0006 How are humans to be reconfigured?

Two key political philosophers articulate two visions.  

0008 John Locke (1632-1704 AD) regards humans as self-governing creatures.  Humans are endowed with reason.  Commonsense allows us to rule ourselves.  Democracy is the mode of government most suitable for reasonable citizens.

Liberals remake humans by changing their votes.

Locke’s position may be re-articulated as a nested form.  A nested form?  See A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

Here is the nested form.  The normal context of human nature₃ brings the actuality of commonsense₂ into relation with the potential of a form of governance suited for self-governing people₁.  Democracy₁ labels that potential₁.  Democracy₁ is the potential of a state arising from self-governing people₁.

Here is a diagram.

0009 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679 AD) claims that each human is vulnerable, especially in regards to other humans.  Every person is vulnerable to the ambitions of other people.  We need a state to protect us (from one another).

Liberals remake humans asking the government to protect them from harm.

Hobbes’s position may be re-articulated as a nested form.

The normal context of the state of nature₃ brings the vulnerability of each person (especially with respect to other people)₂ into relation with the possibility that the state will protect us (from ourselves)₁.  Hobbes has a label for a form of governance that manifests the potential of protecting us from one another.  He calls it₁ “leviathan”.  Leviathan₁ is the potential of a state capable of protecting us (from one another)₁.

Here is a picture.

0010 From its inception, the liberal civic religion holds both Locke’s and Hobbes’s positions as a mysterious union.  Of course, this union is filled with contradictions that cannot be resolved.  But, that is the nature of mystery.

What is a mystery?The chapter on message, in Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, describes a relational structure corresponding to mystery.  An intersection of two nested forms portrays a mystery.

0011 What is the relation between the following two nested forms?

Remember that democracy₁ is the potential of a state arising from self-governing people₁ and leviathan₁ is the potential of a state capable of protecting us (from one another)₁.

0012 Enlightenment liberals know that each nested form does not emerge from and situate the other.

The normal contexts are different.  For example, the word, “nature”, in the two normal contexts, has different meanings, presences and messages.

Similarly, the potentials are different.

For example, the second amendment of the original American Constitution says that all citizens can own and carry guns.

On the one hand, any rational person has the right to defend “himself”, especially against those who would take “his” property (such as a zealous government official).  That’s democratic.

On the other hand, a zealous government official may be commissioned to protect “vulnerable persons”.  Vulnerable persons may be conditioned to fear people carrying guns.  The self-acknowledged vulnerable folk may demand that the zealous government official take the guns (property) away from other citizens.  That’s leviathan.

The Constitution rules in favor of democracy.

0013 So, how do the two nested forms relate to one another?

Enlightenment liberals know that both nested forms constitute a single, contradiction-ridden entity.  I call this actuality_2′, “the individual”.

The individual_2′ is an actuality that is constituted by the intersection of two nested forms.  The intersection binds two independent actualities.  According to the masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion”, intersections associate to the message underlying the word.  Intersections are mysteries.

0014 The construction may be also be portrayed in the following fashion.

Now, that looks like an intersection.

This diagram conveys the mystery underlying the liberal civic religion, which accompanies the spread of democracy in the modern Age of Ideas.

0015 Usually, an intersection serves as an actuality₂ in a category-based nested form.

Here is a picture.

0016 But, according to the chapter on presence in the e-book, How To Define The Word “Religion”, the individual in community_A belongs to firstness in the following undifferentiated nested form.  Each element in the figure below designates an interscope (a nested form composed of nested forms).

Yes, the mystery of liberalism_2′ applies to the tier related to firstness_A.  It_2′ resonates with the actualities contained in the interscope for the individual in community_A.  The comparison will be further developed, later.

0017 Since the liberal tradition is a civic religion, liberalism also belongs to the society_C tier.

The society_C tier contains two types of religion, ones above the sovereign_bC (suprasovereign_cC) and those below the sovereign_bC (infrasovereign_aC).

The three levels of the society_C tier are (from top to bottom) suprasovereign_cC, sovereign_bC and infrasovereign_aC.

In comparison, for the individual in community_A tier, the three levels are judgment_cA, perceptions and phantasms_bA, and sensations, decodings, impressions and feelings_aA.

“Decodings” convert what someone speaks into a meaning, presence and message underlying the statement.

0018 I offer this comparison because liberalism is a religion on the society_C tier.  Yet, a core mystery of liberalismcoincides with the virtual nested form, in the realm of actuality, for the individual in community_A tier.

So, allow me to juxtapose the virtual nested forms in the realm of actuality, for both the society_C and individual in community_A tiers.

