a lot of options for experts to employ.

0368 However, one consideration is not mentioned in all the academic discourse on ensuring community standards.  That consideration is precisely the one that Ramaswamy points out.  No expert discussion takes the first amendment of the constitution_2cC into consideration.

0369 If anything, for America as a nation, the founding events and documents occupy the slot for relational object_2cC.  The American Revolution is the foundation_2cC of the United States.

Curiously, the American Revolution is “not religious”.  The first amendment of the American Constitution rules out the federal government establishing a religion.  Some call the “not religious” relational object_2cC of the American Founding a “civic religion”.

But, what does that mean?

0370 So, I ask, “Can a the federal government establish a ‘not religious’ religion?”

There are two types of religion embedded in the society_C tier.

The relational object_2cC dwells on the perspective level, also called “the suprasovereign level”, because it_cC stands above the sovereign_bC (situation) level.  Theoretically, a suprasovereign religion_2cC cannot be established by a state_3bC.  How can the state_3bC put itself into context?

The organizational object_2aC dwells on the content level, also called “the infrasovereign level”, because it_2aC stands below the sovereign_bC (situation) level.  Now, a state_3bC can establish an infrasovereign religion_2aC, simply by using sovereign decrees_2bC to implement organizational objectives_2aC of an institution_3aC.

0371 The first amendment decrees that the federal government may not establish a religion.

What does this imply?

A Christian faction_3aC cannot demand that sovereign decrees_2bC implement its organizational objectives_2aC.

The sovereign_3bC cannot establish an infrasovereign religion_3aC (Christian faction).

But, can the sovereign_3bC establish an infrasovereign religion_3aC that proclaims itself to be “not religious”?

Hmmm.

0372 The 1996 Communications Decency Act does not assume that the suprasovereign level exists.  The same Act_2bCimplements the organizational objectives_2aC of big tech institutions_2aC by giving these institutions the legal authority_2bCto censor anything that proves offensive to certain experts.

0373 The question arises, “Do the experts who want to ban certain political expressions constitute an institution_3aC, contextualizing organizational objectives_2aC, that emerge from (and situate) righteousness_1aC.”

And, does that institution_3aC demand sovereign power_3bC in order to institute its organizational objectives_2aC?

If the answer is “yes”, then sovereign power_3bC establishes an infrasovereign relgion_3aC.

0374 Chapter eight discusses the following topic.

What happens when dictators outside of the United States get involved in promotion of favored internet sites and censorship (or “depromotion”) of unfavored internet publishers?

These dictators are “stakeholders”, because internet service providers operate in more than one jurisdiction.

On one hand, big tech is international enough to operate as its own jurisdiction.

On the other hand, big tech corporations operate within the jurisdictions of various sovereign states. Experts are required to negotiate what needs to be done in order to operate in local sovereign jurisdictions (some of which are dictatorships).

0375 An old saying goes like this, “He who pays the piper, calls the tune.”

So, questions arise.  Who is paying the piper?  What is the tune that is being called for?

For the first question I can ask experts on capitalism.  For the second question, I can ask experts on socialism.

Plus, the resulting answer will be filled with contradictions.

0376 This brings me back to the post-truth condition.

Here is the general picture.

0377 Does the relativist one level compare to the institution_a (or infrasovereign) level of the society_C tier for this particular topic?

0378 If this comparison is relevant to the topic at hand, then what does that imply?

The dictator_3bC seeks to virtually situate the internet service provider’s righteousness_1aC with an order_1bC that refuses_2bCto question the policies of the um.. dictator_3bC.

Yeah, there is no suprasovereign level participating in the prior sentence.

0379 Nonetheless, it seems to me that when a dictator_3bC orders a big tech company_3aC to alter the way that it ensures value_2aC, the order_3bC forces the internet provider to alter its organizational objectives_2aC in such a way that the internet-provider’s empirio-normative judgment_2c must adjust.

Adjustment occurs in several steps.

0380 To start, as far as the institution of an internet service_3aC is concerned, the established empirio-normative judgment_2c looks like this.

