0057 The Greimas square serves as relational structure for an act of persuasion.  The act of persuasion generates an apparent mind-independent being (D) that speaks against the originating mind-independent being (A).  In a way, I can say that a mind-dependent being regarded as mind-independent (D) usurps attention away from the original mind-independent being (A).

Perhaps, D ends up replacing A as mind-independent being.

Oh my.

0058 So far, I have considered several examples.  Two are of note.  One is the scripted corporate media response to a heinous crime where a gun is involved.  Two follows the arc of Klaus Schwab’s titles (K1-K5).

0059 In the first example, the second amendment (a mind-dependent being regarded as a mind-independent being) (D) accounts for the gun that is responsible for the crime (C) because the forbidden thing (B) is present at the scene of a horrible crime (A).

In the second example, stakeholder capitalism (a mind-dependent being that becomes mind-independent through a global sovereign) (D) comes out of the Great Reset (C) that is an inevitable consequence of shaping the future (B) in the face of the fourth industrial revolution (and especially the crisis of covid-19) (A).

0060 These two examples demonstrate the concept that certain acts of persuasion manifest as the updated scholastic Greimas squares.

Is the Greimas square an exercise in logic?

If not, then, what is it?

I suspect that these acts of persuasion are somehow intrinsic to the nature of speech-alone talk. 

Why?

Words are placeholders in systems of differences and the Greimas square is a formalized system of differences.

Yeah, whatever.

0061 On top of that, the updated scholastic Greimas square revives a long-standing (and currently defunct) debate among medieval schoolmen about the distinction between ens reale and ens rationis.  Greimas’s formalism adds two more terms, which I label “illusion” and “delusion”.

0062 What does this have to do with Alex Jones?

Alex Jones disrupts.  He disrupts globalist acts of persuasion.  He calls out illusions and delusions.  He is so good at it that the globalists must… well… hold him responsible for psychological damages of a real crime that he did not commit.  He must be silenced!

Yes, he offends Klaus Schwab.

Of course, I don’t know whether any of this is true.  I am just guessing.  I am not a lawyer.  I am not a confidant of anyone at the World Economic Forum.

All I do is look at ongoing situations, as well as texts, and try associate what I see into the empty slots of a purely relational structure.

0063 So, I look at Jones’s text for a disruption of the following relational structure.

0064 I find an interesting tidbit.

Right in chapter one, Jones says that Schwab’s literary and persuasion skills lie at the heart of K1.  Persuasion is important.  Schwab uses a three-pronged approach.  Jones labels Schwab’s template as “problem, reaction and solution”.

Does this fit into the updated scholastic Greimas square?

Take a peek at my guess.

0065 Is Jones on the verge of ideating this commentary?

Or, is Jones staking out targets?

0066 In chapter two, Jones goes after the reaction (C).  In the Great Reset, the modern world reacts (C) as the mind-independent being of the fourth industrial revolution (A) engenders a mind-dependent being, the plans of the World Economic Forum for shaping the future (B).

Jones asks (more or less), “What does that mean?”

Oh, in layman’s terms, the Great Reset (C) implements systems of control (B).

0067 Contributing to the layman’s disorientation, shaping the future (B) entails novel nomenclature, such as “public-private partnership”, “distributing benefits”, “managing externalities” and “human-centered future”.

Surely, these terms code for policy actions during the Great Reset (C).

So, how do we appreciate the nature these plans (B) as their implementation (C) unfolds as systems of control?

Is illusion (C) too strong of a term?

0068 According to the structure of the Greimas square, the Great Reset (C) speaks against the World Economic Forum’s plans to shape the future (B).  C contradicts B because C implements B.

Does implementation (C) tell me when a plan (B) does not work?

Definitely, especially when C implements systems of control (mind-independent beings) that are popularized as plans for shaping our future (mind-dependent beings).

0069 Does C implements B compare to a reaction (C) that contradicts a problem (B)?

The problem (B) is a mind-dependent being.  For Schwab, the problem of shaping the future (B) contrasts with the fourth industrial revolution (A) in the same way that a mind-dependent being (B) contrasts with a corresponding mind-independent being (A).  The problem (B) entails the formulation of a plan (B).  The plan is filled with jargon, such as “public-private partnership”, whose implementation creates mind-independent beings that are regarded as mind-dependent (C).  These apparently mind-dependent beings (C), are, like all illusions, reactionary.