0019 So, the question arises, “Is liberalism a suprasovereign or an infrasovereign religion?”

This answer is both.  Liberalism consists of many different institutions_3aC, striving to remake humanity_1aC, according to diverse organizational objectives_2cC.  The variety of causes is enormous, from teaching people proper manners to ending human trafficking.  These causes appeal to the commonsense_2V and the awareness of vulnerability_2H characterizing individuals_2′.

Only fools have no commonsense_2V.  Only sociopaths have no awareness of vulnerability_2H.

So all liberal institutions, appealing to anyone who is not a fool or a sociopath, share a relational object_2cC, the mysterious intersection of Locke’s and Hobbes’s nested forms.

Furthermore, this relational object_2cC, is an actuality that associates to the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality for the individual in community_A tier.

0020 Remember, the technical definitions of democracy_1V(2cC) and leviathan_1H(2cC) are:

Democracy_1V(2cC) is the potential of self-governance or the potential of a state arising from the cooperation of self-governing people.  Another way to describe this term is the potential of being sensible_1V(2cc).  Only fools are not reasonable.

Leviathan_1H(2cC) is the potential of a state that will protect us (from one another).  Another way to describe this term is the potential of feelings of security_1H(2cc).  Only sociopaths dismiss such feelings.

0021 We thought-align to the liberal object^rel_2cC by applying commonsense_2V and being aware of our vulnerabilities_2H.  In doing so, we embrace the technical definitions of both democracy_1V(2cC) and leviathan_1H(2cC).

0022 With this denkalignment in mind, Crawford raises the question (more or less), “How stable is the individual?”

0023 The individual_2cC is the object that brings the modern nation state into relation.  Liberalism stands at the heart of every legitimate nation-state.

Liberal policies operate in the arena of leviathan_1V.  These policies must gain the assent in a democracy_1H.

Liberal agendas touch base with feelings of peace and security_1V. Peace and security provide motives for adopting a particular policy.  These agendas must be reasonable and sensible_1H.  They must not defy commonsense_2V.

0024 For example, the liberal civil rights movement in the USA during the 1950s and 1960s demand that the leviathan (the courts) overturn discriminatory laws (“Jim Crow”) in southeastern states.  Protests peacefully threaten civic order_1H.  The liberal civil-rights movement appeals to commonsense_1V and Christian values.

0025 Christian values?

The concept of the individual is conceived within the womb of the Christian tradition.  The Church gives birth to the individual.  Through the sacraments, an individual can come into mystical union with the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah.  The Church delivers a template for commonsense action and for peace of heart in the political realm.  But, it cannot impose its template.  The leviathan can.

The liberal civil rights movement says, “According to commonsense and Christian values, every person, even the descendants of slaves, are individuals (hence, citizens).”

0026 The liberal civil-rights movement also relies on legal warfare that challenges the so-called “Jim Crow Laws”, supports legislation to assure civil rights in federal jurisdictions and undermines apparently “unequal” separate educational institutions.

0027 The civil-rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s succeeds in implementing its organizational objective_2aC and remakes humans, that is, re-orients individuals in community_A.

The concept of the individual, liberalism’s relational object_2cC remains intact as individuals in community_A change alignment on the content, situation and perception levels.

Here is a liberal movement that successfully remade humans by changing individual hearts and minds.

0028 Unfortunately, the use of lawfare, short for “legal warfare”, during the civil-rights movement, calls the stability of the individual_2cC into question.

Subsequent movements follow under the banner of “civil-rights”.  None carry the same legitimacy.  Each defies commonsense_1V.  The federal government gains in scope and power, promising to reduce the vulnerability of its citizens to a diverse range of threats, from industrial pollution, to financial distress, to systemic discrimination, to lack of “equity, and to more and more, until finally, to the sudden appearance of a novel coronavirus that can be “diagnosed” by a newly marketed polymerase chain reaction test (that, everyone learns later, also tests positive for influenza).

0029 The leviathan’s response to the last threat, according to Crawford, unravels the mystery.

0029 What does it mean to unravel a mystery?

The intersection unravels into a resolution, where one nested form emerges from (and situates) the other.  A two-level interscope results.  One nested form goes into the content level.  The other occupies the situation level.  The two-level interscope is discussed in A Primer on Sensible on Social Construction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0030 Say what?

To start, what would produce the conditions where a mystery resolves into a heresy?

The intersection₂ is the union of two actualities₂, so it₂ should enter the slot for actuality₂ in a nested form.  So if the normal context₃ shifts, then the internal dynamics of the actuality₂ may change.

Crawford suggests that the recent political response to the novel coronavirus completes a historic transition, from modern liberalism₃ to hypermodern (some would say, “postmodern”) technocratic progressivism₃.

