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

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

“Perfection” is a word that represents a whole or a completion.  Perfection applies to things that have achieved what they were intended to be.  For example, the perfection of an acorn is a full-grown oak tree.  Applied to the topic at hand, I imagine that perfection also applies to the transcendentals, because they represent an end point for what I think_2a and what I say_2a.

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

For example, the perfection of a debate is a decision_2c in the normal context of refined reason_3c, that exploits an opportunity_1c, which is the potential of… well, let me not fill in those details.

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

0776 Does that sound like abuse of language?

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

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

0777 The citizen does not fully comprehend that the sophist establishes a situation that emerges from (and situates) policy debates.  That situation starts as soon as the sophist frames propositions_1b in such a manner as to support sophisticated values_2b, which opens opportunities_1c for public decisions_2c.

Does this sophisticated process include the conditioning of transcendentals?

I suspect so.

0778  The meaning, presence and message underlying a spoken word_1a that is supposed to represent a transcendentalmay be manipulated_1b in such a fashion as to generate sophisticated values_2b for any particular debate.  This occurs within the situation level, as the proposition is framed_1b as promoting sophisticated values_2b, in the normal context of rhetorical debate_3b.  This is what sophists do.  They tell the citizen what he wants to hear while satisfying the ambitions of those who are paying for his services.

Welcome to “our” democracy.

0779 The opportunity_1c for a decision_2c arises when the boiling of the crudities of spoken words_2b is further refined by the evaporation of the water, the matrix of debate, thereby crystallizing the words of the decision_2c itself.  Reason_3a,1a is refined_3c in so far as the very terminology that goes into the decision_2c abuses the words framing the proposition_1b in favor of sophisticated values_2b, because the implementation of a decision_2a is not necessarily the perfection of the decision itself_2c.

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

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

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

0781 Does it suggest the following?

Yeah, that looks abusive.

0782 So, what does Plato have against the sophists?

Just as perfectionists_2b spoil perfection_2a, sophists ruin the spoken words_2a that they weave into sophisticated valuations_2b.

0783 Let me start with the perfection of spoken words.

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

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

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

0785 But, that does not mean it does.

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

What about understanding?

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

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

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

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

So, meaning should be related to message.

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

0789 Presence associates to me.  My intellect_3a contextualizes my will_1a.

But, in conversation, there are other intellects_3a and wills_1a, so the normal context and potential of understanding is ambiguous.  What about “our intellect_3a” and “our will_1a“?  Does mean that there are others who are influencing me?   So, does a perfection of understanding occur when I surrender “my” intellect_3a and “my” will_1a to the reasoning_3a,1a of others?

0790 These are interesting questions.

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

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

Reality and understanding are two perfections of the spoken word.

And, these two perfections have been put on pause.

0792 One lesson is clear.

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

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

Ah, if the perfectionism of spoken words associates to sophisticated values_2b, then that perfectionism is facilitated by the potential to ‘frame propositions’_1b as well as the potential of ‘formalizing knowledge’_1b.

0794 So, I wonder, how would rhetorical discourse_3b virtually situate reason_3a,1a in a fashion that accords to refined reason_3c?

0795 I have a suggestion.

Let me start with how to define a spoken word.

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

0796 Note how the content-level of the interscope for the ancient Greek reasoning one_1c is repackaged into the above nested form.

What I say_2a is the spoken word₂ and the very act of speaking associates to a message as an actuality₂ and as a potential₁.

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

The intellect_3a contextualizing the will_1a goes with presence, which (in the above figure) only stands in the realm of possibility.

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

There are many ways to resolve these ambiguities.

For example, a written English dictionary presumes that the presence (of an authority’s reason_3a,1a) is substantial enough to inscribe the definition₃ of a spoken word₂ onto a page, in indelible ink₁.

0797 Now, I can bring in the situation level.

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

For the citizen, meaning₁ underlies a spoken word₂.  Meaning is what I think_2a.

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

For the citizen, message₁ underlies a spoken word₂.  Message is what I say_2a.

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

For the citizen, presence₁ underlies a spoken word₂.  That presence₁ is my intellect_3a and my will_1a.

For the sophist, the intellect_3a characterizes whether one particular word₂ is used or not.  The presence of one particular word as opposed to another particular word may be crucial to victory_1a.  This selection corresponds to the machinations of the intellect_3a, directly, and the victorious will_1a... er… the will_1a, indirectly.

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

Here is a diagram of the reconfigured definition.

0799 Technically, what I say_2a no longer associates with the spoken word₂, it_2a only goes with the potential of message₁.

Also, what I think_2a no longer associates with definition₃, it_2a only goes with the potential of meaning₁.