An illusion (C) is a reaction (C) to a problem (B).

0070 The Great Reset (C) is a mind-independent being that is regarded as mind-dependent.  So is a reaction (C) to a problem (B).

This implies that the Great Reset (C) is a reaction (C) to a problem (B) and the problem (B) turns out to be the apparent necessity to formulate a plan for shaping the future (B).

How confusing is that?

0071 (B) is not shaping the future, as much as the necessity of a plan for shaping the future.

So far, I identify C, the mind-independent being that is being portrayed as mind-dependent, as having two aspects.  The mind-independent aspect (A) is the fourth industrial revolution (complete with covid-19). The mind-dependent aspect is the necessity of a plan for shaping the future (B).  Consequently, C manifests as A implements B.

Maybe, that is not so confusing.

0072 Even more disturbing, Schwab’s construction of a Greimas square persuades.

Here is what I have discussed so far.

A is the fourth industrial revolution.  A is an ens reale.  A opens the act of persuasion.

B contrasts with A.  B is an ens rationis.  B defines a problem.

C contradicts (speaks against) B.  C is “A implements B”.  C is an ens reale that must be regarded as an ens rationis.  C defines a reaction to a problem.

0073 So, the Great Reset (C) reacts to the World Economic Forum’s formulation of a plan for shaping the figure (B) by implementing the plan.

It sounds right.

0074 But, if the Great Reset (C) occupies the same relational position as illusion (C), as well as reaction (C), then who knows what horrors will follow when the hands of the operation (C) perform in service to the brains who formulate the plans (B)?  After all, the hands of the operation (C) work the levers of technologies with demiurgic capacities (A).  These technologies can make deserts bloom.  They can make humans irrelevant.  What happens when the brains formulate plans to turn humans into livestock?

Of course, you have to read Jones’s own words to appreciate the authentic literary impact.

0075 On the one hand, Jones raises good questions that make Schwab’s act of persuasion less convincing.

On the other hand, Schwab has more rhetorical tricks up his sleeve.

Yes, Schwab portrays the Great Reset (C), not as a reaction, but as an alternative, to a far more dangerous illusion.

Indeed, the Greimas square for books K1 through K5 mirrors another Greimas square, where the imagined problem (B) is that there is no plan to shape the future.  Consequently, the reaction to the lack of a plan (C) leads to less than optimal solutions (D). 

0076 Here is a picture.

0077 When the necessity of a plan for shaping the future (B) looks in the mirror, it (B) sees no plans for the future (B^m).

When the Great Reset (C) looks in the mirror, it (C) sees chaos (C^m).

0078 Wow.  Schwab looks great in the mirror of his own imagined horror show.

Yes, Schwab’s Greimas square (K1-K5) is an alternative to the image that Klaus sees in the mirror of fate.

The conclusion is obvious.

Stakeholder capitalism (D) is preferable to less than optimum solutions (D).

The implications are less than obvious.

0079 I wonder, “When Alex Jones questions Schwab’s Greimas square (K1-K5), what happens in the Greimas square in Schwab’s mirror?”

0080 In chapter three, Jones asks (more or less), “Who is responsible for this garbage… er… act of persuasion?“

He recounts a history, full of conspiracies.

Ahem, let me say that our elites do not conspire.  Rather, they manage.

Consequently, I rebrand the term, “conspiracy theory”, with the moniker, “a suspected historical managerial collaboration”.

0081 I will not recount this history.  Jones must be appreciated in his own words.

I will say that chapters three and four convey lots of information, pay attention to behind-the-scenes actors, and portray “managers” in ways that confound the traditional use of the term.

0082 How so?

How do managers work?

Well, first, managers are in charge.  The claim to be in charge of what is going on.  They take credit for successes and deflect blame for failures onto underlings, some of whom are not psychologically prepared for the betrayal.  They cook books.  They implement plans.

