0008 Now, people talk about men and women all the time.  They act within a traditional framework_3a where ideas about men and women_2a emerge from (and situate) the potential of sexual dimorphism, as expressed in humans_1a.  Explicit ideas_2a can be articulated in speech-alone talk.  Conversations may be recorded for scientific inquiry.  Implicit ideas_2aproduce expressive phenomena, such as blushing or averting one’s gaze, that can be observed and measured using instrumentation (surveillance cameras).

Consequently, cognitive psychology_3b virtually situates the same content-level nested form as social construction_3b.

0009 The difference is obvious.  Social constructionism does not observe and measure_1b attitudes and behaviors associated with the orthodox view_3a.  Rather, social construction_3b virtually situates othodox views_3a with a situation-level potential_1b, the human will_1b, which is an explicit abstraction concerning human nature.

Saad calls the forced choice between the scientific potential of observations and measurements_1b and the constructionist potential of the human will_1b, “intellectual terrorism”.

Well, terrorists hold people and things hostage.  What do social constructionists hold hostage?

Ah, it must be observations and measurements_1b.

Is that what makes these postmodern movements anti-science?

0010 But, there is more.

The content-level is also virtually situated by traditional formulations about the nature of the content-level.  In the West, these forms come from churches, for the most part.  They are very old, but still remain within our current Lebenswelt.

0011 The normal context of traditional doctrines_3b brings the actuality of marriage and the family_2b into relation with the potential of male-female pair bonding_1b.

Isn’t that reasonable?

The relational logic of marriage is portrayed in A Primer on the Family, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

Nature appears to express its own will.  There is a natural intention_1b (male-female pair bonding) that virtually situates a biological distinction_1a.  Plus, that natural intention_1b appears at the very start of the foundational text for Christian civilization.  Remember Adam and Eve?

0012 What is another thing that social constructionists hold hostage?

Ah, it must be male-female pair bonding.

0013 The possibility of male-female pair bonding_1b underlies marriage and family_2b in the normal context of tradition_3b.  Plus, male-female pair bonding_1b emerges from (and situates) the entire content_a level.  Male-female pair bonding_1baccounts for the entire content_a level.  It is perfectly reasonable that human bodies are adaptations into the niche of male-female pair bonding. 

This is what makes postmodern movements anti-reason.

0014 So far, in looking at chapter four of Saad’s book and using gender as the example, I re-articulate some of the author’s claims using the category-based nested form.

Postmodern illiberal movements situate orthodox views about men and women_2a with the concept that gender is a personal choice_2b.

0015 Plus, postmodern illiberal movements_3b exclude both traditional formulations_3b and the disciplinary language of cognitive psychology_3b.

On what theoretical grounds do they exclude?

0016 Well, if they have no theoretical grounds, then they would be intellectual terrorists.

But, if they do, then what would put the normal context of social construction_3b into perspective_3c?

Well, the perspective must be a postmodern illumination_3c, because the situation-level normal context_3b displaces both science and reason.  The situation tells me that gender is a personal choice_2b.  An third-level actuality_2c must put that personal choice_2b into perspective.  If the world_2c is “naively innocent”, then that perspective empowers the situation-level actuality_2b.  If the world_2c is “treacherously corrupt”, then that perspective explains why the situation-level actuality_2b may never be realized (without the assistance of a benevolent being with sovereign power).

0017 Here is a picture of the dark side of the postmodern illumination_3c.

0018 The slogan of “toxic masculinity”_2c enters the picture as emerging from (and situating) the potential that contextualizes the situation level_1c.  Men are oppressors.  Women are oppessed.  And, that is all there is to it.  The actuality_2c emanating from the potential of ‘the patriarchy’_1c is an illumination of darkness_3c, in the Manichaean sense of the term, “darkness”.

Of course, this perspective is counter-intutitive in the sense that is incomplete.  The problem?  The other half of the illumination goes unspoken.  An illumination_3c of light, as opposed to darkness, remains unspoken.

0019 Here is a picture of the naively innocent side of the postmodern illumination_3c.

0020 Naive and innocent sovereign acts and decrees have the potential_1c of mitigating the dominating and inflexible patriarchy_1c.   Of course, this requires sovereign power_1c.

0021 What happens when ‘sovereign acts and decrees’_1c counters ‘the patriarchy’_1c?

Men are humbled_2c and women are liberated_2c in the normal context of the light-filled normal context of postmodern illumination_3c.