Disciplinary languages of experts on capitalism and on socialism (relation, thirdness) bring a normative narrative, that should be intelligible to reason (what ought to be, secondness), into relation with observations of phenomena of ‘what people say’, that should be recognizable to reason as universal, rather than biased or rigged (what is, firstness).

0381 What do I mean by using the term “reason” in this statement.

Reason_3a,1a is the normal context of the intellect_3a operating on the potential of the will_1a.

That is to say, the perspective-level empirio-normative judgment_2c appeals to the the content-level normal context and potential of reason_3a,1a.

And, this may be framed as an interventional sign-relation, where the sign-vehicle is the empirio-normative judgment_2c(SV_i) and the sign-interpretant is reason_3a,1a (SI_i).

0382 In the next step, distortions on the perspective level of the post-truth condition pressures experts on the situation level.

The following virtual nested form tells the story.  The comment starts with the situation level and concludes on the perspective level.

0383 In the third step, an adjusted empirio-normative judgment_2c attempts to trigger reason_3a,1a in a way that invites skepticism.

0384 In the fourth step, an interventional sign-relation fails to initiate.

Recall, the structure of the interventional sign-relation is counterintuitive.

0385 How does a sign-relation operate?

A sign-vehicle (SV) stands for a sign-object (SO) in regards to a sign-interpretant (SI).

0386 One cannot use only one category-based nested form to depict a sign-relation.  Two adjacent levels are required.  So, sign-causality involves a SV on one level and a SO on the adjacent higher level.

0387 For example, the specifying sign-vehicle (SV_s) is a content-level actuality and its sign-object is a situation-level actuality (SO_s).  The content-level associates to firstness.  The situation-level associates to secondness.

Plus, the exemplar sign-vehicle (SV_e) is a situation_b-level actuality and its sign-object (SO_e) is a perspective_c-level actuality₂.

But, the interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) belongs to the perspective_c level.  There is no “fourthness”.  There is only firstness to return to.  That makes the interventional sign-relation most quizzical.  The interventional sign-object (SO_i) resides in firstness, the category for the content-level.

0388 Here is a general picture for the interventional sign-relation.

0389 Here is the rub.

Unlike the sign-vehicle for the specifying sign, the sign-vehicle for the interventional sign cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or touched.  Yet, it_2c (SV_i) must be present whenever the human psyche asks, “What is happening?”_3a, and operates on the potential that ‘something’ could be happening_1a (SI_i).

Also, the sign-object for the interventional sign (SO_i) is something that can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or touched.  In fact, it_2a is so apparent that it can be observed and measured as phenomena by psychometric scientists.  Yes, it_2a is so obvious that it_2a is contiguous with the sign-vehicle of the specifying sign relation (SV_s).  This is the topic of Razie Mah’s blog in December 2023, titled Looking at Daniel Dennett’s Book (2017) “From Bacteria To Bach And Back”.

0390 For the interscope of the post-truth condition, the interventional sign-relation looks like this.

0391 What do I mean when I say that a stakeholder-adjusted empirio-normative judgment_2c may fail to initiate an interventional sign-relation?

Well, clearly, the manipulative nature of the empirio-normative judgment_2c is a feature, rather than a technical problem to be solved.  Success_2c, for the scientismist one_3c, turns a value-laden opportunity_1c into an actionable judgment_2c.  The judgment associates to the interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i).  The action_2c associates to its reception by the scrappy player’s reason_3a,1a (SI_i).

So, the failure goes like this.  If the empirio-normative judgment_2c (SV_i) is so distorted by accommodation to stakeholder demands, then content-level reason_3a,1a (SI_i) may not engage, as shown in the following figure.

0392 Chapter seven of Ramaswamy’s book discusses what happens next.

People who say, “This makes no sense.”, self-identify as “not belonging to the interscope of the scientismist one” and then become the targets of various henchmen of… what Ramaswamy calls… “the woke-industrial complex”.

Ramaswamy tells the story of a very intelligent idiot savant_3a (of sorts) whose intelligence allowed him to see opportunities for financial transactions that experts could not envision_2b, but whose idiocy refused the ministrations of psychometric scientists, who offered warnings concerning the unacceptable things that he was willing to say and do_2b.