0031 Here is a picture.

0032 In liberalism₃, the goal is to move the mystery₂, in a spiritual sort of way, by exploiting democracy’s and leviathan’s abilities to remake humans₁.  Appeal to the people’s commonsense.  Set limits to what is acceptable.  Offer inspiration.  Apply peer-pressure.  Certainly, liberals think that they are smarter (or better, more enlightened) than other citizens.  But, they respect the wisdom of tradition, particularly the Christian tradition.  Indeed, liberalism₃ seeks to practically implement the Christian vision in a fallen world, by calling the individual to be reasonable and by cajoling individuals to recognize their weaknesses.

0033 In technocratic progressivism_3b the goal is to move vulnerable persons_2b, in an efficient sort of way, by using the leviathan_1b to situate the impulses of human nature_3a.  Insist that commonsense_2a is defined by technocratic calculations_1b.  Frame every challenge as a fear-inducing crisis.  Offer scientific and technical explanations, using terminology that confounds the literal meanings of words.  Insist that alternate policies have dire consequences.  Label the opposition, “malevolent”.

0034 The result is a new relational structure, “the unraveled individual”, which casts a shadow upon the originating mystery.

Vulnerable persons_2b virtually emerge from (and situate) commonsense_2a.A mystery unwinds into a heresy.

0035 A mystery resolves into a heresy.  An intersection unravels into a two-level interscope.  One nested form goes into the content level.  The other nested form enters the situation level.  Two configurations are possible.  Typically, one predominates.

What is a heresy?

You tell me.  The answer appears before you.

0036  In the heresy of technocratic progressivism₃, leviathan_1b virtually situates democracy_1a.

What is leviathan_1b?

Leviathan_1b is the potential of a state that will protect us (from one another)_1b.  Another way to describe this term is the potential of feelings of security_1b, in a world filled with sociopaths_2a.

0037 The implication is that human nature_3a coheres with purely calculated judgments_2cA, dispassionate perceptions_2bAand stoically accepted sensations and decodings_2aA.

Such dedication to reason means that humans are basically sociopaths, unable to register the emotional reactions of others.  There is no way that these sociopaths can govern themselves.  Therefore, democracy_1a, the potential of self-governance_1a or the potential of a state arising from people being reasonable or sensible_1a, must be virtually situated by a leviathan_1b, underlying a state of nature_3b. 

Human nature_3a is sociopathic_3a.

The state of nature_3b is a state of fear_3b.

0038 Yes, the state of fear_3b, which describes what the leviathan_1b apparently aims to prevent, becomes the normal context favored by technocratic progressivism₃, as it₃ brings the actuality of the unraveled individual₂ into relation with the potential of ‘remaking humans’₁.

0039 Surely, this does not makes sense.  Yet, it is precisely what Crawford witnesses during the lockdowns.

Human nature_2a is ruthlessly_3b suppressed by sovereign acts and decrees from a department of the leviathan_1b aiming to protect vulnerable people_2b, on the basis of a threat to health from the state of nature_3b.  Lockdowns and mask requirements violate commonsense_2a, yet anyone questioning the sovereign acts and decrees is regarded as a sociopath_1a, who does not care about the health of vulnerable people_2b.

I suppose that Crawford’s witness implies that the state of nature_3b is a state of fear_3b that, contrary to rational calculation_3a, arises from the potential of a state that aims to promote feelings of security_1b and to provide both material and psychological safe harbor for vulnerable people_2b.

Does that sound like lockdowns and stimulus checks?

0040 A suprasovereign liberal civic religion dies with the unraveling of the individual₂, defined as the intersection of commonsense_2V and vulnerabilities_2H.

In the normal context of technocratic progressivism₃, a mystery_2cC unravels into a two-level interscope.  But, the unraveled individual_2b does not make sense to humans in their natural… um… state_3a.

0041 The two-level interscope characterizes sensible thought.  However, the emotional judgments_2cA, phantasms_2bA, impressions_2aA and feeling_2aA of vulnerable persons is more like a religious experience_2b, compared to an exercise in commonsense_2a.

Yet, this religious experience_2b is sensible in the normal context of a state of fear_3b, where the leviathan has the potential to declare a state of exception_1b.  Consequently, in technocratic progressivism, the perspective level_c does not come into play.

Or, at least, it_c appears not to.

0042 Here is a diagram.

0043 How does Locke’s human nature_3a become regarded as sociopathological_3a?

How does Hobbes’s state of nature_3b manifest as a state of fear_3b?

The original normal contexts do not seem exceptional.

The latter normal contexts do.

0044 Crawford writes that, in the 1990s, social scientists dispose with the “rational actor” model of human behavior.  Cognitive psychology (and evolutionary psychology) sees humans as unconsciously employing evolved cognitive modules.