0022 In order to appreciate the three-level interscope derived in the last blog, I consider the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility.  This turns the column in firstness, consisting of elements 1a, 1b and 1c into a category-based nested form.

0023 Here is a picture.

0024 Postmodern gender studies only proclaims the dark illumination_3c.  The light illuminations_3c, where liberation_2coccurs, cannot be articulated, because humiliation_2c and liberation_2c emerge from (and situate) sovereign acts and decrees_1c.  What does the postmodern (il)liberal gain from bringing politics and policies into the picture?

So, the proclamation of the dark illumination_3c fills the airwaves.

0023 In the normal context of the patriarchy_1c, the relevance of the humans will_1b virtually emerges from (and situates) the irrelevance of biological distinctions_1a, including the potential of sexual dimorphism in humans_1a.

Consequently, men choose to gender themselves as males based on human will_1b, rather than the potentials of scientific observations and measurements_1b and the reasonable (natural law) conclusion that men and women are adapted to pair-bonding_1b. The human will_1b does not virtually emerge from a biological distinction_1a.  Rather, the human will_1b decides how to situate biological distinctions_1a, where biological distinctions_1a correspond to the potential inherent in male and female phenotypes_1a.

0024 In short, the situation-level potential of the relevance of the human will_1b veils the relevance of observations and measurements_1b (in cognitive science_3b) and the relevance of pair-bonding_1b (from traditional moral and religious fomulations_3b).

What happens next?

According to the normal context of social construction_3b, if neither science_3b nor religion_3b are relevant, then content-level of orthodox views_3a should no longer serve as subject matter.  The content-level is eclipsed.

0025 Here is a picture.

0026 What does this imply?

Discussions about men and women_2a, one of the favorite topics in bars and coffeeshops near college campuses, are no longer pertinent.

There is a new content-level in town.

0027 Chapter Five is titled, “Campus Lunacy: The Rise of the Social Justice Warrior”.

I continue with gender as the exemplar concern.  In the perspective-level of the previous diagram, being oppressed_2c is a feminine trait_2c.  On the situation level, the normal context of social construction_3b brings the actuality of gender as a personal choice_2b into relation with the potential of human will_1b.  The human will_1b is so relevant, that it makes biological distinctions_1a irrelevant.

Once biological distinctions_1a are irrelevant, then all orthodox views_3a of men and women_2a no longer matter.  Orthodox views_3a concerning the biological distinctions_1a between men and women_2a have been around a long time.  The first great epic of the Greek language, The Iliad, revolves around that distinction.  Paris kidnaps Helen and brings her to Troy and triggers the Trojan War.  The unique masterpiece of the Jewish and Christian tradition starts in the Garden of Eden with the distinction between man and woman.

0028 Social construction replaces any need for the so-called “Western canon”.

Indeed, social construction offers an alternate content level, allowing me to depict the following speculative diagram, based on the title of chapter five.

0029 Yes, once feminism triumps, the situation level shifts to the content level.  A new “humanities”_2a must be constructed_3a in order to aesthetically represent the potential of the relevance of the human will_1a (over biological distinctions_1a) and to politically portray gender as a personal choice_2a.

There goes the Iliad and the Bible.  Fare thee well, Western civilization.

0030 Of course, the alternative literature of the nouvelle academics must be situated by the patriarchy_1b, as the potential from which arises the unspeakable horrors of well… those throwbacks who still are talking about the biological differences between men and women.

Call them “scientists”.  Call them “humanists”.  Call them “religious”.  They are overruled by the critique of dark illumination_3b.  Ssocial construction_3a, not orthodox views_3a, should define the content level.

0031 Remember the so-called College of Arts and Sciences?

Let us now advocate for a new coalition of social inquiries.

May we call it the College of Social Constuction?

0032 Take a closer look at the above figure.

Several postmodern themes intertwine.

0033 On the content level, radical individualism predominates.  For other brands of social construction, replace “gender” with “the issue du jour”.

0034 On the situation level, Marxism stands out.  The “patriarchy” is the “system”.  The “system” is a term that substitutes for “capitalism”, along with its attendant division between the “bourgeois” and the “proletariat”.  The “system” injects a fantastic fluidity into the Marxist tradition.  A phantasmic dyad_2b of dark illumination_3b always manifests as oppressor and oppressed.  Another term for dark illumination_3b is “critical theory”_3b.