0800 So, theoretically, while the potential of meaning presence and message associates to the all three elements of the citizen-level nested form, this reconfigured definition no longer implies that what I say_2a entails both actuality₂ (of spoken words₂) and potential₁ (of message₁) and that what I think_2a entails both normal context₃ (of definition₃) and potential₁(of meaning₁).

Practically, the potential of framing propositions_1b and formalizing knowledge_1b packages the entire content_a-level of the citizen interscope.  It_1b does so through definition₃.  The normal context of definition₃ brings the actuality of spoken words₂ into relation with the possibilities of meaning, presence and message₁.  Yes, that entire nested form goes into the situation_b-level potential₁.

0801 Here is a picture.

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

0803 The purposes of spoken words are two fold.  The first is to convey the reality of rhetorical discourse.  The second is to package understanding.  Rhetorical discourse_3b and properly packaged understanding_1b sustain sophisticated values_2b.  Sophisticated values_2b virtual situate the content-level actuality_2a where the citizen imagines that what I think [should correspond to] what I say_2a.

A clever student may have noticed that the presence underlying the spoken word associates to both the intellect_3a and the will_1a.  So, what does it imply that an education in rhetoric involves intellectual exercises?  Lots of intellectual exercises!  Why else would someone take a course from Prodicus?  Everyone in Athens knows that the five-drachma lecture is a teaser for the fifty-drachma lecture. And, the fifty-drachma lecture delivers the intellectual goods on how to frame propositions_1b.

0804 Oh, the power of intellectual success!

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

0805 What is that university_3c purchasing?

It_3c is not purchasing the argument_2a, that is already published.  Nor is it_3c purchasing the way that Einstein reframed the propositions of physics, from the point of view where all things are in motion, consequently no location is fixed_1b.

Instead, the university_3c sees an opportunity_1c for the ownership_2c of the handwritten papers that document Einstein’s theoretical breakthrough_2a.  These papers_2a represent Einstein’s victorious will_1a.  These papers_2a are the content that is situated by Einstein’s monumental reframing of physics_1b.  To purchase_2c these papers_2a is to acquire the reputation_2bafforded to Einstein_3a,1a, but at a much lower price_2b.  The ancient Greeks have a word for this type of transaction.  English does not. English translators translate the Greek word into “flattery_1c“.

See 1 Thessalonians 2.5.

0806  Here is how flattery enters into the picture.

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

0808 I summarize.

The will_1a to speak my mind_2a addresses the two-fold purpose to spoken words and language.

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

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

0809 In the normal context of rhetorical discourse_3b, sophists formally package understanding_1b according to variations of the above formula.  Definition₃ brings a spoken word₂ into relation with the potentials of what I think (meaning)₁, what I say (message)₁, and the intellect₁, as that which characterizes whether one particular word is used or not.

0810 What about the will_1a?

Well, the only reason why the sophist_3b situates the citizen_3a,1a through rhetorical discourse_3b is to be victorious_1a.

Oops.  I should not have mentioned that.

0811 Instead, let me say that the sophist_3b frames each proposition_1b in order to articulate sophisticated values_2b (the citizen_3a,1a is obviously incapable of doing this, since he is merely saying what he thinks_2a).  This requires that the understanding that the citizen expresses_2a be repackaged into well-defined propositions_1b in such a manner that the ongoing discourse_3b reveals the reality that the sophist wants the citizen to endorse.

0812 Finally, the packaging of knowledge_1b, the sophistication of the argument_2b and the reality of the discourse itself_3bflatter_1c the one who pays the sophist_3c and provides the opportunity_1c for a decision_2c that will provide well-deserved remuneration.

I suspect that the last sentence may be regarded as offensive by the one who pays_3c.  No one is supposed to talk about the one who pays the sophist from the riches that he earns from political manipulation of public decisions.

Plus, sophists_3b are not really redefining the meaning, message and presence underlying spoken words.  They are “adjusting” them to suite their needs.  Yes, particular situations call for particular adjustments.  Finally, the victorious will_1a does not opportunistically say what is necessary to win_1a.  The intellect_3a with the he victorious will_1a only stateswhat furthers a rhetorical position_1a.

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

Their abuse of words leads to the corruption of language.

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

Neither is furthered by the virtual nested form pictured above.

0814 The sophist is not concerned about the truth.  The truth should resonate with my will_1a, but it does not, because there are two wills in play on the content level, the will of the citizen_1a and the will of the victory-oriented sophist_1a.  The same can be said for the intellect_3a.

0686 Here is a picture.

0815 Indeed, in regards to the content-level normal context, my intellect_3a confronts a sophisticated intellect_3a in the arena that serves as a forum for citizens making decisions_3b.