0083 How do “managers” work in suspected historical managerial collaborations?

Well, first, they attain positions of power with indeterminate responsibilities.  They appoint loyal people to be in charge of what must be done.  They manipulate the appearances of success and failure.  They compromise others and are especially fond of those who are not psychologically prepared to be compromised.  They make plans.  They select obedient managers to implement those plans.

0084 Of course, these “managers” cannot take exception to Alex Jones’s history of their suspected managerial collaborations.  But, they can sue the crap out of him on the basis of implausible legal theories.

Plus, look how beautiful stakeholder capitalism (D) is, compared to the alternative, less than optimal solutions (D).

0085 In chapter five, Jones turns his attention to Yuval Noah Harari, a lecturer at the department of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.  Harari has a great intellect.  Harari is also Klaus Schwab’s sidekick.

Surely, Schwab outsources aspects of the act of persuasion to Harari.

0086 According to Jones, Harari faces two tasks.

First, convince the reader that “his” understanding of the past is flawed.  This may be easy, because the academy has prepared the soil.  Note how I put the pronoun, “him”, in brackets in order to designate both male and female humans.  That means that my psychological conditions are already grounded in their… um… accusation that my understanding is flawed.

Second, move the reader to a desired vision of the future, where the dystopian reactionary Great Reset (C) leads to the solution of a capitalism where progress, people and the planet are stakeholders (D).

Does “stakeholder” sound like “public-private partnership”?

Oh well.  It sounds like shop talk for our elites.

0087 Harari’s two tasks veil two elements in Schwab’s Greimas square (K1-K5).

Here is a picture.

0088 How does Harari add value to Schwab’s agenda?

Harari’s suggestion that my understanding of the past is wrong diminishes the viability of alternate plans for shaping the future.  The World Economic Forum (WEF) is not the only trans-national institution with a vision for the future.  Indeed, the plans of the WEF may be the public face of a coin.  The other face is… well… private.  Yes, only the members of the partnership can view the other side of the coin.

0089 Ah!  There is a partnership, a coin with two faces: one public and one private.

Theorists of historical managerial collaborations take note.

The dichotomy may be applied in more than one way.

0090 Harari’s efforts to move me to the desired vision of the future (C) speaks against his suggestion that my understanding of the past is wrong (B) and complements the public face of the fourth industrial revolution (including the covid-19 operation, A).  I suppose that the private face is stakeholder capitalism (D).

What?

I thought that covid-19 was a “pandemic”.

Also, I thought that the injection that I was forced to take in order to keep my job was a “vaccine”.

This is the public face of the events leading to the Great Reset (C).

The private face calls it a proprietary mRNA technology.

With the assistance of Alex Jones, I may now suspect that covid-19 was a public “Event 201-related operation” coordinated with private stakeholders.  See page 72 in the text.

0091 The coin of the new realm is “partnership”.  The two faces of the coin are public and private.

0092 Let me repeat the same trick that I applied to the titles of Schwab’s books, K1 through K5, in points 21 through 27.

Here are the titles of Harari’s books.

H1: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humanity (2011)

H2: Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (2016)

H3: 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (2018)

0093 The associations are obvious.

0094 Behold, another version of Klaus Schwab’s act of persuasion.

0095 Jones discusses the illusion-filled reactionary Great Reset (C) in chapters six, seven and eight.

These chapters cover how the coin of the new realm is forged and hammered out.

0096 In chapter nine, the apparently salutary solution of stakeholder capitalism (D) emerges, like order from chaos, like coagula from solve, and like a mandate from heaven.

Jones closes with a review of K5, the fifth book under consideration. Here is the delusion (D) that Klaus Schwab wants to alchemically precipitate from the implemented illusions (C) of the Great Reset.

0097 At this juncture, I turn back and regard the path that I have taken in looking at Jones’s provocative book.

Jones is on target.  He identifies the literary output of Schwab as an act of persuasion.

When I look at this act of persuasion, the Greimas square comes to mind.

0098 Here is the purely-relational structure of the Greimas square.

0099 What does an act of persuasion do?

Well, first of all, one must distinguish the topic from the act of persuasion.

The topic opens with a mind-independent being (A).