0035 On the perspective level, American big government (il)liberalism blossoms.  Who provides the protection_1c and the privileged status for the oppressed_2c?  It is the federal government.  Another term for protection_1c is “safe space”.  Another term for light illumination_3c is “social justice”_3c.  The lawyer who sues for the causes of the ones privileged to be called, “oppressed”, is a “social-justice warrior”.

0036 Chapter six is titled, “Departures from Reason: Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome”.

Can social construction_3a adequately replace the orthodox views_3a that incoming university students already hold when they enter their dormitories?

The answer is “yes”, since orthodox views_3a are outlawed from the start.

Colleges say to their incoming classes, “Scrap any right doctrines that you think you have.  We are here to inform you of what you should think.”

Thus, postmodern college education begins with de-indoctrination.

They continue, “Do not concern yourselves with what your parents, grandparents, and other relatives have told you about the world.  Do not recall what any inquisitorial throwback has instructed you about religion.  These are the discourses of the master_1b.  Your human will_1a is the only relevant parameter in the social construction_3a of your personal choices_2a.”

0037 What does this imply?

Academics in the College of Social Construction do not want to hear what the students already think, because their orthodox views_3a are already irrelevant.

To me, this introduces what Saad labels as “the Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome”.

Postmodern academics do not want to encounter the world outside their safe space_3c.  They do not want to hear orthodox views_3a because such views are already excluded from academic discourse founded on the normal context of social construction_3a.

0038 This is a syndrome, because we do not know the underlying causes, other than disdain for fools who cannot wrap their rigid minds around the normal context of social construction_3a.

0039 Here is slower way to depict what postmodern academics do not want to see and what happens when they hide content that they do not want to see.

They do not want to see the content-level for the following two-level interscope.

In particular, orthodox views_3a, which are typically situated (and also refined) by humanities_3b and the sciences_3b, deserve contempt and ridicule.  Such ridicule is biting. Such contempt has be vicious.  After all, what is to stop the humanities_3band the sciences_3b from excluding social constuction_3b?

Do different rules apply to the humanities_3b and the sciences_3b as opposed to the social constructions_3b?

That is a very good question.

0039 According to Saad, postmodern academics is parasitic. They are feeding off a host.

Who is the host?

Presumably, the host is the one providing students with orthodox views_3a.  Who is the host?   Is the host, the student’s parents, extended family, local community, church and so on? 

Why would they send their sons and daughters to a college where social construction_3a institutionally excludes their own orthodox views_3a, which they taught to their children?

0040 Plus, why does Saad add the adjective, “ostrich”.

Well, an ostrich does not like danger.  So, the ostrich has been rumored to place its head in a burrow in order to not see an unwanted danger.   Of course, this does not make any sense in terms of evolutionary adaptations.  The ostrich has huge legs.  What are they for if not running away from danger?

So, this term, “ostrich”, serves as a metaphor for a creature who will bury its head in order not to see something that it knows that it is not supposed to see.

0041 That creature belongs to the College of Social Construction.

So, what is the thing that the College of Social Construction knows that it is not supposed to see?

Well, the answer to that question already appears.

Plus, the answer will appear again.

0042 Professor Saad is an evolutionary psychologist.  I am sure that he can discuss, at length, the avoidance of information that is apparently detrimental to one’s adaptive fitness.

But, he cannot say what the ostrich is trying not to see.

That requires a new type of understanding.  That understanding comes from the nascent Department of Triadic Relations.  “Nascent” means on the verge of coming into being.  Esse_ce meets essence.  Triadic relations locates where evolutionary psychology can meet political philosophy.

0043 Consider the following development of an organizational objective for the institution of the nouvelle academy.

0044 What the ostrich is trying not to see, already mentioned, arises from the fact that social construction originates as a situation-level nested form.

0045 In the first step, the situation level settles in (invasively occupies?) the content-level for the new academy.

0046 This move rules out science, reason and liberalism, while, at the same time, declaring these styles of inquiry irrelevant.

Why is liberalism ruled out?

Liberalism may be defined as “the correct doctrine of ‘live and let live'”.  Say that I want to destroy my enemies.  There are other issues involved besides my own human will_1a.  Liberals consider those issues as relevant.  They are not.

Instead, in the situational normal context of critical theory_3b, the articulation of oppressor and oppressed_2a arises from the potential of a system that threatens the relevance of the human will_1b.  Liberals call this system_1b “other issues involved besides my own human will”.

0047 The light illumination_3c (of social justice_3c) then puts the dark illumination_3b (of critical theory_3b) into perspective.