0816 Is this an abusive relationship?

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

0817 What about the abuse of power?

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

0818 As already noted, there are two nested forms contesting the content (or citizen) level.  One goes with the unsophisticated citizen.  The other associates with the “educated” sophist.

The normal context of rhetorical discourse_3b does not respect the integrity of traditional spoken-word associations.  Tradition builds language.  Sophism_3b manipulates what it did not create. Indeed, if the chances of victory_1a were not enhanced by the clever use of spoken words, then the situation-level would not flourish and the perspective-level would not attain the fusion of money and persuasion that builds unimaginable fortunes.

0819 How so?

Why else would the one who pays_3c, hiding behind the veil of refined reason_3c, be willing to suffer the price commanded by the sophist who can get the job done_2b?

For example, a trader who has cleared the roads to Thebes pays a sophist to advocate for a war between Athens and Syracuse, which will stop transport between Syracuse and Athens, but not stop transport between Syracuse and Thebes.  If a declaration of war_2c between Athens and Syracuse is passed, even if it only means a cessation of direct trading, then the Thebes-connected trader can now be the sole importer into Athens from Syracuse through Thebes, with the additional benefit of higher prices due to rarity… er… supply-chain challenges.

After all, there is no substitute for the raisins of Syracuse.

0820 The sophist_3b will offer convincing reasons for why Athens should declare war_2b, which is different from actually conducting a war, because this declaration will merely decree that no ships that have ported in Syracuse may dock in Athens for certain period of time.  Yes, this is a “limited war”, an “economic war”, a “war sanctioning Syracuse” for its offensive behaviors, including undercutting raisin production around Athens by offering dried grapes of higher quality at lower price.

What reasonable citizen would not vote for such a “war”?

0821 What happens after the “war” is enacted?

The citizen’s wife later complains that the price of those delicious and affordable raisins from Syracuse has skyrocketed, and the slaves who are supposed to pick the dried grapes around Athens have been tasked with other labors.

Will the reasonable citizen now vote for a decree demanding that the Athenian slaves who once picked raisins must now return to their old jobs?

No, that would be crazy.

0823 Perhaps, the reasonable citizen will realize, too late, that he voted for a decision_2c that makes no sense.

0824 So, he goes to the sophist to complain and finds that the sophist has changed.  His consort is not longer this plain-looking woman from a wealthy family.  His consort is incredibly beautiful and obviously trained in the arts of…

Well never mind that!

0825 Meanwhile, the trader, whose clandestine meeting with his sophist has been interrupted by this “reasonable citizen”, stands behind a curtain and overhears the conversation.  The trader silently feels the power inherent in what he has done.  He has brought Athens to its knees.  Over dried grapes, no less.  Such a little thing presages greater things.  Soon, Athens will be on its knees to this trader, who will then demand the war that he desires.  Yes, the trader angles for a real war, not with Syracuse, but with unsuspecting Thebes, whose trading business is ripe for takeover.

0031 Fuller’s introduction continues to set the scene.

First, this player’s guide is a follow up to the foundational text, published in 2018, titled, Post-Truth: Knowledge as a Power Game.

0032 Second, the post-truth condition is not merely an exercise in relativism.  It is more.  Relativism makes the most sense when one (the holder of the relativist position) is outside of all relativized jurisdictions.  Imagine the advantages that the relativist one must have in order to make that presumption.  There is only one absolute and that is me, acting as a disinterested observer and declaring that all other opinions are relative… er… not absolute.

Well, if the post-truth condition is more than an exercise in relativism, and if the relativist one has the very attractive advantage of being able to account for all other stances as part of a relativist system, then what is the problem?

What about those who remain in the relativized jurisdictions?

I suppose that the scrappy player needs see things from the standpoint of his opponents, and if possible, turn that to an advantage.

And, that is not easy to do when one’s “opponent” does not dwell in one’s jurisdiction… or any relativized jurisdiction, for that matter.

So, I wonder, “Where does the expert appear in this exercise in more-than-relativism?”

Well, the expert must be located between the relativist one and the scrappy player.

0033 If I think in terms of category-based nested forms, then the following nested form applies.

I say, “The perspective_c of the relativist one virtually brings the situation_b of expertise on a specific topic into relation with content_a produced by scrappy players exercising their reason.“

Or, maybe, I can say, “The relativist one_3c relativizes all jurisdictions… or ‘turfs’… of academic expertise_3b.  Then, diverse fields of expertise_3b virtually situate scrappy players_3a.”

0034 This nested form is protean because each element immediately expands into its own nested form.  See A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

In brief, this protean nested form expands into a three-level interscope.

Is this how the relativist one socially constructs a post-truth world?