Along the same lines, bureaucratic criteria_1b, such as performance metrics_2b, replace commonsense judgments_2a.  Examples include so-called “evidence-based medicine”, standardized tests and curricula, and self-driving automobiles.  These policies are designed to protect vulnerable persons_2b, given the sociopathic (unconsciously employing evolved cognitive modules) nature of doctors, teachers and ahem… people who drive.

0045 Here is a picture of what human nature transitions to under the normal context of technocratic progressivism₃.  Evolutionary psychology informs us that human nature is full of sociopathic tendencies, due to our “selfish genes”.  Cognitive psychology models human thought processes as circuits of unconscious modules, working in tandem.

Commonsense_2a gets redefined.

Some call this progress.  Others call it, “dehumanization”.

0046 During the 2000s, theatrical political initiatives introduce a perspective-level actuality_2c, the state of exception.  Astate of exception is declared in order to confront emergent vulnerabilities_2b.  These declarations do not need to satisfy commonsense_2a, in the old sense of the word, because “commonsense” has been redefined.  In fact, the original concept of human nature_3a has been narrowed by scientific inquiry into a suite of sociopathic tendencies_3a.

Technocratic progressivism₃ dons the mantle of science in its pursuit to remake humans₁.

0047 Here is a picture of the transitioned unraveled individual.

Figure 19

0048 Of course, the most recent theatrical incident coincides with a complex sequence of conjunctions among Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto in the Houses of Capricorn and Aquarius.  See Razie Mah’s blogs for March and April 2020.  A novel coronavirus (the common cold) rages through Wuhan after the New Years Festival celebrating the Year of the Rat, then spreads to the world.  The virus’s progress is marked by the technocratic implementation of a polymerase chain reaction test.

Never mind claims that the test also shows positive for influenza.  Hospitals in China and Italy are overwhelmed with old people in the middle of winter suffering complications and the doctors are calling for experts to save them with medical protocols.  Corporate television reports the breaking news.

Disease translates into data.  Data feeds panic_2b.

0049 The federal government responds.  But the term, “federal”, is now delocalized.  It used to refer to a federation of sovereign states in America.  Now, it means a federation of sovereign states in both America and Europe, even though the Europeans have not recognized the subtle shift in terminology.

Technocratic progressivism knows how to shift the meanings of words.

0050 Here is a picture of the plague-unraveled individual.

0051 The normal context of the federal government_3c brings the actuality of a medical state of emergency_2c, complete with quarantines of healthy citizens, into relation with the potential of ‘biosecurity’_1c.

The normal context of a state of fear_3b brings the actuality that the novel coronavirus endangers vulnerable persons_2b into relation with the government apparatuses of subsidiary states, such as Germany and Italy, as well as America and Canada_1b.

The normal context of the sociopathic reactionary resistance_3a brings the actuality of common folk denying the well-publicized dangers_2a into relation with the potential of a countervailing democratic initiative_1a.

Of course, the federal government_3c and the leviathan_1b can manage the anticipated_3a commonsense_2a democratic_1ainitiative.  That is where the control files on politicians, influencers, corporate media celebrities, religious leaders, and so on, enters the picture.

0052 How about some anecdotal evidence?

Crawford describes his observations of people in the California Bay Area, a technocratic progressive heartland.

First, people wear masks outdoors, not so much for personal protection, but because zero covid is a heroic battle, requiring a literal effacement of the individual.

Ah, wearing masks_1a signals one’s virtuous solidarity with vulnerable persons endangered by the virus_2b.  It is an expression of democracy_1a in support of the leviathan_1b, rather than common folk, who do not care about those designated as “vulnerable”_2a.

0053 Here is the virtual nested form in the category of firstness.

The normal context of biosecurity_1c virtual brings slogans from the leviathan_1b into relation with the potential of affirmation by democratic expression_1a.

Here is a diagram.

0054 What about lockdowns?

Does staying home during a lockdown show democratic assent?

Here is a picture of the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality.

0055 Crawford describes how lockdowns force social isolation.  Social atomization is one of the conditions that support the rise of totalitarian movements.  The Party offers the only way to… um… party.

Also, social isolation purifies the citizens of the Bay Area, who democratically assent_1a to the leviathan_1b rather than what used to be called “commonsense”_2a.  Those wearing masks outdoors dance to the cultish vibe of hygiene maximalists.  Here are the uncontaminated spiritual warriors of a nascent hygiene state.

Crawford waxes eloquent about a social scene that makes common folk want to puke.

0056 Here is a picture of the virtual nested form in the category of secondness.

0057 Need I continue?

The denizens of the San Francisco Bay Area abandon commonsense_2a and embrace medical tyranny_1b.

Denizens?

Well, they aren’t individuals anymore, are they?