This interscope has appeared before.

0048 Consider the virtual nested form in the category of firstness.

0049  The system_1b virtually situates human will_1a.  The system_1b cannot be visualized without the critical powers of dark illumination_3b.  The system_1b corresponds to Yaltaboath_1b, the ever-demanding god of world creation, as noted in Comments on Peter Burfeind’s Book (2014) Gnostic America.

Consequently, one goal of the nouvelle academy is the articulation of the system_1b that virtually sitates (and to some, dictates) whether the human will is relevant or not_1a.  Systems_1b that do not acknowledge the primacy of the human will_1a, produce dyadic social actualities of oppressors and oppressed_2b.  The only redemption_1c from systems_1b can celebrate the relevance of human will_1a.  A safe space_1c is necessary.

That safe space_1c is nothing less than the promise of the new academy_1c.  The ostrich hides the original content layer.  The parasite demands a safe space_1c.  The syndrome promises an academy that will deliver a safe space_1c that will contextualize the system_1b (the patriarchy_1b, in the case of feminism) in order to elevate the relevance of the human will_1a. 

0050 Okay, the ostrich, the parasite and the syndrome of the postmodern academy_1c wants to illuminate the darkness of the system_1b.

But, doesn’t it take one to know one?

Oops, that is a saying straight out of the now-suppessed handbook of orthodox views_1a.

That brings me back to what the ostrich does not want to see.

Or, should I say, “What does the ostrich not want everyone else not to see.”?

Professor Saad strives to describe what the ostrich does not want everyone else to see. 

0051 What does the ostrich not want everyone else to see?

I suspect that this evolutionary scientist sees the following virtual nested form in the category of secondess.

0052 While the items in the realm of potential are topics for discussion in the new academy, the elements in the realm of actuality can be observed and measured on postmodern college campuses throughout Western civilization.  The normal context of a privileged status for those who are oppressed_2c virtually brings the dyadic actuality that some identify as oppressed and some are identified as oppressor_2b into relation with the potential of persons engaging in a personal choices_2a.

0053 Does this mesh with Saad’s label, “ostrich parasitic syndrome”?

0054 In terms of gender, one’s personal choice_2a reveals the relevance of one’s human will_1a in the normal context of social construction_3a.  Personal choice_2a is a syndrome that transcends (even as it bans) the most obvious symptoms of biological sexual dimorphism in humans_1a (that is, men and women_2a).

Syndromes are clusters of symptoms.  Orthodox views_3a label syndromes_1a as products, not of human will_1a, but ofcertain underlying material or instrumental causes_1a.  In the frame of science, these causes are biological.  In the frame of philosophy, these causes are discussed in terms of natural laws.  Natural laws correlate syndromes with underlying causalities.

So, fixation on personal choice_2a is a syndrome, from the orthodox points of view of science and philosophy, which are not to be regarded in the College of Social Construction.

0055 In terms of gender, males are identified as oppressors_2b and females are identified as oppressed_2b.  A critical theory_3b assists identification_2b on the basis of the potential of a system_1b.  For gender, the system_1b is labeled, “the patriarchy”_1b.

0056 What is a parasite?

A parasite feeds off its host.

If I look at oppressor and oppressed, I can ask the question, “Who is the parasite and who is the host.”

Obviously, the oppressor feeds off the oppressed.

0057 But, the actual relation is the opposite.

I ask, “If the parasite can choose to be a parasite and the host cannot choose its fate, then how does choice_2a align with the actualities_2b of critical theory_3b?”

Well, the female may voluntarily associate to the label of “oppressed”_2b and the male has no choice but to accept the label of “oppressor”_2b.  Voluntary association with the oppressed_2b virtually situates the content-level actuality of personal choice_2a.  Rejection of the label of “oppressor”_2b directly situates the resisting involuntary with complicity with the system_1b theorized by critique_3b.

This implies that the so-called “oppressor”_2b is the host and the self-identifying “oppressed”_2b is the parasite.

0058 Let me say that again.

Contrary to the obvious conclusion, the self-identifying “oppressed”_2b are parasitic upon their involuntarily identified “oppressors”_2b.

The question now becomes, “What substance does the parasite draw from its host?”

0059 One answer is apparent in the normal context_2c for the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality.

The oppressed_2b draws priveleged status_2c from the oppressor_2b. 

Of course, this answer cannot be admitted.

Hence, the metaphor of “ostrich” applies.