0035 Educational institutions issue credentials.  Credentials associate to expertise.  Credentials are metaphorical keys (situation-level actualities_2b) to metaphorical locks (perspective-level potentials_1c).  Credentials_2b are key for opportunities_1c that lead to success_2c.

Here is how these elements enter a post-truth interscope, where the perspective_c, situation_b and content_a levels are denominated by the protean nested form.

0036 In chapter one, Fuller dwells upon the central term, “post-truth”.

Reason imposes chains on itself.  How so?  Well, knowledge gets formalized.  For example, what is worth knowing is divided from what is not worth knowing.  Well, then, what is worth knowing?  Formalized knowledge is so much worth knowing that it_1b supports the awarding of credentials_2b by an educational institution_3c.

0037 Back in the introduction, Fuller recalls Willard Quine’s insight. A knowledge claim that requires a massive change to the overall “web of belief” will be considered dubious until academically domesticated.  In other words, a novel notion that is true will stand as just another opinion that is on offer on the content level until academics make it their own.

This implies that a “web of belief” constitutes the expert level.

 Plus, the expert level situates the scrappy (or is it “crappy”?) player level.

0038 These developments are entered into the following diagram.

0039 Well, if formalizing knowledge_1b domesticates a knowledge claim_2a that might call for a massive cognitive change,then the ‘something’_1a that underlies opinions_2a must be ‘something’ to be reckoned with.  ‘Something’_1a may be too creative to process.  ‘Something’_1a may be too destructive.  Or, ‘something’_1a may change the status quo.

0040 Look at the content-level nested form.  There are two aspects.  One associates to the normal context_3a.  The other associates to potential_1a.  Both aspects concern reason.

Fuller offers a psychological formula.  Reason equals intellect plus will.

Are these the two aspects?

If so, then intellect_3a is the normal context_3a that chains the creative and destructive potential of the will_1a.  The  actuality of facts and claims_2a (that is, opinions_2a) emerges from (and situates) the creative and destructive potential of the will_1a, within the normal context of the intellect_3a.

0041 Here a picture of the ongoing post-truth interscope.

0042 The question now arises, asking, “Who or what goes into the perspective-level normal context?”

If the perspective-level normal context is the relativist one_3c, then this particular element becomes a safe-haven, outside of all traditional (credentialed) jurisdictions, yet holding all the metaphorical locks and keys to success.  All educational institutions_3b, as well as all forums for discourse_3b, are relative, according to the relativist one_3c.

0043 Here is how the interscope may be spoken.

On the content (or scrappy player) level, the normal context of the intellect_3a brings the actuality of diverse facts and claims (that is, opinions)_2a into relation with the potential of the will_1a.

On the situation (or expert) level, the normal context of an educational institution_3b brings the actuality of credentials_2binto relation with the potential of ‘formalizing knowledge’_1b.

On the perspective (or relativist one) level, the normal context of one who stands above all relativized jurisdictions_3cbrings the actuality of success_2c into relation with the potential of opportunities_1c.

Perspective brings situation into relation with content.

0044 One implication of the complete three-level interscope for the post-truth condition takes the title of chapter two, “Post-Truth Is About Finding A Game One Can Win”.

The relativist one_3c operates a justified “true” belief system.

The key term is not “true”.

The key term is “operates”.

0045 Yes, “operates” has the same first syllable as “opportunity”.

What is opportunity_1c beyond the potential of putting credentials_2b into perspective?

0046 According to Fuller, the operational game of “axiology” starts with a continuum, such as the continuum between what must be done and what cannot be done, then explicitly divides the continuum according to two labels: “necessity” and “impossibility”.

In terms of on-the-ground impact, such a division may be regarded as nonsense, even when applied to a single topic.

0047 Consider a nagging issue faced by ancient Athenians.  The Kingdom of Syracuse!  What do we do about it?  When hearing the diverse facts and claims around the market_2a, one would conclude that war with Syracuse is both necessary and impossible.  But, once a sophist_3b opportunistically formalizes the issue in terms of an either/or proposition_1b, then one party gathers under the banner of “necessity” and one party gathers under the banner of “impossibility”_2b. 

The result is a hylomorphic structure, where the party of impossibility standing against the party of necessity occupies the slot for credentials_2b.  At this juncture, the solution to the contention between the two parties becomes obvious.  The party saying that war is not possible does not want to do anything.  But, doing nothing is not an option.  Doing nothing will only make war more necessary.

0048 Does that sound like an opportunity_1c?

Here is a picture of this unfolding drama.

Go from left to right.

0049 Now, I wonder, “Does the relativist one_3c care whether Athens decides to go to war with Syracuse?  Or, does the relativist one_3c only care about arriving at… what may be called… the actions associated with a justified belief… that is… success_2c?”