0393 Of course, Ramaswamy tells great story, but the story does not capture the mundane applications where the institutions of the one of scientism_3aC call on sovereign power_3bC in order to punish those who are deemed incapable aligning their reason_3a,1a to the most recent empirio-normative judgment_3c.

0394 In order to demonstrate this, I hybridize the institution level of the society_C tier with the perspective level of the post-truth interscope, resulting in the following diagram.

0395 For a ready-at-hand example, the empirio-normative topic labeled “the January 6 insurrection” within the “woke-media complex” should suffice.

The woke-media complex presents an incredibly fun-looking “Make America Great Again” party and protest in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021 as an “insurrection”.  The label has all the hallmarks of expertise.  The label is explicitly mentioned in an amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbidding those who had participated in the War of Southern Rebellion (1860-1864) from being elected to political office.  Those who had committed “insurrection” must not return to sovereign power.

0396 Does that qualify as “social construction”?

Well, here is the corresponding empirio-normative judgment_2c.

0397 With respect to what is (firstness), the phenomena selected by the woke-political media complex consists of snippets of video footage taken by participants, selectively edited and presented by experts as observations and records of the phenomena of the January 6 event.  Very little or none of the resulting cinematic experience matches testimony from the partiers.  Indeed, in some locations, capitol police welcomed the party-protesters into the Capitol building when, at the same time, Congress was in session and certifying the vote count from the electors of the electoral college.

0398 That brings me to what ought to be.

Unbeknownst to many of the party-protestors, the electoral-vote counting session entails a long-established protocol.  The vice president announces the votes of the electors, one state at a time.  A member of the House of Representatives may rise up and challenge the legitimacy of the electors when its votes are counted.  Then, the Vice President is supposed to ask, “Is there any senator willing to confirm the accusation?”  Of course, typically, no senator is willing to disrupt the proceedings with a confirmation.  They have better things to do with their valuable time.  So, no confirmation occurs, and the electoral votes are accepted.

0399 What would happen if a senator confirmed the accusation?

Well, both legislatures would go to their chambers and debate the issue for one or two hours and come to a decision whether to accept the state’s electoral votes or send the electoral votes back to the state and ask for the state to evaluate the accusation, then return with the votes of the correct electors.  That has to happen within two weeks.  After all, it is the electoral college that elects the president, rather than the mob… er… I mean, populations of huge cities with more votes total than many states combined.

0400 So, am I saying that the January 6 party-protestors disrupted this “counting session”, without even knowing what they were doing?

You bet.

0401 Is that why the event is called an “insurrection” by experts?

That is a very good question.

As far as any of the protesting partiers is concerned, the following diagram describes the scrappy level of the post-truth interscope.

0402 Clearly, people who actually attended the event will say one thing and think another.  But, my guess suggests what they are thinking and what they are saying show a certain coherence.  In other words, what a person thinks [can be objectified as] what that person is willing to say, under conditions when content is not situated by psychometric expertise.

And, what many participants of the January 6 party-protest are willing to say_2a contradicts the normative narrative_2c.

0403 Therefore, the lawyers of the woke-industrial complex have fashioned legal tools to punish these “insurrectionists”.

0404 Chapter six concerns the marriage between globalist corporations and wokeism.

Was it an arranged marriage?

0405 As it turns out, marriage is evolutionarily ancient.  It evolves as an adaptation in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  In our current Lebenswelt, which is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, marriage involves individuals in community_Acoming into organization_B under the auspices of society_C.

0406 In the series, How To Define the Word “Religion” and Related Primers (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues), the family is discussed in three of the ten primers.  In The First Primer on the Organization Tier, the family is an example of the entire organization_B tier.  In The Second Primer on the Organization Tier, the family serves as an example of a corporation_aB, occupying the content_a level of the organization_B tier.  In A Primer on the Family, the family embodies an institution_3aC, occupying the slot for normal-context₃ on the content_a-level of the society_C tier.