The first step (B) of the act of persuasion reminds me of medieval scholastic debates struggling to separate mind-independent being from mind-dependent being (perhaps, I can say, knowledge from opinion).

Needless to say, this scholastic debate does not appear to bear fruit. 

But today, I can see that the medieval debate touches on two elements that are drawn into reality through acts of persuasion (C and D).

0100 What are the two elements?

In an illusion (C), a mind-independent being (ens reale) is regarded as mind-dependent (ens rationis).

In a delusion (D), a mind-dependent being (ens rationis) is regarded as mind-independent (ens reale).

Consequently, the Greimas square updates a centuries-old scholastic debate.

0101 To me, the updated scholastic Greimas square introduces precisely what the medieval schoolmen were trying to avoid: illusion and delusion.

What does an act of persuasion do?

Schwab writes books on the topic of the fourth industrial revolution (A).

In the process, Schwab persuades us of the realness of stakeholder capitalism (D).

0102 Here is where I left off in the last blog.

0103 Another author with the name of Jones, describes the act of persuasion as applying a category of the mind.

To start, there is the mind-independent reality of a situation (A).

For Schwab, this mind-independent reality includes thousands of people working independently, as well as collaboratively, in cutting edge technologies, including artificial intelligence, robotics, material science, genetic research, biochemistry, biology and so on.  All these technologies will contribute to shaping the future in ways that those who seek control cannot control.  Those who seek control envision chaos.

0104 So, B, a mind-dependent being, is formulated.  As per the rules of the Greimas square, B contrasts with A and sets the stage for a creative leap to an apparently mind-dependent being, C.

For Schwab, this mind-dependent being (B) is a plan for shaping the future, courtesy of the World Economic Forum, composed (according to Jones) by those who seek control (or their representatives and lackeys, who are compromised and therefore easily… um… directed.)

0105 The mind-dependent being (B) represents the mind, in the term, category of the mind.

How so?

Well, the mind (B) engages what it^B thinks belongs to the outside world (A), that is, mind-independent being, as if it^A (A) is a mind-dependent being (C).

For example, if I find a slab of marble (A), and I figure that I can carve a statue of ‘something’ (B), I begin chiseling (C) this mind-independent being (A) according to my vision (B).  This artisanal example is not only a creative act, but it exhibits the purely relational character of an act of persuasion.

0106 As the slab of marble is fashioned (C) it speaks against the ‘something’ that I figure I can carve (B).  Plus, it^Ccomplements the integrity of the originating thing (A).

For Schwab, the fashioning of the fourth industrial revolution (including the covid-19 business) (B) is precisely an artistic effort (C), similar to a sculptor working on stone.  However, as Jones rightly notes, the metaphorical slab of stone is composed of humans, who can be as dumb as bricks, but nevertheless bear the image of their Creator.

Who is the creator here, God or the sculptor of the Great Reset?

Illusions (C) can be confounding.  To the mind, a mind-independent being takes on the character of mind-dependence.

0107  Next comes a delusion (D), a mind-dependent being that is categorized as mind-independent.

Ah, is D the category-aspect of the term, “category of the mind”?

Yes, the other Jones is onto ‘something’.

If D goes with “category” and B associates to “of the mind”, then the other Jones’s term, “category of the mind”, labels how D complements B, contrasts with C, and speaks against A.

0108 A delusion (D), appearing to be mind-independent, applies a category of the mind onto the originally mind-independent topic (A).

For the first example of an act of persuasion discussed in these blogs, the apparently mind-independent being is the second amendment of the Constitution (D).  This category of the mind is superimposed, by corporate media, upon heinous crimes (A).

0109 The delusion (D) expresses a mind-independent being that speaks against the originating mind-independent being(A).

Thus, the delusion (D) imposes a category of the mind onto the originating focus (A).  It is as if the second amendment(an apparently mind-independent being) opens the door to heinous crimes (as mind-independent beings) and is therefore complicit.  If this statement makes sense, then pause and savor the delusion (D) as an act of persuasion, leading to the imposition of a category of the mind upon mind-independent being.