0407 Given these promotions, I picture below two of the tiers as interscopes.  In general, the three levels of an interscope are content_a, situation_b and perspective_c.  For each tier, each level gets its own label.

0408 Woke-ism is an institution_3aC, corresponding to an infra-sovereign religion, that calls upon sovereign power_3aC in order to enforce its organizational objectives_2aC.  Woke-ism fuses order_1bC and righteousness_1aC, and considers the fusion as opportunity_1c, in regards to the post-truth condition.

Righteousness_1aC put the organization_B tier into perspective.

0409 Globalist corporations, as corporations, belong to the content_a level of the organization_B tier.  These corporations_aBseek to manipulate business conditions in their favor through machinations on the society_C tier.  In particular, they want sovereign power_3bC to assist in manipulating market exchange_bB and protecting shareholder… or is it?.. stakeholder investment_cB.

0410 What about the “family” that comes into existence when globalist corporations host an ideology that hybridizes capitalism and socialism, relies on expertise, and expects scrappy players not to see that “success_2c” no longer means “getting ahead_2a” and instead means “the promulgation of a global-corporate empirio-normative judgment_2c“.

Well, it looks more or less like the following.

0411 Woke-ism is a international sovereign religion.  Woke-ism is an infrasovereign religion that has successfully embedded itself within the organs of sovereign power in different jurisdictions.  The reason that woke-ism works comes from the convenience that the scientismist one_3aC recognizes no relational object_2cC capable of transcending the positivist intellect.  The positivist intellect has a rule.  Metaphysics is not allowed.

But, metaphysics is required in order to call all things into relation_1cC on the suprasovereign level.

0412 Globalist corporations are concerned about sustainability_cB, or long-term profitability within diverse jurisdictions_cB.  Capital will flow towards the most “friendly” jurisdictions.  International exchanges_bB foster supply chains.  Supplies are manufactured_aB in a variety of jurisdictions.  Global corporations use capital flows in order to maximize profits from their supply chains.

Experts in capitalism are required to conduct business in all aspects of the organization tier, from assessment_cB to supply chains_bB to human resources_aB. In chapter seven, Ramaswamy shows how experts in capitalism may use experts in socialism in order to distract from exploitation and other criminal behaviors.  In chapter six, Ramaswamy suggests that experts in socialism may co-opt experts in capitalism.

0413 Ramaswamy tells a story about value.

Here is my variation.

Around 1970, economist Milton Friedman proclaims that the social purpose of a corporation is to pursue profit.  Profits maximize value to the shareholders.

A few years later, the infamous expert Klaus Schwab writes “The Davos Manifesto” calling for a code of ethics for all business leaders.  There is more to exchange_bB than customers and products.  One must also consider the investors who are sensitive to their social responsibilities.  These investors call for “ethical capitalism”.

0414 This butting of heads occurs right in the middle of the Third Battle of the Enlightenment Gods: The Cold War among Materialist Ideologies (1945-1989).  Obviously, Friedman’s ideology is capitalism.  Klaus Schwab’s ideology is a variation of socialism.  The genius of Schwab’s formulation?  His version of socialism can hybridize with Friedman’s version of capitalism in order to produce an intersection called, “stakeholder capitalism”.

Stakeholder capitalism requires two styles of expertise.  The first style consists of capitalists who regard their “social responsibility” as turning a profit.  The second style consists of socialists who see value in nudging investor’s money towards righteousness.  The first style focuses on transactional or financial value_2H.  The second style promotes transcendental or social value_2V.

0415 The intersection of capitalist and socialist expertise constitutes a single actuality, labeled “value_2b“.  Value_2b stands at the heart of the post-truth interscope.

Ah, the psychometric sciences_2b sound like an arranged marriage between two old ideological rivals, who finally discover that they have ‘something’ in common, thanks to the empirio-normative judgment_2c, in the service of the one of scientism_3c.

0416 Chapter five discusses one particular scientismist_3c arranged marriage between capitalism and socialism_2b.

0417 Perhaps, this is a good time to review where the psychometric sciences appear in the interscope for the post-truth condition.

0418 The psychometric sciences_2b express the operations of a suite of disciplines ranging from economics (corresponding to capitalist expertise) to social work (corresponding socialist expertise).  Associated degrees include accounting and administration, journalism and public relations, marketing and education, and so on.

0419 The psychometric sciences_2b are contextualized by specialized languages within each discipline_3b, often at variance with one another, so that translating from, say, marketing to administration is not an easy task.  Nevertheless, all specialized languages are formatted in the style of science.  Also, all ultimately apply to a single actuality, called “value_2b“.

Specialized languages_3b are necessary to formalize knowledge_1b.  Knowledge basically takes what people say_2a and turns it_2a into observations and measurements_1b that have the potential_1b of being used as data for psychometric models_2b. Psychometric models_2b arrive at value_2b, as the intersection of transactional value_2H and transcendental value_2V, roughly corresponding to financial exhange_2H and organizational objective_2V.

0420 The psychometric sciences wrestle with two intersecting nested forms.

Here is a diagram.

0421 On the horizontal axis, the normal context of market_3H brings the actuality of transactional value_2H (financial exchange_2H) into relation with the potential of price_1H.

On the vertical axis, the normal context of order_3V brings the actuality of transcendental value_2V (social value_2V or object^org_2V) into relation with the potential of righteousness_1V.

Value_2b is the single actuality composed of transactional value_2H and transcendental value_2V.

The contradictions inherent in value_2b can never be resolved, because that is the nature of intersections.

0422 What about the single actuality that Ramaswamy discusses in chapter five?

It is labeled “ESG”.

Environment.  Social.  Governance.

0423 Allow me to offer a humorous substitute: Social, Environment and X.

“S” stands for “social”, and refers to stakeholders interested in accommodating righteousness at the expense of um… the market.

“E” stands for “environment”, and refers to the elevated prices demanded by stakeholders interested in producing environmental products and services than must be mandated by government fiat on the basis of um… righteousness.

“G” stands for “governance”, which means substantial infiltration of corporations by experts certified in the modeling of transactional and transcendental values.  But, that letter changes to “X” as “the thing that Twitter must never become”.

0424 Here is a picture of the mystery of S.E.X.

0425 Before S.E.X., there is S.E.G., the single actuality_2b endorsing Twitter’s censorship… or shadow banning… or deplatforming of opponents of woke-ism on the basis of transcendental values_2V (involving the normal context of order_3Vand the potential of righteousness_1V).  These socialist policies weigh down Twitter’s transactional value_2V (involving the normal context of market_3H and the potential of price_1H) and attract the curiosity of capitalist investors, who might have an inclination to turn Twitter into the thing that it must never become.

Yes, the curiosity smells like Musk.

0426 This personification of curiosity ends up purchasing Twitter and changing its name to “X”, which is precisely what Twitter must never become, because that turns the acronym, S.E.G. into S.E.X., where X stands for a lack of governance by woke experts, rather than what everyone thinks that “X” might stand for but are unwilling to say.  

As such, “X” stands for an eclipse of observations_1b of the phenomena of what people say_2a and a crucial failure of the psychometric sciences_2b.  Experts can observe and measure phenomena of what people say about S.E.G.  But, no one is able to talk about S.E.X. in a way that that does not objectify what they think.   It seems that when one talks about S.E.X., objectification cannot be avoided.  Ask Jacques Lacan.

0427 What one thinks [cannot be objectified as] what one is willing to say_2a follows the logic of science.  What one thinksis like a noumenon.  What one is willing to say may be regarded as its phenomena.  And, according to the modern Positivist’s judgment, a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena.

The exception is when a model is placed over the noumenon, so that one can no longer recognize the noumenon as the thing itself.  Then, the model… er… apparent noumenon [can be objectified as] its phenomena.

Unfortunately, no one wants to touch that objectification when it comes to S.E.X.

At least, not without gloves.

0428 This explains the disconnect between the expert models_2b and what people think_2b when it comes to S.E.X.

For the psychometric sciences, S.E.X. becomes possible when a surplus of righteousness produces a deficit in price.

For what most people think, S.E.X. becomes readily available when a deficit in righteousness produces a deficit in price.