0110 Both D and B precipitate, or “co-create”, the category of the mind.

The delusion (D) complements the mind-dependent being (B) and, often enough, serves as a mental impression of the originating mind-independent being (A).  B is the mind in a category of the mind.  D is the category.

Who is the other Jones?

Think E. Michael.

0111 For Schwab, the delusion (D) comes with the label, “stakeholder capitalism”.  Stakeholder capitalism is like a statue, a mind-independent being, chiseled out of social upheaval during the fourth industrial revolution.  There are three stakeholders: progress, people and planet.  All three are reified into mind-independent beings that somehow put capital, the undead blood flowing through the living arteries and veins of the global economy, into perspective.

Once the work of the Great Reset (C) is complete, stakeholder capitalism (D) will have replaced the second amendment (D) as the mind-independent being (D) imposed on all sorts of encounters with reality (A).

Schwab’s act of persuasion will become fiat accompli.

0112 Here is a diagram of the Greimas square derived from the titles of Klaus Schwab’s five books.

0113 From the very start, the intrepid Alex Jones intuitively anticipates the purely relational structure that defines Klaus Schwab’s act of persuasion.  After bringing these associations to consciousness, I want to futz.

Here is how I associate Jones’s summary of Schwab’s approach to the Greimas square.

0114 To me, Jones’s selection of terms reproduces what Schwab sees in his mirror.  Schwab’s mirror tells Klaus what is happening, just as it would tell any sorcerer.  As Jones dismantles Schwab’s argument, Klaus’s mirror remains unsullied.

0115 So, here is where I want to futz (that is, to suggest a small adjustment).

Typically, people futz because they think that they are smarter than they actually are.

Perhaps, my futz reflects the same underlying condition.

Here are alternate terms to “problem, reaction and solution”.  They express the same character, but with a different flavor.

0116 Surely, this Greimas square portrays the persuasive act in Schwab’s five books.

Plus, this Greimas square reflects in Schwab’s mirror.

0117 What does that imply?

A robust argument needs to be made that Schwab’s act of persuasion is not the only response to the vision in Klaus’s mirror.

Perhaps, God has a different plan.

0118 This examination adds value to Jones’s eye-opening book, without replacing the work itself.  The book is a great read.  Plus, it rests on the surface of an alternative to what the sorcerer sees in the mirror.  Below that surface, a Great Awakening flows.

A Great Awakening (C)?

What (A) is happening?

God has a plan (B)?

Is revelation (C) the antidote to illusion (C)?

Does faith seeking understanding (D) challenge delusion (D)?

0119 Is the unfolding of our current theodrama an act of persuasion?

What an odd question.

Have we seen this theodrama before?

0120 Exactly how ancient is the Greimas square’s update of a medieval scholastic debate?

Is it as old as the stories of Adam and Eve?

0121 How could it be?

Here is another way to picture the updated scholastic Greimas square.

0122 Now, I associate elements in the Biblical story of the Fall to this relational structure.

A is the tree at the center of the garden.  This tree is a mind-independent being.

In the October 2022 blog, Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin?”, this examiner suggests that the tree of life in the garden of Eden is already a mind-dependent being that is regarded as mind-independent.  If so, then the Greimas square already operates before Eve takes interest in the singular tree.  Remember, D can replace A.  Remember that John Milton’s masterpiece, Paradise Lost, begins with Lucifer’s rebellion.

B is the spoken name that God gives to the tree.  The tree of the knowledge of good and evil comes with a command, “Do not eat, lest you die.”

In C, Eve reacts to the name.  The serpent assists Eve in regarding the mind-independent being in the center of the garden(A) as a mind-dependent being (C).  The fruit appeals to the eyes, may be good to the taste, and is desired to make one wise.  The serpent pushes the envelope of an illusion (C).

D follows.  Eve is deluded into turning the illusion (C) into a mind-independent being (D).  When she eats the fruit, she violates the command accompanying the naming of the tree.  The mind-initiated violation is a mind-independent being.  All humanity is plunged into a primal state of delusion, where we habitually and blindly project categories of the mindonto mind-independent reality.  We frame.  We name.  We entertain illusion.  We create delusions.  Then, we regard our delusions (D) as mind-independent beings (A).

0123 Here is a picture of the fall of Eve.